But a lie so many want to hear↗. If I suggest to try a phrase, "retrospective wait unemployment", it is because this is the concept such promises exploit. There are, indeed, qualified workers refusing to take available jobs in America; it does happen. In this case, it's particularly relevant because, if we consider the demographic chatter about the election, it's probably significant that retrospective wait unemployment has observed identity-valence effect among economically displaced white male former factory workers. This is nearly like making fulfillment promises to addicts. Politicking to exploit this dysfunction turns out to be really, really low. Like, way lower than we would have guessed in our passing assertions of disgust. One of the challenges will be unraveling this demographic bloc's neurotic complexes, which have been a bit harder to see for being sublimated in sympathetic relationship to baseline normalcy.
Certainly, employers wouldn't be seeking so many H-1B visas if there were qualified Americans available.
Unless they found the prospect of paying lower salaries attractive. Do you suppose they ever consider that? Certainly employers would be forced to pay attention to the welfare of their community and its ability to provide qualified employees if they were prevented from poaching elsewhere.
Compared with whom? It's like importing Guatemalan chicken pluckers: it's not that you pay them less than other chicken pluckers. It's that you pay less for chicken pluckers, and you don't have to pay taxes to raise them or care for them in old age. Although if their visa depends on their keeping their job - i.e. your favor - a wage differential might be an attractive possibility. (re-edited 83 to re-match your quote, for form's sake)
OK, I guess there are some financial advantages for the employer, even if they wage is the same. Legislation could fix it.
No I'm promising taxing the rich to reduce the debt and financial strain on the lower classes. In the long run Basic Income Guarantee.
so you want to lose than. that's a losing proposition even when the language is sexied up as blunt as that you'd be laughed out of polls. so you have no real ideas.
Success most of these people did not work for, tax what they did not work for, tax high-frequencying trading, tax dividends, have very high marginal income taxes brackets.
Yeah and I have heard that argument IRL when campaigning door to door, and when I separate the rich's personal income tax from business taxes most, even republicans agree, we agree on low buisness taxes and high personal income taxes on the rich, we agree on infrastructure investment instead of channeling money to banks in other countries through tax holes. The right are very obsessed over individual fairness, which is why they hate "welfare queens" and affirmative action, which they feel is unfair to those that work hard and get no special help (themselves of course), but simultaneously they will agree without that much prodding that a rich man, born rich, who makes his wealth from sitting on stocks and ditching taxes should be admonished as well. You would be surprised how many agree to a basic income because it does way with "big government" bureaucracy and cuts everyone a check fairly, and love the idea of financing it via taxing the rich for income that was gather not through hard work or genius but by schemes of money duplication. Getting these people to vote democrat or at the very least not vote republican is fundamental to our future success, without implementing solid solutions that benefit the majority of voters we will keep losing. Even as demographic shift way from white voters without implementing sound progressive policy we will eventually lose the Hispanics, Asians and even blacks to the republicans, who have been forced to change their policy (at least verbally) way from a pro-trade stance to an "America first" stance. Leaving corporate democrats who are pro-trade and pro-globalization to look utterly demonic. While I agree with free trade and globalization in the long run, we must shut up about it if not go full 180 toward isolationism if we are to win elections and implement polices that actually help the middle class, then, and only then, can we return to free-trade stance for acheive world peace and unity. If the middle class is suffering we must stop everything else and focus on them or else we will lose enough votes to demagogue hucksters like trump.
And voter suppression, vote count manipulation, etc. The fact that a large majority of Americans favor liberal tax and health care reforms has been well established for many years. The same holds for gun control, environmental policy, and half a dozen other matters. The American public is largely left libertarian, while the American government is right authoritarian - this has been basically the case for a century at least. The problem with the Republican core voter is not that they favor bad policy in theory, disfavor good policy when they see it, etc. It's that they favor bad candidates in practice, regardless of what has been presented to them as policy by good candidates.
And how are we do deal with that without having control of the federal and state governments first? And I don't disagree with this assessment, most republicans vote purely on party lines because they know nothing else, its like football and the party is THEIR team.
Lawsuits have come in handy before. Publicity. Nobody said it was going to be easy. But as in the aftermath of W, there will be opportunity at the State and local levels in the aftermath of Trump.
By way of hours-long youtube videos for liberals? The introduction is a feel-good non-specific essay that draws a false equivalence between Obama and Trump, (and not only overlooks but specifically dismisses the fundamental similarity of Trump and W in their upbringing and ego, btw). He's making a bothsides argument, and bothsides arguments regarding the current Republican Party agenda and behavior are bullshit. Hour long youtube videos. In this case a couple of liberals sit around and talk about how to deal with Republicans, and in particular how to listen to them with respect and not make them feel bad and reach out to them without making them reach out to you. The Trump voter hasn't been listening and refuses to listen now? Ok, we'll listen to them, we liberals - we'll "validate" them. That's the word Mark used. Then they will meet us and join with us in making things better. We all wish them luck. Seriously. They're nice guys. They want everyone to be happy. Their hearts are in the right place. Liberals are like that. - - - - - - At one point the guest there says "the left were equally guilty of slinging shit". That's nonsense. At another point he says that Trump's election might cause people to wake up, and result in healing "the divide", and be the best thing that ever happened to the US - which is typical liberal happy talk, of course, and we all forgive him, but lord that's not very alert. The disaster of Trump is going to be decades in the recovery, and is not going to teach his voters anything, ok? Such disasters never have, they never will. We're not half way out of W's hole, and this one looks to sink us deeper than W did. We all hope, naturally, that enlightenment will descend upon the Republican Party and Trump voter when their world turns to shit - but it didn't, after W. It didn't, after Reagan. It didn't, after Nixon. And the smart money says that it won't, after Trump. He says the election of Trump was a shock to him - that, imho, means he hasn't been listening to the actual left, or anybody like me: absolutely nobody in my crowd of idea exchange was shocked by the election of Trump. Nobody. This train has been coming down the track since 1980, and we've been trying to warn people about it our entire adult lives. He actually says that "veterans are a big blind spot on the Left" - dude, the big heroes of the Left going into this mess, 1990 - 2000 and the launch of war (in my neighborhood: Paul Wellstone, Molly Ivins, all kinds of actual lefties, even centrist liberal folks like Mondale) were all the time talking about veterans. The farther to the left a national politician is, the more they will do for veterans, as a rule. Look at who's pushing the mental health and brain injury issue in the veterans from W's Folly. The Left has always been the direction to turn for veterans during and after the war - any war. The Right is into the machinery and weapons contracting. Reagan spent the money on Star Wars bs, not Vietnam veterans rehab - them, he was kicking off welfare and out of mental hospitals, and throwing into jail for drugs. Like he says: We are all flawed, inadequately informed people. But the modern Republican Party's core voter is not equivalently flawed, uninformed, etc, to liberals such as David Rubin and Mark the guest. Not even close. More significantly, neither are any of the intellectual, or media, supporters of the Republican Party's power gain. Those folks have an agenda, and these guys aren't going to change it by "listening" and "validating". These guys are going to get rolled, just like they got rolled the last time. Because they may have a good idea how to deal with nice people they meet and talk to, but they don't know how to deal with the modern Republican Party. Not a clue.
It's 22 I put a 2 here Then I go and put another 2 next to it 2+2=22 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ignore the intro then, it is the interview that matters. Who won the presidency again? So we are in no position to ignore them, they have valid concerns that we could meet with liberal policy, garnering their vote. racist, misogynist, sexist, facist, nazi! Yeah probably, has nothing to do with the topic at hand though. It did after W. Again half the nation does not vote and many of those that do vote are not party followers, if we can inspire more people to vote, if we can inspire independents to vote for us, if we can inspire republicans to not turn out in mass, we can win everything. The republicans were so demoralized by the near economic collapses they had causes and people so inspired by the rise of obama we took control of everything in 2009, the result was the rise of the tea party and the alt-right amongst the republicans who proclaimed the old republicans had failed and were too corrupt and were not deological and nationalist enough, this is lead to the rise of trump and the alt-right which thankfully or horribly is turning out to be a conventional republican lap dog. Yeah you and Billy T had this all foreseen. Actually what you have done is cut out all contrary evidence over decades to create a simplified view thesis of reality, which is in gross error and can't comprehend new political waves that rise and fall. He is talking about today's liberals, NOW, not 20 years ago liberals. Do you know what year it is? There are millions and millions of independent minded voters we can get at, if everyone else is a "Republican Party's core voter" to you no wonder you think we are doomed. Oh and how you will deal with them is effective, please do go on, lets here how to deal with them?
