If your strategy is going to cost civillian lives, and you know it, its immoral. Period.
That's where you get into philosophy and things like The Trolley Problem. I basically agree with you, taking an action that you know is harmful is not morally justified even on the grounds it avoids greater harm to others. However, that's not a utilitarian perspective and not everyone would agree that morality should be used as the prime determinant of decision making - to be topical for a moment, a large part of Trump's popularity has been not because he appears moral, but because lots of people like his policies .
There's also the problem you face when you have no morally defensible alternative. That's the case with Covid-19 at the moment, where you can't avoid harm to others whatever you do (or don't do).
@Grond0 "However, that's not a utilitarian perspective and not everyone would agree that morality should be used as the prime determinant of decision making"
Doing the wrong thing is doing the wrong thing. When you have people making decisions without considering the ethics, you concentration camps and calls to "purge the weak."
If your strategy is going to cost civillian lives, and you know it, its immoral. Period.
So invading Okinawa, Iwo Jima, liberating the Phillipines, liberating France, defending South Korea were all immoral because civilians were killed? Alrighty then...
If your strategy is going to cost civillian lives, and you know it, its immoral. Period.
So invading Okinawa, Iwo Jima, liberating the Phillipines, liberating France, defending South Korea were all immoral because civilians were killed? Alrighty then...
That depends on a the necessity of the war. And America hasn't been involved in a remotely necessary conflict for about 70 years.
If your strategy is going to cost civillian lives, and you know it, its immoral. Period.
So invading Okinawa, Iwo Jima, liberating the Phillipines, liberating France, defending South Korea were all immoral because civilians were killed? Alrighty then...
That depends on a the necessity of the war. And America hasn't been involved in a remotely necessary conflict for about 70 years.
I'd say the first Gulf War was necessary. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait needed to be dealt with swiftly and it was. And unlike Jr's war, Bush Sr knew how to get out.
From Cheney in 1992 (curtsy of wikipedia):
In 1992, the US Defense Secretary during the war, Dick Cheney, made the same point:
I would guess if we had gone in there (to remove S.H.), we would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.
And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional US casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.
And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam [Hussein] worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq
If your strategy is going to cost civillian lives, and you know it, its immoral. Period.
So invading Okinawa, Iwo Jima, liberating the Phillipines, liberating France, defending South Korea were all immoral because civilians were killed? Alrighty then...
War is immoral by nature. It means everyone involved has abandoned all moral options.
Medicare for all has to be funded somehow and the left lies about who will have to fund it (the middle class - either by direct taxation or by inflation). I voted for Bernie in the primary and would have voted for him over Trump, so personally I don't have a problem with it. I'm not a fan of insurance companies even though I'm normally conservative in regards to big government.
I'm about as centrist as they come because I don't tow the party line in either direction. Right now the Republican Party is off the rails so I have to vote for a dottering 77 year old white dude. I've resigned myself to it, but I don't have to like it.
Republicans lie about how Medicare For All would be funded. It's in their interest to do so. They turn people like yourself against it with that one simple trick, "who's gonna pay for it".
Then they turn around and give trillions to banks and the military and you guys never say "who's gonna pay for that".
Republicans lie about it. How can people be concerned at Democrats lying, when Trump is lying twice in the span of a single sentence, outrageously, fantastical lies, about every single thing.
Republican lies are much worse than what will the funding source be of this program which will transform american life and allow people to not worry about dying without insurance. It will let people more easily change jobs because they don't have to worry about losing health insurance. It will save lives and improve lives for all Americans.
Who's going to pay for m4a? You and I are. We pay taxes, we should get something for it. Trump's not going to pay for it the guy doesn't even pay taxes. How about instead of locking kids in cages and not bombing school buses in Timbuktu from space, how about we get a essential service with our tax dollars. How about we throw out Republicans giving tax breaks to the elites and they pay their fair share and there would be plenty of money for essential services like in most countries that aren't hopelessly corrupt.
If your strategy is going to cost civillian lives, and you know it, its immoral. Period.
So invading Okinawa, Iwo Jima, liberating the Phillipines, liberating France, defending South Korea were all immoral because civilians were killed? Alrighty then...
That depends on a the necessity of the war. And America hasn't been involved in a remotely necessary conflict for about 70 years.
That's not how it was phrased by the poster. 'Period" means no exceptions.
Medicare for all has to be funded somehow and the left lies about who will have to fund it (the middle class - either by direct taxation or by inflation). I voted for Bernie in the primary and would have voted for him over Trump, so personally I don't have a problem with it. I'm not a fan of insurance companies even though I'm normally conservative in regards to big government.
I'm about as centrist as they come because I don't tow the party line in either direction. Right now the Republican Party is off the rails so I have to vote for a dottering 77 year old white dude. I've resigned myself to it, but I don't have to like it.
Republicans lie about how Medicare For All would be funded. It's in their interest to do so. They turn people like yourself against it with that one simple trick, "who's gonna pay for it".
Then they turn around and give trillions to banks and the military and you guys never say "who's gonna pay for that".
Republicans lie about it. How can people be concerned at Democrats lying, when Trump is lying twice in the span of a single sentence, outrageously, fantastical lies, about every single thing.
Republican lies are much worse than what will the funding source be of this program which will transform american life and allow people to not worry about dying without insurance. It will let people more easily change jobs because they don't have to worry about losing health insurance. It will save lives and improve lives for all Americans.
Who's going to pay for m4a? You and I are. We pay taxes, we should get something for it. Trump's not going to pay for it the guy doesn't even pay taxes. How about instead of locking kids in cages and not bombing school buses in Timbuktu from space, how about we get a essential service with our tax dollars. How about we throw out Republicans giving tax breaks to the elites and they pay their fair share and there would be plenty of money for essential services like in most countries that aren't hopelessly corrupt.
What part of "I'm ok with healthcare for all" did you not hear? I don't know who you're arguing with frankly...
As far as who will fund it. Corporations are already paying for their workers healthcare. If they have to suddenly cover everybody else's healthcare as well what exactly do you think is going to happen? They're going to raise their prices so the people who buy their products will be funding it. That isn't taxing corporations, it's taxing the people that buy their products. There aren't enough rich people to pay for it either unless we confiscate their wealth (illegal as far as I know). I doubt an income tax on the rich alone will bring in any more than a tiny fraction of what will be needed to pay for it.
Well now, when people say law enforcement has been infiltrated by milita/white supremacist elements, this is what we're talking about. Here is a Sherriff talking himself into why it's perfectly reasonable to want to kidnap the Governor, framing it as a citizen's arrest:
By the way, the storming of the capitol back in April?? Turns out three of these guys were on the balcony, assault rifles in hand, at that event. Sort of puts into perspective just how serious it actually was.
Medicare for all has to be funded somehow and the left lies about who will have to fund it (the middle class - either by direct taxation or by inflation). I voted for Bernie in the primary and would have voted for him over Trump, so personally I don't have a problem with it. I'm not a fan of insurance companies even though I'm normally conservative in regards to big government.
I'm about as centrist as they come because I don't tow the party line in either direction. Right now the Republican Party is off the rails so I have to vote for a dottering 77 year old white dude. I've resigned myself to it, but I don't have to like it.
Republicans lie about how Medicare For All would be funded. It's in their interest to do so. They turn people like yourself against it with that one simple trick, "who's gonna pay for it".
Then they turn around and give trillions to banks and the military and you guys never say "who's gonna pay for that".
Republicans lie about it. How can people be concerned at Democrats lying, when Trump is lying twice in the span of a single sentence, outrageously, fantastical lies, about every single thing.
Republican lies are much worse than what will the funding source be of this program which will transform american life and allow people to not worry about dying without insurance. It will let people more easily change jobs because they don't have to worry about losing health insurance. It will save lives and improve lives for all Americans.
Who's going to pay for m4a? You and I are. We pay taxes, we should get something for it. Trump's not going to pay for it the guy doesn't even pay taxes. How about instead of locking kids in cages and not bombing school buses in Timbuktu from space, how about we get a essential service with our tax dollars. How about we throw out Republicans giving tax breaks to the elites and they pay their fair share and there would be plenty of money for essential services like in most countries that aren't hopelessly corrupt.
What part of "I'm ok with healthcare for all" did you not hear? I don't know who you're arguing with frankly...
As far as who will fund it. Corporations are already paying for their workers healthcare. If they have to suddenly cover everybody else's healthcare as well what exactly do you think is going to happen? They're going to raise their prices so the people who buy their products will be funding it. That isn't taxing corporations, it's taxing the people that buy their products. There aren't enough rich people to pay for it either unless we confiscate their wealth (illegal as far as I know). I doubt an income tax on the rich alone will bring in any more than a tiny fraction of what will be needed to pay for it.
Essentially an extension of health care would be funded by removing the existing profiteering from within the system. The US spends as a country about twice what you would expect of an advanced western health system. Unlike other countries though it doesn't get universal coverage for that unprecedented level of expenditure and, even for those that are covered by the system, health outcomes are no more than achieved elsewhere.
Over the last few years there have been around 30 million people in the US with no health coverage - or a bit less than 10% of the total population. Is it really so hard to believe that the US could rearrange systems of health care, in order to cover that 10%, by making use of some of the 100% extra expenditure beyond the levels other countries need?
I accept that changing the system to that extent would hurt a lot of people that are currently benefiting from the existing arrangements. However, for a bit of short term pain for a pretty small % of people you could as a country make huge gains in treating people more equally, while still freeing up significant resources to spend on other priorities ...
Medicare for all has to be funded somehow and the left lies about who will have to fund it (the middle class - either by direct taxation or by inflation). I voted for Bernie in the primary and would have voted for him over Trump, so personally I don't have a problem with it. I'm not a fan of insurance companies even though I'm normally conservative in regards to big government.
I'm about as centrist as they come because I don't tow the party line in either direction. Right now the Republican Party is off the rails so I have to vote for a dottering 77 year old white dude. I've resigned myself to it, but I don't have to like it.
Republicans lie about how Medicare For All would be funded. It's in their interest to do so. They turn people like yourself against it with that one simple trick, "who's gonna pay for it".
Then they turn around and give trillions to banks and the military and you guys never say "who's gonna pay for that".
Republicans lie about it. How can people be concerned at Democrats lying, when Trump is lying twice in the span of a single sentence, outrageously, fantastical lies, about every single thing.
Republican lies are much worse than what will the funding source be of this program which will transform american life and allow people to not worry about dying without insurance. It will let people more easily change jobs because they don't have to worry about losing health insurance. It will save lives and improve lives for all Americans.
Who's going to pay for m4a? You and I are. We pay taxes, we should get something for it. Trump's not going to pay for it the guy doesn't even pay taxes. How about instead of locking kids in cages and not bombing school buses in Timbuktu from space, how about we get a essential service with our tax dollars. How about we throw out Republicans giving tax breaks to the elites and they pay their fair share and there would be plenty of money for essential services like in most countries that aren't hopelessly corrupt.
What part of "I'm ok with healthcare for all" did you not hear? I don't know who you're arguing with frankly...
As far as who will fund it. Corporations are already paying for their workers healthcare. If they have to suddenly cover everybody else's healthcare as well what exactly do you think is going to happen? They're going to raise their prices so the people who buy their products will be funding it. That isn't taxing corporations, it's taxing the people that buy their products. There aren't enough rich people to pay for it either unless we confiscate their wealth (illegal as far as I know). I doubt an income tax on the rich alone will bring in any more than a tiny fraction of what will be needed to pay for it.
Essentially an extension of health care would be funded by removing the existing profiteering from within the system. The US spends as a country about twice what you would expect of an advanced western health system. Unlike other countries though it doesn't get universal coverage for that unprecedented level of expenditure and, even for those that are covered by the system, health outcomes are no more than achieved elsewhere.
Over the last few years there have been around 30 million people in the US with no health coverage - or a bit less than 10% of the total population. Is it really so hard to believe that the US could rearrange systems of health care, in order to cover that 10%, by making use of some of the 100% extra expenditure beyond the levels other countries need?
I accept that changing the system to that extent would hurt a lot of people that are currently benefiting from the existing arrangements. However, for a bit of short term pain for a pretty small % of people you could as a country make huge gains in treating people more equally, while still freeing up significant resources to spend on other priorities ...
That would require basically killing parasitic insurance companies. But those parasites are now so ingrained the in the system that killing them would also kill the host. Even if we did try to change it, Republicans and the health insurance lobby would cause intentional chaos to turn the public against any change, much like they did with Obamacare. Of course, in hindsight, the ACA now has an over 60% approval rating. At the time, it cost the Democrats both houses of Congress.
It would be outright cheaper than what we're paying now. We have the most expensive healthcare in the world, and it offers less than other developed nations.
It would be outright cheaper than what we're paying now. We have the most expensive healthcare in the world, and it offers less than other developed nations.
I think getting rid of co-pays alone for such things as basic check-ups would allow most Americans to make up the cost of paying for a universal system in a relatively short period of time. Moreover, employment insurance can and does continue to operate in nations with single payer systems.
What part of "I'm ok with healthcare for all" did you not hear? I don't know who you're arguing with frankly...
As far as who will fund it. Corporations are already paying for their workers healthcare. If they have to suddenly cover everybody else's healthcare as well what exactly do you think is going to happen? They're going to raise their prices so the people who buy their products will be funding it. That isn't taxing corporations, it's taxing the people that buy their products. There aren't enough rich people to pay for it either unless we confiscate their wealth (illegal as far as I know). I doubt an income tax on the rich alone will bring in any more than a tiny fraction of what will be needed to pay for it.
I'm just quite sick of people dismissing it based on "who's gonna pay for it". All the time people say that and then to turn that's the end of the discussion. You can't talk to them anymore because suddenly they care about how much things cost but only in this one specific instance where something could help us - Americans. Elites give each other tax cuts so we effectively pay more taxes, we don't hear "how you gonna pay for it". Another 5 trillion for endless wars, sure no problem... Healthcare? "Woah woah who's gonna pay for it?"
I didn't think it would happen BUT the Ontario Government is relocking down its hotspots in Toronto, Ottawa and Peel (close to Toronto) region due to rising COVID numbers.
Starting tomorrow, movie theatres, restaurants, gyms and casinos have to reclose down (inside dining, patios still OK) for 28 days. This is on top of the 10 limit party gatherings.
Ford has been resisting to do that even though his Chief Medical Officer has been calling for it all week. It's a long weekend too (Canadian Thanksgiving).
If the numbers keep rising, I wouldn't put it past them to re-shutdown everything like they did in March. The graph is starting to look scary:
Medicare for all has to be funded somehow and the left lies about who will have to fund it (the middle class - either by direct taxation or by inflation). I voted for Bernie in the primary and would have voted for him over Trump, so personally I don't have a problem with it. I'm not a fan of insurance companies even though I'm normally conservative in regards to big government.
I'm about as centrist as they come because I don't tow the party line in either direction. Right now the Republican Party is off the rails so I have to vote for a dottering 77 year old white dude. I've resigned myself to it, but I don't have to like it.
Republicans lie about how Medicare For All would be funded. It's in their interest to do so. They turn people like yourself against it with that one simple trick, "who's gonna pay for it".
Then they turn around and give trillions to banks and the military and you guys never say "who's gonna pay for that".
Republicans lie about it. How can people be concerned at Democrats lying, when Trump is lying twice in the span of a single sentence, outrageously, fantastical lies, about every single thing.
Republican lies are much worse than what will the funding source be of this program which will transform american life and allow people to not worry about dying without insurance. It will let people more easily change jobs because they don't have to worry about losing health insurance. It will save lives and improve lives for all Americans.
Who's going to pay for m4a? You and I are. We pay taxes, we should get something for it. Trump's not going to pay for it the guy doesn't even pay taxes. How about instead of locking kids in cages and not bombing school buses in Timbuktu from space, how about we get a essential service with our tax dollars. How about we throw out Republicans giving tax breaks to the elites and they pay their fair share and there would be plenty of money for essential services like in most countries that aren't hopelessly corrupt.
What part of "I'm ok with healthcare for all" did you not hear? I don't know who you're arguing with frankly...
As far as who will fund it. Corporations are already paying for their workers healthcare. If they have to suddenly cover everybody else's healthcare as well what exactly do you think is going to happen? They're going to raise their prices so the people who buy their products will be funding it. That isn't taxing corporations, it's taxing the people that buy their products. There aren't enough rich people to pay for it either unless we confiscate their wealth (illegal as far as I know). I doubt an income tax on the rich alone will bring in any more than a tiny fraction of what will be needed to pay for it.
Essentially an extension of health care would be funded by removing the existing profiteering from within the system. The US spends as a country about twice what you would expect of an advanced western health system. Unlike other countries though it doesn't get universal coverage for that unprecedented level of expenditure and, even for those that are covered by the system, health outcomes are no more than achieved elsewhere.
Over the last few years there have been around 30 million people in the US with no health coverage - or a bit less than 10% of the total population. Is it really so hard to believe that the US could rearrange systems of health care, in order to cover that 10%, by making use of some of the 100% extra expenditure beyond the levels other countries need?
I accept that changing the system to that extent would hurt a lot of people that are currently benefiting from the existing arrangements. However, for a bit of short term pain for a pretty small % of people you could as a country make huge gains in treating people more equally, while still freeing up significant resources to spend on other priorities ...
That would require basically killing parasitic insurance companies. But those parasites are now so ingrained the in the system that killing them would also kill the host. Even if we did try to change it, Republicans and the health insurance lobby would cause intentional chaos to turn the public against any change, much like they did with Obamacare. Of course, in hindsight, the ACA now has an over 60% approval rating. At the time, it cost the Democrats both houses of Congress.
You would think, if they were going to cripple there administration by dying on the hill of health care (something I respect btw), they would have made it far better for the average person rather than the compromise between benefitting insurance companies and marginal benefits to the person in need of health care that it is.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that if you are gonna sacrifice for principle, go all the way. Compromise, in this case, is the enemy.
What would have happened in that case is that folks would have screamed bloody murder, but by the next election cycle it would become accepted and taking it away would be unthinkable.
What part of "I'm ok with healthcare for all" did you not hear? I don't know who you're arguing with frankly...
As far as who will fund it. Corporations are already paying for their workers healthcare. If they have to suddenly cover everybody else's healthcare as well what exactly do you think is going to happen? They're going to raise their prices so the people who buy their products will be funding it. That isn't taxing corporations, it's taxing the people that buy their products. There aren't enough rich people to pay for it either unless we confiscate their wealth (illegal as far as I know). I doubt an income tax on the rich alone will bring in any more than a tiny fraction of what will be needed to pay for it.
I'm just quite sick of people dismissing it based on "who's gonna pay for it". All the time people say that and then to turn that's the end of the discussion. You can't talk to them anymore because suddenly they care about how much things cost but only in this one specific instance where something could help us - Americans. Elites give each other tax cuts so we effectively pay more taxes, we don't hear "how you gonna pay for it". Another 5 trillion for endless wars, sure no problem... Healthcare? "Woah woah who's gonna pay for it?"
Trump is President. Republicans voted for the person who promised no overseas armed conflict amid nearly a dozen who desperately wanted it. I don't think that's a fair assessment.
Banks are looking to create a second financial crisis, only ensuring that it hits minorities harder this time. This is gonna be subprime mortgage crisis 2.0 disguised as wokism and progress.
Really don't understand how this isn't textbook discrimination of the sort we are supposed to object to, but that is besides the point. This is going to be harmful, not helpful, since this is essentially the same policy that led to the previous crisis but with more racial discrimination.
I'm surprised that someone hasn't tried to study this before. Assuming this is true and we account for it in the polls, I wonder what the map starts to look like. 10% of independents also do not want to reveal their affiliations.
People are willing to go to a MAGA rally, possibly exposing themselves to a deadly virus, but they are mortally terrified of revealing their voting intentions in an anonymous (both ways) phone call from someone who probably lives thousands of miles away from them because they are afraid of......what exactly?? This idea that Trump voters are "silent" is sort of laughable to me. Every conservative relative I have talks about how they are the "silent majority", yet they seem to spend hours every day making their feelings quite clear on Facebook. But "polls" are a liberal plot. And a "biased" poll is fucking useless to people who actually need it, which is the campaigns. What good does purposefully inaccurate information do them??
Frankly, it doesn't really matter if people decide not to answer a poll. They're going to keep going until they get the sample-size they need. The only way this would matter is if massive amounts of people are purposefully lying when answering the questions. If they "aren't revealing their intentions", they aren't getting used. If we wanna go down this rabbit-hole, we could question the people who comprised of the online sample cited here and see how many of them think answering questions online is "risky", and find out how many of them lied.
The polling was not that off in 2016. There were plenty of polls that had Trump tied or slightly leading after the Comey letter. Clinton's lead was, for the most part, close to the margin of error. Her final total fell well within that. I don't think Trump has even been TIED in a single non-Rasmussen poll in 6 or 7 months. And a 10 point aggregate lead for Biden would mean, in a worse case scenario, he's up 6. Which is still massive. As I have been saying, if they are THIS off on Nov. 3rd, then it will be time to throw out polls. But there is no evidence of that yet.
Political statisticians have been looking at the idea of a shy Trump voter for 4 years. The consensus is that they do not exist. Especially not now, after he has been president for 4 years.
The most interesting thing about today was that the Trump campaign and right-wing media seemed to train all their guns on......Hillary Clinton. I'm not even sure they're capable of running a campaign based on anything else. At this point they are like Bethesda remastering Skyrim for a 3rd generation of consoles. Reexperience the epic adventure of "her emails", but with ray-tracing!!
I'm surprised that someone hasn't tried to study this before. Assuming this is true and we account for it in the polls, I wonder what the map starts to look like. 10% of independents also do not want to reveal their affiliations.
I don't see this as good news for Trump. I think what the tweet is saying is that more expected Trump voters refuse to say how they're going to vote than expected Biden voters. The normal criteria for grouping a voter is either their past voting record or their party affiliation. In either case you would expect a high % of such groups to vote the same way again. It's possible that all the 'shy' voters will vote as expected (in which case the polls are accurate and there's no issue). However, if the 'shy' voters are actually shy because they are not intending to vote as expected then Trump would lose more votes than Biden ...
I'm surprised that someone hasn't tried to study this before. Assuming this is true and we account for it in the polls, I wonder what the map starts to look like. 10% of independents also do not want to reveal their affiliations.
I don't see this as good news for Trump. I think what the tweet is saying is that more expected Trump voters refuse to say how they're going to vote than expected Biden voters. The normal criteria for grouping a voter is either their past voting record or their party affiliation. In either case you would expect a high % of such groups to vote the same way again. It's possible that all the 'shy' voters will vote as expected (in which case the polls are accurate and there's no issue). However, if the 'shy' voters are actually shy because they are not intending to vote as expected then Trump would lose more votes than Biden ...
I don't really know if it means anything, I try not to forecast elections or make predictions because I have been wrong almost every time. I didn't think Trump would win in 2016 for instance. If I were superstitious, I would think my belief in a politicians victory would curse them to fail.
Although from the explanation in the article it seems like they are shy in the sense that they generally fear some form of retaliation for having conservative views and don't necessarily believe those things are private, so I'd say they are probably Trump folks.
I'm surprised that someone hasn't tried to study this before. Assuming this is true and we account for it in the polls, I wonder what the map starts to look like. 10% of independents also do not want to reveal their affiliations.
I don't see this as good news for Trump. I think what the tweet is saying is that more expected Trump voters refuse to say how they're going to vote than expected Biden voters. The normal criteria for grouping a voter is either their past voting record or their party affiliation. In either case you would expect a high % of such groups to vote the same way again. It's possible that all the 'shy' voters will vote as expected (in which case the polls are accurate and there's no issue). However, if the 'shy' voters are actually shy because they are not intending to vote as expected then Trump would lose more votes than Biden ...
I don't really know if it means anything, I try not to forecast elections or make predictions because I have been wrong almost every time. I didn't think Trump would win in 2016 for instance. If I were superstitious, I would think my belief in a politicians victory would curse them to fail.
Although from the explanation in the article it seems like they are shy in the sense that they generally fear some form of retaliation for having conservative views and don't necessarily believe those things are private, so I'd say they are probably Trump folks.
I hadn't read the article before, but looking at it the way the study is designed is curious:
- first they ask whether people would tell the truth about who they support
- then they ask them who they support and, based on those answers, determine that more Trump supporters have previously said they won't tell the truth about who they support
If people were telling the truth that they won't accurately say who they support, then presumably those who said they would support Trump are in fact Biden supporters! Rather than go down that rabbit hole any more though, I think I'll just quietly forget I ever read this.
What part of "I'm ok with healthcare for all" did you not hear? I don't know who you're arguing with frankly...
As far as who will fund it. Corporations are already paying for their workers healthcare. If they have to suddenly cover everybody else's healthcare as well what exactly do you think is going to happen? They're going to raise their prices so the people who buy their products will be funding it. That isn't taxing corporations, it's taxing the people that buy their products. There aren't enough rich people to pay for it either unless we confiscate their wealth (illegal as far as I know). I doubt an income tax on the rich alone will bring in any more than a tiny fraction of what will be needed to pay for it.
I'm just quite sick of people dismissing it based on "who's gonna pay for it". All the time people say that and then to turn that's the end of the discussion. You can't talk to them anymore because suddenly they care about how much things cost but only in this one specific instance where something could help us - Americans. Elites give each other tax cuts so we effectively pay more taxes, we don't hear "how you gonna pay for it". Another 5 trillion for endless wars, sure no problem... Healthcare? "Woah woah who's gonna pay for it?"
Trump is President. Republicans voted for the person who promised no overseas armed conflict amid nearly a dozen who desperately wanted it. I don't think that's a fair assessment.
Republicans voted for the person who promised Mexico was going to pay for a wall, he was going to release his tax returns, and other things among many other promises. Trump's promises are not worth anything. "Promises" easily made, totally worthless.
That being said, I was referring to Republican congressmen who, regardless of the President's sales pitch, continually inflate the military industrial complex's budget. Without fail.
I'm surprised that someone hasn't tried to study this before. Assuming this is true and we account for it in the polls, I wonder what the map starts to look like. 10% of independents also do not want to reveal their affiliations.
I don't see this as good news for Trump. I think what the tweet is saying is that more expected Trump voters refuse to say how they're going to vote than expected Biden voters. The normal criteria for grouping a voter is either their past voting record or their party affiliation. In either case you would expect a high % of such groups to vote the same way again. It's possible that all the 'shy' voters will vote as expected (in which case the polls are accurate and there's no issue). However, if the 'shy' voters are actually shy because they are not intending to vote as expected then Trump would lose more votes than Biden ...
I don't really know if it means anything, I try not to forecast elections or make predictions because I have been wrong almost every time. I didn't think Trump would win in 2016 for instance. If I were superstitious, I would think my belief in a politicians victory would curse them to fail.
Although from the explanation in the article it seems like they are shy in the sense that they generally fear some form of retaliation for having conservative views and don't necessarily believe those things are private, so I'd say they are probably Trump folks.
I hadn't read the article before, but looking at it the way the study is designed is curious:
- first they ask whether people would tell the truth about who they support
- then they ask them who they support and, based on those answers, determine that more Trump supporters have previously said they won't tell the truth about who they support
If people were telling the truth that they won't accurately say who they support, then presumably those who said they would support Trump are in fact Biden supporters! Rather than go down that rabbit hole any more though, I think I'll just quietly forget I ever read this.
Dismiss it out of hand if you like. This has been studied before, though not by directly asking folks, and shy voters were Trump ones. The American Association for Public Opinion Research examined the evidence for shy Trump voters and got a similar number- 11%. Roughly one in ten respondents voting differently than they say is apparently common, but usually they end up breaking evenly for both parties. In 2016 the shy voter was for Trump by unprecedented margins.
Any methodology that essentially asks people to admit if they are lying is bound to have issues, but I thought their approach was as good as you could get, and it is consistent with other findings.
I find it interesting to think about because I do this, and advise other people to as well. Not to lie to pollsters but to not reveal your political beliefs if you hold right wing views. No point in getting treated as less than human by people who hate you when it can easily be avoided by not talking about it.
I have little confidence in his victory, but far less confidence in a blowout of any sort.
"Source: Pew Research Center 2016
Election Callback Study. Based on 1,254
completed re-interviews with survey respondents who said that they voted in the general election. About nine-in-ten respondents (89 percent) answered consistently while 11 percent reported something different at the ballot box than what they told the pollster before the election. In the context of recent elections, that 11 percent is quite typical. Pew Research Center has been conducting callback studies since 2000. Over the past five cycles, 12 percent of respondents, on average, were inconsistent in their pre- and post-election responses (i.e., were in an off-diagonal cell). The highest level of inconsistent responding recorded by Pew’s callback studies was 18 percent in 2000, and the lowest was 7 percent in 2012.
What is notable about the 2016 data is not how many inconsistent respondents there were, it is how the inconsistent responders voted. Figure 7 shows the presidential vote margin among respondents who gave inconsistent pre- versus post-election responses in each callback study since 2000. Typically, those who admit changing their minds more or less wash out, breaking about evenly between the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate. In 2016 something very different happened. In 2016, inconsistent responders in the Pew study voted for Trump by a 16-point margin. That is more than double the second largest margin observed in this time series for inconsistent responders (+7 points for George W. Bush in 2000)."
What part of "I'm ok with healthcare for all" did you not hear? I don't know who you're arguing with frankly...
As far as who will fund it. Corporations are already paying for their workers healthcare. If they have to suddenly cover everybody else's healthcare as well what exactly do you think is going to happen? They're going to raise their prices so the people who buy their products will be funding it. That isn't taxing corporations, it's taxing the people that buy their products. There aren't enough rich people to pay for it either unless we confiscate their wealth (illegal as far as I know). I doubt an income tax on the rich alone will bring in any more than a tiny fraction of what will be needed to pay for it.
I'm just quite sick of people dismissing it based on "who's gonna pay for it". All the time people say that and then to turn that's the end of the discussion. You can't talk to them anymore because suddenly they care about how much things cost but only in this one specific instance where something could help us - Americans. Elites give each other tax cuts so we effectively pay more taxes, we don't hear "how you gonna pay for it". Another 5 trillion for endless wars, sure no problem... Healthcare? "Woah woah who's gonna pay for it?"
Trump is President. Republicans voted for the person who promised no overseas armed conflict amid nearly a dozen who desperately wanted it. I don't think that's a fair assessment.
That being said, I was referring to Republican congressmen who, regardless of the President's sales pitch, continually inflate the military industrial complex's budget. Without fail.
For over 50 straight years our national defense budget has passed with bipartisan support. Support for our military spending is one of the few things that is truly, consistently, bipartisan.
The Pentagon is the government. We just choose a figurehead.
Comments
That's where you get into philosophy and things like The Trolley Problem. I basically agree with you, taking an action that you know is harmful is not morally justified even on the grounds it avoids greater harm to others. However, that's not a utilitarian perspective and not everyone would agree that morality should be used as the prime determinant of decision making - to be topical for a moment, a large part of Trump's popularity has been not because he appears moral, but because lots of people like his policies
There's also the problem you face when you have no morally defensible alternative. That's the case with Covid-19 at the moment, where you can't avoid harm to others whatever you do (or don't do).
Doing the wrong thing is doing the wrong thing. When you have people making decisions without considering the ethics, you concentration camps and calls to "purge the weak."
So invading Okinawa, Iwo Jima, liberating the Phillipines, liberating France, defending South Korea were all immoral because civilians were killed? Alrighty then...
That depends on a the necessity of the war. And America hasn't been involved in a remotely necessary conflict for about 70 years.
I'd say the first Gulf War was necessary. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait needed to be dealt with swiftly and it was. And unlike Jr's war, Bush Sr knew how to get out.
From Cheney in 1992 (curtsy of wikipedia):
In 1992, the US Defense Secretary during the war, Dick Cheney, made the same point:
I would guess if we had gone in there (to remove S.H.), we would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.
And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional US casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.
And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam [Hussein] worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq
War is immoral by nature. It means everyone involved has abandoned all moral options.
Republicans lie about how Medicare For All would be funded. It's in their interest to do so. They turn people like yourself against it with that one simple trick, "who's gonna pay for it".
Then they turn around and give trillions to banks and the military and you guys never say "who's gonna pay for that".
Republicans lie about it. How can people be concerned at Democrats lying, when Trump is lying twice in the span of a single sentence, outrageously, fantastical lies, about every single thing.
Republican lies are much worse than what will the funding source be of this program which will transform american life and allow people to not worry about dying without insurance. It will let people more easily change jobs because they don't have to worry about losing health insurance. It will save lives and improve lives for all Americans.
Who's going to pay for m4a? You and I are. We pay taxes, we should get something for it. Trump's not going to pay for it the guy doesn't even pay taxes. How about instead of locking kids in cages and not bombing school buses in Timbuktu from space, how about we get a essential service with our tax dollars. How about we throw out Republicans giving tax breaks to the elites and they pay their fair share and there would be plenty of money for essential services like in most countries that aren't hopelessly corrupt.
That's not how it was phrased by the poster. 'Period" means no exceptions.
What part of "I'm ok with healthcare for all" did you not hear? I don't know who you're arguing with frankly...
As far as who will fund it. Corporations are already paying for their workers healthcare. If they have to suddenly cover everybody else's healthcare as well what exactly do you think is going to happen? They're going to raise their prices so the people who buy their products will be funding it. That isn't taxing corporations, it's taxing the people that buy their products. There aren't enough rich people to pay for it either unless we confiscate their wealth (illegal as far as I know). I doubt an income tax on the rich alone will bring in any more than a tiny fraction of what will be needed to pay for it.
By the way, the storming of the capitol back in April?? Turns out three of these guys were on the balcony, assault rifles in hand, at that event. Sort of puts into perspective just how serious it actually was.
Essentially an extension of health care would be funded by removing the existing profiteering from within the system. The US spends as a country about twice what you would expect of an advanced western health system. Unlike other countries though it doesn't get universal coverage for that unprecedented level of expenditure and, even for those that are covered by the system, health outcomes are no more than achieved elsewhere.
Over the last few years there have been around 30 million people in the US with no health coverage - or a bit less than 10% of the total population. Is it really so hard to believe that the US could rearrange systems of health care, in order to cover that 10%, by making use of some of the 100% extra expenditure beyond the levels other countries need?
I accept that changing the system to that extent would hurt a lot of people that are currently benefiting from the existing arrangements. However, for a bit of short term pain for a pretty small % of people you could as a country make huge gains in treating people more equally, while still freeing up significant resources to spend on other priorities ...
That would require basically killing parasitic insurance companies. But those parasites are now so ingrained the in the system that killing them would also kill the host. Even if we did try to change it, Republicans and the health insurance lobby would cause intentional chaos to turn the public against any change, much like they did with Obamacare. Of course, in hindsight, the ACA now has an over 60% approval rating. At the time, it cost the Democrats both houses of Congress.
I think getting rid of co-pays alone for such things as basic check-ups would allow most Americans to make up the cost of paying for a universal system in a relatively short period of time. Moreover, employment insurance can and does continue to operate in nations with single payer systems.
I'm just quite sick of people dismissing it based on "who's gonna pay for it". All the time people say that and then to turn that's the end of the discussion. You can't talk to them anymore because suddenly they care about how much things cost but only in this one specific instance where something could help us - Americans. Elites give each other tax cuts so we effectively pay more taxes, we don't hear "how you gonna pay for it". Another 5 trillion for endless wars, sure no problem... Healthcare? "Woah woah who's gonna pay for it?"
Starting tomorrow, movie theatres, restaurants, gyms and casinos have to reclose down (inside dining, patios still OK) for 28 days. This is on top of the 10 limit party gatherings.
Ford has been resisting to do that even though his Chief Medical Officer has been calling for it all week. It's a long weekend too (Canadian Thanksgiving).
If the numbers keep rising, I wouldn't put it past them to re-shutdown everything like they did in March. The graph is starting to look scary:
You would think, if they were going to cripple there administration by dying on the hill of health care (something I respect btw), they would have made it far better for the average person rather than the compromise between benefitting insurance companies and marginal benefits to the person in need of health care that it is.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that if you are gonna sacrifice for principle, go all the way. Compromise, in this case, is the enemy.
What would have happened in that case is that folks would have screamed bloody murder, but by the next election cycle it would become accepted and taking it away would be unthinkable.
Trump is President. Republicans voted for the person who promised no overseas armed conflict amid nearly a dozen who desperately wanted it. I don't think that's a fair assessment.
Really don't understand how this isn't textbook discrimination of the sort we are supposed to object to, but that is besides the point. This is going to be harmful, not helpful, since this is essentially the same policy that led to the previous crisis but with more racial discrimination.
Frankly, it doesn't really matter if people decide not to answer a poll. They're going to keep going until they get the sample-size they need. The only way this would matter is if massive amounts of people are purposefully lying when answering the questions. If they "aren't revealing their intentions", they aren't getting used. If we wanna go down this rabbit-hole, we could question the people who comprised of the online sample cited here and see how many of them think answering questions online is "risky", and find out how many of them lied.
The polling was not that off in 2016. There were plenty of polls that had Trump tied or slightly leading after the Comey letter. Clinton's lead was, for the most part, close to the margin of error. Her final total fell well within that. I don't think Trump has even been TIED in a single non-Rasmussen poll in 6 or 7 months. And a 10 point aggregate lead for Biden would mean, in a worse case scenario, he's up 6. Which is still massive. As I have been saying, if they are THIS off on Nov. 3rd, then it will be time to throw out polls. But there is no evidence of that yet.
I don't see this as good news for Trump. I think what the tweet is saying is that more expected Trump voters refuse to say how they're going to vote than expected Biden voters. The normal criteria for grouping a voter is either their past voting record or their party affiliation. In either case you would expect a high % of such groups to vote the same way again. It's possible that all the 'shy' voters will vote as expected (in which case the polls are accurate and there's no issue). However, if the 'shy' voters are actually shy because they are not intending to vote as expected then Trump would lose more votes than Biden ...
I don't really know if it means anything, I try not to forecast elections or make predictions because I have been wrong almost every time. I didn't think Trump would win in 2016 for instance. If I were superstitious, I would think my belief in a politicians victory would curse them to fail.
Although from the explanation in the article it seems like they are shy in the sense that they generally fear some form of retaliation for having conservative views and don't necessarily believe those things are private, so I'd say they are probably Trump folks.
I hadn't read the article before, but looking at it the way the study is designed is curious:
- first they ask whether people would tell the truth about who they support
- then they ask them who they support and, based on those answers, determine that more Trump supporters have previously said they won't tell the truth about who they support
If people were telling the truth that they won't accurately say who they support, then presumably those who said they would support Trump are in fact Biden supporters! Rather than go down that rabbit hole any more though, I think I'll just quietly forget I ever read this.
Republicans voted for the person who promised Mexico was going to pay for a wall, he was going to release his tax returns, and other things among many other promises. Trump's promises are not worth anything. "Promises" easily made, totally worthless.
That being said, I was referring to Republican congressmen who, regardless of the President's sales pitch, continually inflate the military industrial complex's budget. Without fail.
Dismiss it out of hand if you like. This has been studied before, though not by directly asking folks, and shy voters were Trump ones. The American Association for Public Opinion Research examined the evidence for shy Trump voters and got a similar number- 11%. Roughly one in ten respondents voting differently than they say is apparently common, but usually they end up breaking evenly for both parties. In 2016 the shy voter was for Trump by unprecedented margins.
Any methodology that essentially asks people to admit if they are lying is bound to have issues, but I thought their approach was as good as you could get, and it is consistent with other findings.
I find it interesting to think about because I do this, and advise other people to as well. Not to lie to pollsters but to not reveal your political beliefs if you hold right wing views. No point in getting treated as less than human by people who hate you when it can easily be avoided by not talking about it.
I have little confidence in his victory, but far less confidence in a blowout of any sort.
Election Callback Study. Based on 1,254
completed re-interviews with survey respondents who said that they voted in the general election. About nine-in-ten respondents (89 percent) answered consistently while 11 percent reported something different at the ballot box than what they told the pollster before the election. In the context of recent elections, that 11 percent is quite typical. Pew Research Center has been conducting callback studies since 2000. Over the past five cycles, 12 percent of respondents, on average, were inconsistent in their pre- and post-election responses (i.e., were in an off-diagonal cell). The highest level of inconsistent responding recorded by Pew’s callback studies was 18 percent in 2000, and the lowest was 7 percent in 2012.
What is notable about the 2016 data is not how many inconsistent respondents there were, it is how the inconsistent responders voted. Figure 7 shows the presidential vote margin among respondents who gave inconsistent pre- versus post-election responses in each callback study since 2000. Typically, those who admit changing their minds more or less wash out, breaking about evenly between the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate. In 2016 something very different happened. In 2016, inconsistent responders in the Pew study voted for Trump by a 16-point margin. That is more than double the second largest margin observed in this time series for inconsistent responders (+7 points for George W. Bush in 2000)."
https://www.aapor.org/Education-Resources/Reports/An-Evaluation-of-2016-Election-Polls-in-the-U-S.aspx#EVIDENCE FOR THEORIES ABOUT WHY POLLS UNDER-ESTIMATED TRUMP'S SUPPORT
For over 50 straight years our national defense budget has passed with bipartisan support. Support for our military spending is one of the few things that is truly, consistently, bipartisan.
The Pentagon is the government. We just choose a figurehead.