The issue is that it wasn't "clear" to sufficient people. Too many people believe at face value the claims. Some of them honestly believe the face value claims.
I'm not sure that more information will help those people. I saw an interview with a Haitian-American restaurant chain owner who voted for Trump and was dismayed that he might have to close a couple of locations due the removal of Temporary Protective Status for Haiti causing him to lose employees. He said that Trump sold him on the idea that "he was a businessman, and would act like a businessman", and that he now regrets his vote.
Like, the "eating the cats and dogs" line, specifically targeted at Haitians, wasn't enough for you to think that maybe this guy didn't have your best interest at heart? Also Trump's history as a "businessman" is anything but wildly successful or something to envy.
These people will see whatever they want to see until they get hit, so unless you're in a position to provide the hit, or somehow impart discernment that most elementary school kids have, they can only be contained and we should be happy if they pay their taxes and don't vote.
> Also Trump's history as a "businessman" is anything but wildly successful or something to envy.
Maybe we should stop treating these contradictions with Polyanna level of naivety. What is more likely: a.) these people did not seen the obvious contradictions or b.) these people are giving out publicly palatable sympathetic responses. It is all economic vote, except that conservatives were never good for small businesses.
What if these people are not as dumb as they pretend to be. What if they are actually attracted to the same thing that makes other men attracted to Trump - the male supremacy ideology and the racism against "not them exactly". The fun ugly part of it. The cruelty against homosexuals and trans. Saying that openly will still makes you look bad, so we get the "we had no idea, this was just economic vote" kind of nonsense.
One can be both malicious and naive. Regardless, more information isn't going to solve the issue. The information was presented; they ignored it for whatever reason.
Getting them to stop ignoring information they don't like is the problem.
We have plenty of those, we are just ignoring them.
> "What if they were all perverts". Well, that would have been remarkable in the distribution of chances.
There would be absolutely nothing remarkable about distribution of chances here. It is the most plausible and explanation. It is also completely consistent with all the data we have - including the fact that record of abuse never harms republican politicians. Instead, it raises their credit. It is also consistent with philosophies the leadership openly pushes for.
And how can your point be credible with the sweeping generalization and ignoring for the sake of the monothesis e.g. the systemic failures that brought us to this point.
I'd start again using quantifiers and a more complexive analysis.
Air (or rather, nitrogen -- oxygen at that pressure is something you'd rather avoid) can be pressurised to that degree too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_pool
jeep snorkels are for air intakes for engines. electric cars don't have air intakes. they have air cooling for batteries... I suppose you could snorkel those.
seems like a good business model to watch where PE is moving in. Start investing in quality designs while PE drives quality down, then sweep in and be the "quality amongst trash" brand.
The simpler variant of this is to obtain a gift certificate. They are required to let you spend it it, so you can get into the store that way. Bring cash, though -- they don't love that people do this, so they don't always take credit cards on these transactions.
Maybe. But the original context here is an article about removing lead from gasoline. Which I’m pretty sure that helped many people based on the “greater good”.
There’s no copper sulfate in canned green beans or borax in beef. Those seem all around good.
Let’s agree that impacts of regulations are nuanced, and not try to condense it down to something overly simplistic like, “regulations hurt poor people”.
When left to their own cigaret companies tell congress cigarettes are safe and non addictive. Left alone companies pay in scrip only usable at the company store.
The 'greater good' has arguably PREVENTED much more hurt of people than it has ever hurt. Meanwhile companies have PROVEN time and time again that they WILL hurt people when left to their own devices. In environmental policies. In pay policies. In employment policies. In EVERY aspect possible.
This is the extreme, and it shows how far some (most?) people would go. There are many examples, and more being minted, it can be a drag.
Yes, not just environmental, all kinds of money stuff. The more money can be how it gets on steroids.
But this says a lot here:
>not try to condense it down to something overly simplistic
With greed involved you can follow the money to an extent, you find lobbyists on both sides of every controversy, sometimes chalking up wins, other times losses. But they stay in business and grow by compromising the greater good with as little profit loss from those paying them the most.
They might switch roles when they lobby in favor of ordinary citizens one time, and squarely against in a future campaign. But they never actually switch sides, the least costly thing to compromise is the "greater good", which ideally from their point of view is intangible, versus actual money, which their clients are usually counting before they have earned any.
It's politics, all regulations are hard to pass, but as lobbying has increased, the difficulty of having good legislation in favor of the greater good is becoming less possible.
It just costs too much to have a seat at the table.
If people want to have good things, it might become completely dependent on older regulations which were in their favor before it got too expensive to do that any more.
Lobbyists at this point is just sports 'flood the zone' defense strategy gumming up the process everywhere so they can point and say 'look at it, government doesn't work'. Another form of the Reagan 'starve the beast' strategy to say 'look at it, government doesn't work'. I'm starting to feel the same with speech online. Capitalism and other negative social elements working to undermine the social system that impedes them just constantly flooding the systems that assume/can handle the volume of/when all interactions are in good faith but can't designed to handle malicious flooding.
Hundreds of book on utilitarianism have been published since Bentham (ca 1800) first argued 'why'. They argue the matter from evey perspective ad nauseam.
Kids? how many people try and pay IRS debt with Apple Gift Cards? How many people just dumbly trust sales people? Its best they learn at this early age rather than later in life when they grifted for $1000s.
