In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
As the people in this thread have been abuzz about, the rural community has made their plight known to the world. And I think this is a good chance to talk about some of the issues with the major trade deals (TTIP, TPP, and NAFTA) and what problems some people have with them and their relation to globalization. I'll be a little general here; if you want "the full story" then go buy a textbook on the topic or something. For the most part I'm just going to draw attention to some of the issues that exist, not make an argument for which outcome is best. I'll also throw in a few examples from the EU and Russia that are basically the exact same issue in different nations.
A few pages ago, someone showed a map of how the country voted, noting that besides a few little dots, the entire nation voted Republican. Roughly speaking, about half the people in the entire nation live in those few little dots which represent the nation's major cities and their metropolitan areas. The rest of the country is the more rural and sparsely populated areas, which have been increasingly in trouble over the course of the past few decades worth of economic developments. In recent times especially, it is notable that most of the favorable economic developments have taken place around the major cities; the "inner cities" as Trump calls them really have been mostly left to rot and are in need of rebuilding.
These inner cities do suffer from quite a few problems. Most of all, their economies are quite brittle, in that as soon as a major source of profit (e.g. coal, oil, manufacturing) leaves their area, then they are left with little in the way of profitable industries and basically have to work in low-paying jobs like retail. They rightly perceive a substantial decline in their quality of life as a result, and they are none too pleased about that. In one of the articles linked earlier, it showed that most new businesses are founded in large cities, as opposed to in earlier decades where they were much more spread out across the country. It is true that proximity to population centers does provide benefits (infrastructure like roads and utilities, schools, businesses that could expand in your direction, etc.). The problem is that the areas that can be considered to be sources of profit are few and far between and becoming more so by the year. Detroit is one example of a former highly lucrative population center that has seen a lot of decline with the failure of its major companies.
If the industries keeping the inner cities alive start to crumble, why don't they build new ones? Well the problem is that it's really, really hard to do that. Industrial capacity (e.g. factories) requires a commitment to constant upgrades and modernization, because as soon as you stop upgrading a factory it becomes unprofitable within a few years to a decade. It's also really hard to close a factory that has productive output even if it is unprofitable, so a commitment to build one is something that better be worth it. Businesses have to be convinced to build factories in those places. Other forms of high-profit businesses (e.g. software development, R&D labs, professional services, and so on) also either have to be convinced to move there or have absolutely no reason to be there.
There are a wide range of issues that make it hard to build new high-profit businesses within sparsely populated regions. For professional services (legal, to some extent medical, some forms of software), you usually need some degree of population density to actually justify working there. For factories, you need to have infrastructure for transport of goods, utilities, trade education, and so on (those "inner cities" have increasingly terrible infrastructure that really does need rebuilding). And let's just say that no company is about to pay to set up 1,000 miles of piping just to have a water supply sufficient for their needs; they are just going to go somewhere where they can get what they want from the sufficiently large local utility infrastructure. You can't force businesses to work somewhere if they don't want to (coercion and incentivizing, yes, but if they don't cooperate you really can't make them do it). Not in a capitalist economy, not in a command economy. They have to be made to want to go make offices there.
Perhaps most troublesome, though, is the issue of people. When people from those rural areas get an education like engineering or law, they will generally perceive that they have greater opportunities in the cities and get a job there. It's hard to incentivize them to stay in their home towns, where they have a cultural connection (this is important and I'll get back to it) but it's even harder to get people to move to those cities. I know of many cases of companies that either shuttered their factories, or were ready to do so, because they just couldn't entice smart, educated people to live in the vicinity of those companies for any wage that was sane for them to pay. Slowly but surely, the result has been to move away from those gambles, towards major population centers that can adequately fill their need for educated labor. Especially as the "knowledge economy" develops this has been prevalent. And the result is, quite predictably, that the inner cities start to crumble and die.
What can be done about it? A lot of things, but none of them are easy. The simple answer is that companies have to be enticed to move to the inner cities and set up shop there. But the default result of the modern economy is a shift in entirely the opposite direction, towards major population centers and - perhaps just as importantly - towards major shipping routes like ports, airports, railways, and highways. As I'm sure you realize by now, globalization plays a large role in this issue. The more the businesses have global dealings, the more they want to be near major population centers that open to the world. Next, we'll talk about policy in relation to these issues.
The simple one to talk about is infrastructure development. Transport, power, water, school systems, higher education, and so on. Cities are built on this stuff, albeit slowly. Not much more to add there other than that you do need these kinds of projects to develop the inner cities.
As far as environmental concerns go, the big issue here is the aging, but nevertheless profitable, industries like coal that keep these cities going. If the coal industries cease to be viable, the towns cease to be viable as well. There are also a lot of micro-issues, but I think it goes without saying that environmental issues and business issues are often hard to reconcile in a way that doesn't piss people off. The Paris Accords are probably a good step in the right direction and ultimately I don't think it's a good idea to undermine them in any way because the long-term costs of climate damage are quite severe. I think that the world has generally made a lot of progress on acknowledging the need to balance these concerns and moved in the direction of solving them.
Now the big one is of course globalization and the means towards that end. It goes without saying that some of the economic interests of people and companies go beyond the nation's borders. Imports and exports, establishing businesses abroad, recruiting foreign talent, and so on. Some say that "globalization is inevitable" and some disagree, and I won't really get too much into that issue right now. But what probably is not so controversial is that the rural folk are generally most harmed by it. Companies have more incentive to push their businesses towards cities and beyond the borders, and the industries in the inner cities (e.g. farming, coal, raw materials) also start to have a hard time competing with foreigners who sell goods for prices below those at which the people who live in the US believe is a livable wage. To be fair, in some cases it does lift foreign peasants out of the "how will I find my next meal" degree of poverty (e.g. sweatshop workers in China are better off than they were before they had sweatshop money to live off of), but to a very large extent it does hurt rural workers (in the country receiving imports, whether that be the US or some other nation) who can't compete at those prices and lose their livelihood. There is not some easy solution to this issue; it really is quite hard to reconcile these concerns in a way that doesn't hurt people. Ultimately though, a nation's interest should be to its own citizens above those of foreign countries, so that is something to be kept in mind in how this problem is dealt with.
Trade deals are not very simple things, but the simple version of them is that they open nations up to highly favorable trade terms that make it easy to buy and sell goods, and to move people around. The "corporations suing governments" aspect that people dislike is one of many means to this end. Businesses really like this for quite obvious reasons. Inner city folk, well now they have competition. If a country with which yours has a trade deal with produces goods for a better price than yours, and there isn't anything you can do about it, you will have no means to catch up because a lot of the times an industry needs favorable terms to develop their capabilities. When the market is forced open, local industries can lose out if they have trouble competing. And they often just die because they don't have the means to develop. Furthermore, businesses which could have built in the inner cities may be more inclined to go into a foreign country and expand there instead.
Now I'm briefly going to segway into the topic of foreign nations and their similar situations. First example is Soviet Russian agriculture. After the Russian Revolution and the industrialization, Russia transformed from an agrarian economy into a very industrial one. 100 years later, it can be seen that it was almost entirely for the better, but one of the lingering problems is the problem with agriculture. Once the agricultural capacity was destroyed, it never really was rebuilt again; most agriculture came from places within the Soviet/Warsaw sphere like Ukraine and Poland. Incidentally, there is a similar issue with NAFTA and Mexican farmers being destroyed by American farming imports from subsidized farms. And a lot of things were tried - collective farming, programs for rural development (including incentives for smart rural folk to go to top schools then return home to help local city-building), infrastructure projects that created a warmer climate, infrastructure projects for transport, and so on. For the issue of rural development, some things worked and some things didn't (the Far East and Siberian regions have developed a fair bit over the years), but what was quite clearly unsuccessful in the Soviet Union was the revival of farming.
Now this story gets a little more interesting in, in fact, just the past two years. Among the big development projects that the Russian government has taken up was a massive infrastructure expansion in the Southwest area that includes Sochi. They built roads through the mountains, a bridge to Crimea, utilities, and lots of other things that pave the groundwork for expansion. Though, as I mentioned earlier, one of the big issues is to get companies to actually invest in those products. For too long, the issue was that oil was a gravy train that seemed to never end, while all the other industries seemed like mediocre prospects in comparison. The sanctions, collapse of oil, and counter-sanctions, changed a lot of that. One of the big winners was agriculture, which with protectionism was able to have a market open to it, which allowed it to develop its technology to the point that many of the leaders in that industry now believe that they could compete with European exporters of agriculture on productivity.
The lessons from this story are that targeted protectionism and effective infrastructure development can help with the issues of collapsing rural situations, but that a lot of it involves going against the tide of business influence and can be very expensive in the short and medium term. The question is, of course, to what extent is it worth limiting the push towards globalism to favor the poorer in the economy? Once again, a hard question. My opinion is that significantly more should be done than is being done, that trade deals are ultimately not a good idea, and that there is a good reason why the TPP/NAFTA stance of Trump probably won him the election.
Historically, there is plenty of precedent for the assertion that "rural poverty creeps up the socioeconomic ladder." The Great Depression in the US started from the disenfranchisement of small-town farmers, who were forced from their farms (often to California to compete with immigrants for cheap labor). Eventually it crept up and harmed everyone else. The same situation may be developing in the EU, with a lot of the underdeveloped regions (Poland, Baltics, Balkans, Bulgaria, PIIGS, etc.) sending people to the more developed nations, some of which (especially Germany) survive off of their exports. Economically they are definitely in a precarious position, and the plight of Southern Europe plays no small part there. In previous discussions, it has been mentioned that a requirement for exports is that people can afford to buy what you produce, and that's a good part of the story. The whole story, once again, could fill up multiple books.
I'll also briefly touch upon the cultural aspect of migration that is forced by economics. I know that most people here are decidedly liberal and I also know that that group tends to be less sensitive to the idea of cultural preservation, but it really does matter. It should be obvious that people who move from, say, Algeria to France, for economic opportunities, will absolutely perceive a very strong cultural loss in doing so. Same with Poles moving to the UK (although IME many Poles make a great effort to integrate), Baltics moving to Germany, or rural Americans moving to CA/NY. Cultural cohesion keeps a society together in times of trouble and that aspect of it just can't be dismissed. People are rightly concerned about the issue of keeping their own culture alive through the ages.
So that's a long version of much of the story behind the people who got Trump elected.
On November 12 2016 06:30 TheTenthDoc wrote: It's hard to blame the media for painting Clinton as the favorite when the only objective data they (or anyone else) had access to pointed to a Clinton win.
I don't think Trump ever led in a single poll of Wisconsin the entire race, and the final RCP average was +6.5 Clinton. But it ended up +1 Trump. How could the media expect that? Psychic powers? Predicting turnout that was not predictable based on the primaries?
Michigan? 1 poll in the entire race had Trump up. The average was +3.5 Clinton. He won + 0.3.
You can argue Pennsylvania could have been covered more, but the reality was that all the data pointed to a Clinton win. It's not like the LAtimes poll was right and they should have looked at it; it actually missed by considerably more than the average poll. It isn't the media's fault the data were biased (it also isn't the Clinton campaign's fault the data were biased, either, but that's another topic).
Maybe they should have put more stock on gut feelings or something...but that seems like a great way to introduce bias.
On the flip side lets not pretend there's much to defend from the media either.
We're talking about the same media that at times literally laughed at people saying Trump could win the nomination & election.
This is why this argument is ridiculous, there's a lot that people from all sides can totally agree on in terms of how awful the media is, but instead everyone wants to bicker over the small scraps because all they really care about is if their horse (both candidate and ideals) was shown in a good light or not instead of actual media responsibility.
It's true. The media needed a major reality check during the primaries (in fact, their decision to replace poll data with ad hoc prior judgments was the huge problem here) and needed to keep better note during the election of how close Trump came post-convention in the polls as well as the overall uncertainty.
It just bothers me when people suggest the media should have portrayed it as an even race...because that's just not what the data showed without making some big leaps that weren't based in evidence.
On November 12 2016 06:30 TheTenthDoc wrote: It's hard to blame the media for painting Clinton as the favorite when the only objective data they (or anyone else) had access to pointed to a Clinton win.
I don't think Trump ever led in a single poll of Wisconsin the entire race, and the final RCP average was +6.5 Clinton. But it ended up +1 Trump. How could the media expect that? Psychic powers? Predicting turnout that was not predictable based on the primaries?
Michigan? 1 poll in the entire race had Trump up. The average was +3.5 Clinton. He won + 0.3.
You can argue Pennsylvania could have been covered more, but the reality was that all the data pointed to a Clinton win. It's not like the LAtimes poll was right and they should have looked at it; it actually missed by considerably more than the average poll. It isn't the media's fault the data were biased (it also isn't the Clinton campaign's fault the data were biased, either, but that's another topic).
Maybe they should have put more stock on gut feelings or something...but that seems like a great way to introduce bias.
I would have wished for media to find people like this here and interview them before the election:
Instead I could only get similar views described in shitty forums so there was no way to know what to think about it as everything felt broken with massive partisanship that divided the two camps. Like on reddit for example, you couldn't have normal discussions on /r/politics as it turned weird with the primaries, and the other side was the retarded /r/the_donald. Here on TL things felt also a bit weird.
Isn't the definition of a silent voter that the media can't reach them? Besides, plenty of members of the "mainstream" media did just this-there was an entire 538 series profiling the voters, and they weren't the only ones. They just weren't clickbait and so no one read them.
On November 12 2016 06:44 LegalLord wrote: I guess that once you start making distinctions like "Well my model correctly predicted the popular vote even if the electoral college was wrong" your streak is already in its death throes.
Predicting "Clinton will win by 3-4 points with a margin of error of 3" and having that be "Clinton is +1 in the popular vote" is still pretty spot on.
Just by coincidence there is a new 538 article both defending its model and reflecting on the mistakes (the latter of which is why 538 is a good source more so than its accuracy).
On November 12 2016 05:49 zlefin wrote: pmh -> do you have proof of that? or merely your claims and allegations? that you claim it was extremely biased doesn't make it so. People claim biases all the time, often they are wrong.
if you think current media wouldn't report on watergate, then I question your understanding of the media.
I'm seriously disappointed with the media. Were you prepared for Trump winning the election? What did you think the chances were? Did you think it was a 50:50 chance? For myself, I blame the media misinforming about the situation.
I've bet 60€ on Trump winning in October because I thought he might actually have a chance (betting odds were 5:1). This was really hard to do. I was seriously scared while betting and the only reason for that was mainstream media. While reading and watching commentary about events, I couldn't help but think he can't possibly win. Meanwhile, when watching his rallies or Clinton rallies, watching the debates, reading around on left and right forums, I got to thinking he had a serious chance.
I thought I was going crazy and that's why I'm kind of hating "the media" right now.
I wasn't prepared for it cuz I was'nt thinking that hard. But 538 gave Trump something like 1/3 chance near the end, I forget the actual number. And I think they've done good work so their numbers were reliable. him having a weaker, but real chance was very estimable, and that's what the estimators were showing.
Why would you think he can't possibly win? you weren't relying on german, or other foreign media were you? 5:1 odds still means a 1/6 chance of winning (or something like that, I forget how betting odds work). and 1/6 is far from nothing.
I wasn't relying on German media. I was already around following US elections a bit when W. Bush won against Gore which was the point where I got disappointed in foreign media reporting on US things. At that time the news and commentary in magazines here made it appear as if it would be completely impossible for Gore to lose. They didn't really describe reasons for anyone to vote for Bush.
This change to a more respectable chance was pretty recent for fivethirtyeight.com, I think? It was originally super low. I remember it didn't help rationalize my bet.
I'm not paying much attention to the rest of that article, I just needed a graph over time for 538.
I'm interested what your response is after reviewing that. and which media your complaint is about.
What's wrong with that? That seems totally reasonable for how the race played out.
5:1 odds when Trump was being hammered by sexual assault issues left and right seemed pretty strongly accurate. The fact that he wasn't held accountable for them AND Clinton had the Comey issue AND Wikileaks proved to be stickier than could be estimated at the time AND there was a poll sampling error seems totally right as a 1/5 chance.
I think 538 deserves infinitely more flak for focusing on their ad hoc primary prediction "let's all predict state outcomes than compile them" gibberish during the primaries, rather than what the polls were projecting in each state, than their predictions in the general.
I mean, they even said multiple times towards the end of the race that a 3-4 point Clinton lead was still scary because cross-state polling errors and an overall polling error of 2 points could easily result in a popular vote/electoral college split-their model gave Trump crappy odds when Clinton had like a 6-7 point national lead, and I guarantee you if we'd held the election then we would be looking forward to Madame President.
On November 12 2016 07:02 TheTenthDoc wrote: I think 538 deserves infinitely more flak for focusing on their ad hoc primary prediction "let's all predict state outcomes than compile them" gibberish during the primaries, rather than what the polls were projecting in each state, than their predictions in the general.
I mean, they even said multiple times towards the end of the race that a 3-4 point Clinton lead was still scary because cross-state polling errors and an overall polling error of 2 points could easily result in a popular vote/electoral college split-their model gave Trump crappy odds when Clinton had like a 6-7 point national lead, and I guarantee you if we'd held the election then we would be looking forward to Madame President.
Yeah, though I think they took a big bite out of that flak by really copping up to it. They've said numerous times that they screwed up massively. It's a lot harder to hold someone's feet to the fire when they end up apologizing for the mistake immediately.
On November 12 2016 05:49 zlefin wrote: pmh -> do you have proof of that? or merely your claims and allegations? that you claim it was extremely biased doesn't make it so. People claim biases all the time, often they are wrong.
if you think current media wouldn't report on watergate, then I question your understanding of the media.
I'm seriously disappointed with the media. Were you prepared for Trump winning the election? What did you think the chances were? Did you think it was a 50:50 chance? For myself, I blame the media misinforming about the situation.
I've bet 60€ on Trump winning in October because I thought he might actually have a chance (betting odds were 5:1). This was really hard to do. I was seriously scared while betting and the only reason for that was mainstream media. While reading and watching commentary about events, I couldn't help but think he can't possibly win. Meanwhile, when watching his rallies or Clinton rallies, watching the debates, reading around on left and right forums, I got to thinking he had a serious chance.
I thought I was going crazy and that's why I'm kind of hating "the media" right now.
I wasn't prepared for it cuz I was'nt thinking that hard. But 538 gave Trump something like 1/3 chance near the end, I forget the actual number. And I think they've done good work so their numbers were reliable. him having a weaker, but real chance was very estimable, and that's what the estimators were showing.
Why would you think he can't possibly win? you weren't relying on german, or other foreign media were you? 5:1 odds still means a 1/6 chance of winning (or something like that, I forget how betting odds work). and 1/6 is far from nothing.
I wasn't relying on German media. I was already around following US elections a bit when W. Bush won against Gore which was the point where I got disappointed in foreign media reporting on US things. At that time the news and commentary in magazines here made it appear as if it would be completely impossible for Gore to lose. They didn't really describe reasons for anyone to vote for Bush.
This change to a more respectable chance was pretty recent for fivethirtyeight.com, I think? It was originally super low. I remember it didn't help rationalize my bet.
I'm not paying much attention to the rest of that article, I just needed a graph over time for 538.
I'm interested what your response is after reviewing that. and which media your complaint is about.
I was betting when it started pulling up according to that history graph, when it was going above 20%, so according to the graph it was fine to bet at 5:1 odds but that's not how it felt. You want to bet if you think you have better information than other people. I was guessing chances being close to 50% was realistic. It was super hard to compartmentalize at the time as this felt very wrong whenever reading and watching media. I have to admit this is all based on feelings. If I could sit down and analyse whatever media I had seen at that time, I might find out I'm wrong.
Mr Trump, who has pledged repeatedly to repeal the 2010 law, signalled he was receptive to a compromise after visiting the White House on Thursday. He told the Wall Street Journal he favours keeping two main parts of the bill because "I like those very much". One is a ban on insurers denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. The other provision that the president-elect told the newspaper he favours allows young adults to be insured on their parents' policies.
Honestly, people are a bit too up in arms about the percentages. Unless it was that absurd 97% Hillary chance that one paper gave, if you play poker a lot, you'll know that even AA vs KK is 80% to 20%, and every poker player thinks that's too high even because their aces get cracked all the time. Probabilities are rough.
On November 12 2016 07:02 TheTenthDoc wrote: I think 538 deserves infinitely more flak for focusing on their ad hoc primary prediction "let's all predict state outcomes than compile them" gibberish during the primaries, rather than what the polls were projecting in each state, than their predictions in the general.
I mean, they even said multiple times towards the end of the race that a 3-4 point Clinton lead was still scary because cross-state polling errors and an overall polling error of 2 points could easily result in a popular vote/electoral college split-their model gave Trump crappy odds when Clinton had like a 6-7 point national lead, and I guarantee you if we'd held the election then we would be looking forward to Madame President.
Yeah, though I think they took a big bite out of that flak by really copping up to it. They've said numerous times that they screwed up massively. It's a lot harder to hold someone's feet to the fire when they end up apologizing for the mistake immediately.
@LegalLord Good read!
Oh, I agree, them admitting to the primary screw-up is the main reason I kept tuning in. I actually think it's somewhat tragic in that people slam them for their model not predicting Trump's wins in the primaries, when the actual poll-based model did a pretty good job of predicting each primary outcome as they happened.
Mr Trump, who has pledged repeatedly to repeal the 2010 law, signalled he was receptive to a compromise after visiting the White House on Thursday. He told the Wall Street Journal he favours keeping two main parts of the bill because "I like those very much". One is a ban on insurers denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. The other provision that the president-elect told the newspaper he favours allows young adults to be insured on their parents' policies.
I have no idea how you can remove the individual mandate, the exchanges, and most of the rest of the ACA and keep those provisions. Well, you can always destroy the public health and research funding it created I guess, that's easy enough. I hope Trump and the GOP are the policy wizards people claimed Ryan was back in the day.
On November 12 2016 05:49 zlefin wrote: pmh -> do you have proof of that? or merely your claims and allegations? that you claim it was extremely biased doesn't make it so. People claim biases all the time, often they are wrong.
if you think current media wouldn't report on watergate, then I question your understanding of the media.
I'm seriously disappointed with the media. Were you prepared for Trump winning the election? What did you think the chances were? Did you think it was a 50:50 chance? For myself, I blame the media misinforming about the situation.
I've bet 60€ on Trump winning in October because I thought he might actually have a chance (betting odds were 5:1). This was really hard to do. I was seriously scared while betting and the only reason for that was mainstream media. While reading and watching commentary about events, I couldn't help but think he can't possibly win. Meanwhile, when watching his rallies or Clinton rallies, watching the debates, reading around on left and right forums, I got to thinking he had a serious chance.
I thought I was going crazy and that's why I'm kind of hating "the media" right now.
I wasn't prepared for it cuz I was'nt thinking that hard. But 538 gave Trump something like 1/3 chance near the end, I forget the actual number. And I think they've done good work so their numbers were reliable. him having a weaker, but real chance was very estimable, and that's what the estimators were showing.
Why would you think he can't possibly win? you weren't relying on german, or other foreign media were you? 5:1 odds still means a 1/6 chance of winning (or something like that, I forget how betting odds work). and 1/6 is far from nothing.
I wasn't relying on German media. I was already around following US elections a bit when W. Bush won against Gore which was the point where I got disappointed in foreign media reporting on US things. At that time the news and commentary in magazines here made it appear as if it would be completely impossible for Gore to lose. They didn't really describe reasons for anyone to vote for Bush.
This change to a more respectable chance was pretty recent for fivethirtyeight.com, I think? It was originally super low. I remember it didn't help rationalize my bet.
I'm not paying much attention to the rest of that article, I just needed a graph over time for 538.
I'm interested what your response is after reviewing that. and which media your complaint is about.
I was betting when it started pulling up according to that history graph, when it was going above 20%, so according to the graph it was fine to bet at 5:1 odds but that's not how it felt. You want to bet if you think you have better information than other people. I was guessing chances being close to 50% was realistic. It was super hard to compartmentalize at the time as this felt very wrong whenever reading and watching media. I have to admit this is all based on feelings. If I could sit down and analyse whatever media I had seen at that time, I might find out I'm wrong.
well, there's some media archived i'm sure that you could look through; not sure if it's worth the bother though. It's VERY common for people's perceptions to be inaccurate, there's reams of studies that document ways in which it can occur. It'd also depend on which sources you were using potentially.
re: legal post needs a tldr, read some of it. some good points.
My only general note on the topic is Jefferson v Hamilton, debates about rural vs cities were already a thing at the start of the nation.
Mr Trump, who has pledged repeatedly to repeal the 2010 law, signalled he was receptive to a compromise after visiting the White House on Thursday. He told the Wall Street Journal he favours keeping two main parts of the bill because "I like those very much". One is a ban on insurers denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. The other provision that the president-elect told the newspaper he favours allows young adults to be insured on their parents' policies.
Mr Trump, who has pledged repeatedly to repeal the 2010 law, signalled he was receptive to a compromise after visiting the White House on Thursday. He told the Wall Street Journal he favours keeping two main parts of the bill because "I like those very much". One is a ban on insurers denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. The other provision that the president-elect told the newspaper he favours allows young adults to be insured on their parents' policies.
wtf is going on
do you want speculation? it's not clear what you're asking for, so it's hard to answer.
Mr Trump, who has pledged repeatedly to repeal the 2010 law, signalled he was receptive to a compromise after visiting the White House on Thursday. He told the Wall Street Journal he favours keeping two main parts of the bill because "I like those very much". One is a ban on insurers denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. The other provision that the president-elect told the newspaper he favours allows young adults to be insured on their parents' policies.
I'm not surprised. Anyone who wanted to remove Obamacare in it's entirety is either really stupid or really ignorant.
Most of it's provisions are actually not all that controversial and even most Republicans were in favor of them (the two that Trump likes happen to be examples of that). The controversial components like the exchanges just happened to eat up all the media attention and make people who hadn't actually read the ACA think those were the whole thing. Repealing the whole bill just to get rid of the parts you don't like is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The tl;dr is that there is a rural-city divide, that globalization harms the rural folk, and Trump promised them what is good for them so they got him elected. But when is the last time people needed one of those?
Looks like someone sane is on Trump's team that is keeping his chances of doing a good job alive. I had a feeling, based on historical precedent, that some parts of the ACA might survive. I'm mostly happy with these policy changes I've recently heard, they seem very smart.
legal -> ah, I missed a part at the start which makes things make more sense. Trump is using an irregular definition of "inner cities" which you use throughout the post; which is contrary to the normal usage of the term.
There seems to be a problem with "the right?" articulating these problems and the empathy that Trump's message was generating did not reach the outside audience. Probably an element of media bias, but I remember a couple months ago this thread mentioned that journalists by far are more liberal than conservative, which can't be helping this problem. Of course it's also not helped by the media not picking up the stories that they do, which now turns back into the media bubble problem.
On November 12 2016 07:19 LegalLord wrote: The tl;dr is that there is a rural-city divide, that globalization harms the rural folk, and Trump promised them what is good for them so they got him elected. But when is the last time people needed one of those?
Looks like someone sane is on Trump's team that is keeping his chances of doing a good job alive. I had a feeling, based on historical precedent, that some parts of the ACA might survive. I'm mostly happy with these policy changes I've recently heard, they seem very smart.
Likely we'll see a Republican healthcare act that looks suspiciously like the ACA but with some stuff tweaked and then passed off to their voters as the best thing since the smartphone.
On November 12 2016 07:23 Blisse wrote: There seems to be a problem with "the right?" articulating these problems and the empathy that Trump's message was generating. Maybe it was the media covering it up, but I remember a couple months ago this thread mentioned that journalists by far are more liberal than conservative, which can't be helping this problem. Of course not helped by the media not picking up the stories that they do, which now turns back into the media bubble problem.
The other problem is that "the right" wasn't really addressing the problem either, though they did pay lip service to it like everyone else. Going out there and boldly making an "America first" message gave him the chance to stage a coup on the Republican leadership. They stuck by Trump because Trump basically promised them what they want. Dismantling trade deals does a lot for them, for example, and that seems to be a core of his policy.
On November 12 2016 07:19 LegalLord wrote: The tl;dr is that there is a rural-city divide, that globalization harms the rural folk, and Trump promised them what is good for them so they got him elected. But when is the last time people needed one of those?
Looks like someone sane is on Trump's team that is keeping his chances of doing a good job alive. I had a feeling, based on historical precedent, that some parts of the ACA might survive. I'm mostly happy with these policy changes I've recently heard, they seem very smart.
He promised them what they preferred to hear. I'd strongly contest that it is good for them. There's a very obvious inverse relation between productivity and labour. As sectors get more productive there's less opportunity for employment.
It's not that there's no manufacturing in the US, it's just that you don't need people for it. You can't bring jobs back that don't exist anymore. Trump could as well have proposed to fight unemployment by bringing back elevator operators.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i2.wp.com/espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/silver-polls-2.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=575&ssl=1)
![[image loading]](http://www.heritage.org/~/media/images/reports/2010/b2476/b2476_chart5.ashx?w=500&h=620&as=1)
