Why not just:
- Single payer is far less complex
- Right now we pay more, and get less
- Even if wait times would be longer (not a given), simply finding a doctor would be way easier.
- We'd stop funding an industry that is built around bureaucracy and taking advantage of complexity to fleece our tax dollars.
I don't mean "doesn't handle criticism well". But rather, he visually and behaviorally seems unable to structurally integrate negative feedback into his reality.
In principle, this seems to me to be something that is extremely concerning for a US President.
However, Trump isn't the first. Nixon and Woodrow Wilson are both known historically as having similar issues with criticism. And while of course there were issues because of this, the US still exists.
What are your thoughts?
Like a pilot for example. There are 0 ambiguous qualifications. The pilot is either qualified, or they are not. This is very strictly regulated and known.
So, how does "DEI hire" accusations happen in industries like this, where the person being qualified for the job is an objective fact?
Other hypothetical criteria:
- This is for a presidential election.
- There is a viable third party candidate (viable meaning they are on the ballot in every state, and are participating in debates).
It's just different lighting and angles. Don't chase Instagram level seasoning with your pan.
A bit more specific:
If you take issues with unions, why do you view workers deciding "given the industry I'm in, I believe I'll get better outcomes through collective bargaining than individual bargaining, because I'll have better leverage." as a bad thing?
If you believe unions are always good, why do you believe collective bargaining is by default always good for the individual regardless of their industry?
Emphasis: Not asking if you like every detail, but just would you support something like this? If there are aspects you like, would you accept the trade-offs of stuff you don't like?
IF TAXPAYERS FUND IT, WE MEASURE IT
Core Principle:
Government should prove that it works, and taxpayers should know where the money went.
This platform is not about making government bigger or smaller. It is about making government accountable, measurable, and effective.
TAX REFORM
- Focus on closing loopholes rather than dramatically increasing tax rates.
- Treat economically equivalent activities the same under the tax code.
- Expand the definition of taxable income in limited cases where wealth is effectively being used as income.
- For example, very large loans backed by publicly traded securities could be partially treated as income above a high threshold.
- Simplify the tax code and reduce opportunities for aggressive tax avoidance.
- Ensure that people with similar economic resources pay similar taxes.
EVIDENCE-BASED GOVERNMENT
- Every major government program must have clearly defined goals.
- Every major program must establish measurable success criteria before funding is approved.
- Every major program must include a plan for collecting and reporting results.
- Programs that consistently fail to meet their goals should be reformed or eliminated.
- Programs should be judged by outcomes, not intentions.
- Anecdotes may inform policy, but evidence should determine policy.
ANTI-WASTE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
- Dramatically expand the number of Inspectors General, auditors, and investigators.
- Conduct aggressive oversight of Pentagon spending and procurement.
- Conduct aggressive oversight of healthcare billing, insurance reimbursements, and administrative costs.
- Identify areas where taxpayers are paying more without receiving better outcomes.
- Publish findings publicly whenever possible.
- Recover waste, fraud, and abuse regardless of political consequences.
HEALTHCARE TRANSPARENCY
- Require standardized reporting of costs, outcomes, and billing practices.
- Increase scrutiny of excessive administrative expenses.
- Identify areas where healthcare spending exceeds peer nations without producing better results.
- Focus on value and outcomes rather than ideology.
SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM
- Protect Social Security's long-term solvency.
- Slightly increase payroll tax contributions.
- Significantly raise or remove the payroll tax cap on high earners.
- Accept that some very high-income individuals will contribute more than they receive.
- Preserve the program for future generations rather than waiting for a crisis.
GOVERNING PHILOSOPHY
- Compassion without accountability is not enough.
- Fiscal discipline without measurable results is not enough.
- Government should be judged by what it accomplishes, not by how good its intentions sound.
- Taxpayers deserve to know what their money purchased.
- Every dollar spent should have a purpose, a metric, and a result.
IF TAXPAYERS FUND IT, WE MEASURE IT.
Government should prove that it works, and taxpayers should know where the money went.
Example here of the basic logic from Senator Warren: https://x.com/ewarren/status/2069146113949511688
I'm not against the principle at all (although I wish the focus was on wage growth instead). But, why can't the government do this right now? If investing in lowering costs is a priority, then why can't other spending be cut in order to do this?
Or overall. If $5 trillion isn't enough revenue for progressivs to get the outcomes they want from government, why would $5.3 trillion be enough?
Also kind of a secondary question: Presumably people who agree with Warren on this do not like Republicans or Trump. But that is who currently has the most influence in federal government. Why should I support increasing the revenue of the institution that we both do not trust? Is it just faith that in the future people who will support good outcomes will be in power?
In this hypothetical scenario, he became personally inconvenienced by climate change, so now he's concerned about it - And, he's just casually floating militant climate activism now.
​
His speech is below. Do you think MAGA goes along, or do they abandon Trump?
​
"My fellow Americans, and frankly the world, because they all call me, they say, "Sir, nobody understands weather like you." And I didn't believe in it, okay? I said, maybe it's hot, maybe it's cold, maybe it's one of those things. Then I was out there. Tremendous heat. The hottest. My hair which is fantastic hair, by the way was being affected. People don't talk about that. And I said, wow, maybe there's something going on. Maybe climate change is real. Nobody's ever been more surprised than me. So now we're looking at very strong action. Very powerful action. One of my people came to me, very smart guy, maybe too smart, and he said, "Sir, what if the government just stepped in massively?" And I said, wow. That's interesting. Maybe we do that. Maybe we don't. Maybe we deploy the National Guard to enforce consumption limits. Maybe. We'll see. People are talking about it. I haven't decided. Nobody knows what it means yet, but we're looking very strongly at it.
​
And we're having tremendous success with Iran. Everybody said it couldn't be done. Now they're talking in Switzerland, they're not talking in Switzerland, they're talking again, nobody really knows. The Strait of Hormuz, very important strait. Beautiful strait. Some people say it's the best strait. We love it. And the AI is now more than human experts. Think about that. The computers are better at it than people! Not good. Maybe we'll put a tariff on it. We have to look into it. But climate change, we're taking it very seriously. We're going to have federal consumption officers, maybe. Climate checkpoints maybe. Carbon marshals. Nobody's ever thought of these things before. We may limit the cheeseburgers. We're studying it. And if the temperature goes up it'll be really bad.
​
​
I don't see why this type of idea is so controversial. There are many varying ideas, so let's go with: "Publicly traded securities above $50 million are taxed at 1% annually"
​
It's the same exact concept as property tax, just with a different asset class. And even if one disagrees, the logic that you're paying for the privilege of owning a certain amount of an asset class, which can't exist without some sort of government support, is sensical logic.
​
So why is this even such a strong debate? It doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
Context: I'm thinking beyond stuff like civil rights and anti-discrimination laws.
So, things like "correcting for historical discrimination", or "protecting family values".
Is government a legitimate tool for this category of social change?
I.e., If you are going to say stock holdings increasing in value is income, then when comparing to everyone else shouldn't home values increasing and retirement accounts increasing in value also be "income"?
48 yr old male, 6', 200, around 20% body fat.
Normal physical activity (for last 20 years or so):
- General basic workout stuff like various squat types, deadhangs, and pushups
- Power walking about 7 miles a day
- Bouldering
- Competitive baseball (including lots of practice)
Specific issues (no pain is involved with any of these):
- Sitting cross-legged doesn't feel natural or comfortable, and my knees are much higher off the ground than others I see
- When sitting in a 90/90 position:
- I can't get my torso aligned straight up (from a side to side perspective) unless I support with my hand and allow a curve in my spine. Even with support, I can't get the torso straight, but there's no pain or a stretch feeling, it just feels completely blocked. It looks like my pelvis isn't level to the ground when sitting in 90/90 (back leg side of pelvis is higher than other side)
- I CAN move pretty freely forward and back, including leaning over front leg to get that glute stretch
- I can lift the back foot with knee down, but if I try to really drive the knee into the floor I have to lean heavily to avoid cramps
- I can do switches, and also shinbox squats, but I have to support a little bit with my hands to get the movements started.
- I can't do complete wall or floor angels. But rather than feeling blocked, this feels more like something won't stretch enough.
----
The main reason I'm focused on this now (never thought about it before) is baseball pitching. I want the hip internal and external rotation to be easier, while keeping my torso closed for longer (hip/shoulder separation).
Of course the Trump administration is blaming fuel prices being so high on Biden. That tracks, as Trump has literally never taken responsibility for anything negative.
Do you think Democratic leadership would be different? Something like "yes of course our actions have increased fuel prices. We believe it's worth it for these reasons. It will get better. Please bear with us."
(Not) "Real" socialism: All companies deciding to be a co-op, or that anyone can choose to own a portion of a company through the stock market.
Asking here simply because political subs on reddit tend to not like him.
My question is literal, and I don't know much about him other than he has some kind of UFC history, he has a podcast, and he sometimes says things that the left doesn't like and allows guests to say the same.
I watched a few podcast clips, and I don't get it. What's special about him? He doesn't seem particularly smart or dumb, doesn't have any novel opinions of his own, doesn't really look or speak in a memorable way.
What is he doing that millions of other people couldn't also do?
I'm not sure if this is something that's considered liberal or not, but I'm not getting how housing being out of reach for the median income earner is a crisis, or even a problem (by definition). For something to be either of those, the outcome would need to be unintentional.
This is how I'm thinking of our housing system:
- Both parties broadly support the idea of a home being an investment. Homes decreasing in value is seen as bad. Both parties support various laws and policies that protect the value of existing homes.
- You can't both have homes that increase in value, and affordable homes. It's one or the other, and we've chosen the former.
- Unless you introduce centralized control over home value, which neither side seems to be suggesting.
- If the value of homes broadly fell sharply, you'd simply have a different group of people that are unhappy with the state of property and homes.
So, how is this a "problem"? It seems to be working exactly as it's designed to work. Besides just a "I don't like X, but other people like X" situation; What exactly is the issue?
Identical cooking temperature and process.
What should I change if I want to get the same results with just oil?