I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It's been tried and failed. That's why it's being rejected.

Could you at least try to be semi-consistent? Because one day you say we need UBI and the next you say we've already tried everything.

And no, it hasn't been tried and failed. We've done next to nothing on relocation assistance. And we just had a massive recession the response to which did not involve any additional education money and minimal for job-training.

Oh, and here's you on whether they work, "Retraining works for a very small % of these people."

I'm not arguing that these things are going to fully re-employ low skilled-labor. I'm saying they are what we can do for those who want help. The message to those displaced needs to be that they have to help themselves too, instead of Trump-like lies.

Read Rise of the Robots. Please, fucking read it.

I might, but you guys really need to stop and ask yourself whether there's a market for a robot book with the thesis, "yes, the robots are coming, but it's going to be okay and a lot of it's already happened."

[Adder]

Employment in manufacturing: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=bQY6

I couldn't immediately find a way to do this as a percentage of population, or of working age population, but suffice it to say that 12 million people working in manufacturing in 2015 is much smaller portion of either figure than was 19.5 million in 1979. (US population has grown by about 100 million or 50% since then).

And yes, the robots are coming for us next. It will be okay.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm not enamored of it. Were I, I would have voted for Trump. I'm simply offering some of the logical reasons I believe some people voted for this man.

Huh. You may want to re-read what you wrote. Because it didn't say that.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm replying this again just to say to everyone who wants to have other conversations, This shit in the quotes above -- what Ferrets wrote... This is the only conversation that matters. The rest of what we discuss is useful, but it's all secondary to this. If you aren't primarily focusing on this, your viewpoint on the future of anything isn't going to be enlightened in any useful fashion. That sounds dickish, and that's exactly my intention. Because everybody needs to read that book, along with a copy of Tyler Cowen's Average is Over.

No one thing is ever the entire story or the only issue, especially with respect to the US economy, or even more so, the global economy. Anyone telling you that is a charlatan (remember when 3-D printing was going to replace all of everything??).

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

That polling indicates that the party is far to the left of most Americans on the issue of abortion ....reinforce the presumptiousness that the Left knows better than everyone else.

Here's the Gallup numbers. You can see further breakdowns of that line on the top, legal under certain circumstances, if you look at Gallup's site. I'd say looking at that that the Democratic party is closer to whatever consensus positions exist than the Republicans.



But frankly, I also don't see any great trend lines for the Republicans on that graph.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

A question from the Twitter:

Q for everyone saying Dems would have won with diff policy ideas: Since media completely failed to cover policy, how would this have worked?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

A question from the Twitter:

Q for everyone saying Dems would have won with diff policy ideas: Since media completely failed to cover policy, how would this have worked?

As you point out, irrelevant to the Presidency, since policy got completely ignored, despite best efforts.

On the Senate there are places where policy might have made a difference, though the biggest issue in those races was that Dems were eager to run with Clinton and Obama while Rs ran away from Trump. Bigger lesson may be that you're always safer running a local than national race. Though Maggie Hassan may disagree.

[ferrets_bueller]

Concerning the abortion graph: This is a cultural clash that will never, ever be settled. Nor does it appear to me to be an issue that will decide a national election, unless and until Roe v. Wade is overturned by sending the issue back to state legislatures.

I proffer a different issue, and a graph, that I find depressing to the point of existential despair. According to Larry Summers: A simple linear trend suggests that by mid-century about a quarter of men between 25 and 54 will not be working at any moment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-american-men/

(I lack the skills to copy the graph itself into this text.)

Sure, others may quibble, but if he is even close to correct the trend will tear American society apart.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Clearly, Donald Trump is going to use the presidency to enrich himself and his family. It's hard to believe that other people in the government won't see this happening and want to get a piece of the action. Instead of whining about conflicts of interest, what is the best way for Democrats to make this a political issue that works for them?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

We all have Google. You want me to volley that with a competing cite for the opposite proposition? Or would you rather try to have a conversation?

I'd like to see some support for the following: "WaPo, the Times, and CNN did more than adequate hit jobs on him to offset any generosity they showed him, and any hit jobs they did on Hillary." Thanks in advance!

TM

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Clearly, Donald Trump is going to use the presidency to enrich himself and his family. It's hard to believe that other people in the government won't see this happening and want to get a piece of the action. Instead of whining about conflicts of interest, what is the best way for Democrats to make this a political issue that works for them?

Dunno, but I just got off the phone with Jared, and am pleased to announce that the plans for Trump Podunkville Golf & Classy Resort are going forward.

On a completely unrelated note, Piggly Wiggly's Vice President for Deli Slicing Safety is in the running for OSHA.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Here's the Gallup numbers. You can see further breakdowns of that line on the top, legal under certain circumstances, if you look at Gallup's site. I'd say looking at that that the Democratic party is closer to whatever consensus positions exist than the Republicans.



But frankly, I also don't see any great trend lines for the Republicans on that graph.

So I lost a long reply when my browser froze up, but of course you aren't going to show the data that shows that Americans support a 20 week abortion ban, or oppose taxpayer funding on abortion (I think it was 57% and 62% respectively, but I'm not looking it up again). Those are moderate positions. The levels of support for those propositions was even higher among Millennials. That would seem to be a positive trend from a pro-life perspective.

The reason Hillary was seen as extreme was her unwillingness to specify an example as to a single limit she would place on third trimester abortion. Which is an extreme position. The Democratic platform no longer calls for abortion to be rare and calls for it to be taxpayer funded. That is not supported by the majority of Americans. Hillary even said that abortion is a Constitutional right, which women should be able to access without regard to ability to pay. But she cannot bring herself to concede that the 2nd Amendment, explicit in the text, is a right, and can you imagine the vapors if one ridiculously asserted that he had a tight to taxpayer funded guns? She likened pro-life supporters to terrorists.... I could go on. But it wouldn't change your mind.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Huh. You may want to re-read what you wrote. Because it didn't say that.

You read that into it. I like going through the exercise of seeing things from all angles.

There is logic to that, and it's one I'll bet a fair number of Trump voters employed.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I'd like to see some support for the following: "WaPo, the Times, and CNN did more than adequate hit jobs on him to offset any generosity they showed him, and any hit jobs they did on Hillary." Thanks in advance!

TM

For starters... http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-med...egative-230297

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.c...?client=safari

[Adder]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

So I lost a long reply when my browser froze up, but of course you aren't going to show the data that shows that Americans support a 20 week abortion ban, or oppose taxpayer funding on abortion (I think it was 57% and 62% respectively, but I'm not looking it up again). Those are moderate positions.

No, they are not. 20 weeks is well before viability even with extraordinary medical intervention. There's nothing moderate about that, no matter how well it polls (and honestly, how may people polled do you think have a good sense of where 20 weeks is in fetal development?)

And "no taxpayer funding" is just stupidity, as though taxpayers aren't paying for abortions via their health insurance premiums.

The reason Hillary was seen as extreme was her unwillingness to specify an example as to a single limit she would place on third trimester abortion.

Perhaps because they basically never happen and when they do, they are because of severe medical conditions that require intervention. Like, why do we need a restriction on a procedure that only happens when the life of the mother or baby is at stake?

Hillary even said that abortion is a Constitutional right

I think you'll find that was the Supreme Court.

She likened pro-life supporters to terrorists

Well, there is the little issue that some pro-life supports are, in fact, terrorists.