|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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. |
On February 09 2017 09:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 08:56 cLutZ wrote:On February 09 2017 08:35 LegalLord wrote:
Profit is an utterly terrible predictor of public welfare, which is the deeper issue here. It is, for example, much more profitable to sell decades' worth of pills than to develop a one-off cure to a specific problem. We also get disgusting issues like the EpiPen matter.
I would honestly rather the issue of where to focus medical R&D efforts be decided by a committee of experts rather than by profit incentives. Decisions by committee are rarely looked upon positively but in this case it would make sense since it would support the proper incentive of improving public welfare. I just simply do not see how that could end up turning out well. As someone who worked in a medical devices lab, the current government grant process is...really abysmal. Honestly, I'd need a series of whitepapers describing a potential system to even begin to be convinced it would work moderately well. On February 09 2017 08:43 KwarK wrote:
Not at all. You can know ahead of time that you're going to be selling at different prices in different regions and allocate the overhead between them accordingly. Any time you have an increase in sales over the marginal cost you get an overall reduction in the overhead allocated to each unit, even if some units are sold at a loss given total cost including sunk costs. Like I said, this is counter-intuitive, but it's still true.
Imagine you have a car and you're planning a road trip that will cost $50 in gas. You've currently got two people who want to go to that destination and each of them value getting there at $20. $50 > 2*$20, trip cancelled, nobody goes. But you still have two empty seats in the car. If you can find another guy who values getting there at $10 then you should still give him a seat, despite the fact that $50/3 = $17 and $17 > $10. And now our road trip is on. Find a fourth guy who values getting there at $1 and he gets a seat too. As long as they can't sell each other tickets you're good to go.
Your argument is that the first two guys are subsidizing the other two. It's true from one perspective, they're paying a disproportionately large share of the gas. But your conclusion, that the guy with $10 and the guy with $1 are holding back the road trip, that's completely false. Until you let them chip in gas money for seats there was no road trip.
You can use this argument forwards as well as backwards. It doesn't matter whether you've already started the road trip or not. Even if you're still in the planning stage of the road trip you still factor in all four of them. Those extra $11 from the other two passengers are critical to the decision making process. You may be making a loss on them but the road trip isn't happening without them.
The profits from sales over marginal cost, even if they're losses when compared to total cost, are still relevant. And accountants know this, and they take them into account when deciding where to allocate R&D money. Collective buyers who use their purchasing power to negotiate rates between total cost and marginal cost can still be allocated R&D overhead and still increase the overall R&D budget available to a project. Dealing with those collective buyers makes R&D a better prospect, not a worse one, even if they must sell the drug at a loss. The point I'm making is that the $17 guys would be disappearing. In your analogy. If you're referring to the $20 guys, doesn't apply. We're talking about negotiated national monopolies. These are captive markets without the ability to trade with each other. The $20 a seat guys benefit, previously they were in a car with $40 of gas money from the two of them, now they've got $51 of gas money. More passengers bringing more gas money is always better (assuming you have room for them), even if the gas money they're bringing is below the total cost divided by the passengers. Gas money = R&D money. More customers buying over marginal cost = more R&D money. Collective bargainers that say "I'll bring another 50 passengers, but we're only paying $3 a seat" still increase the R&D budget and still fund research that wouldn't be possible without them.
America is the $20 guy. Right now. That is what I've been saying.
|
On February 09 2017 09:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 08:51 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2017 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 08:35 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
I try not to correlate public opinion too much with how votes would go. 90 percent of people support gun background checks for example but good luck getting that through congress.
also 70 percent support funding planned parenthood 70 percent ish believe climate change is real etc. That's the point. Congress doesn't represent their voters, they represent their contributors. That's how you get 90% support for something in the country, but less than 50% in congress. What we are trying to say is that public opinion poll also does not represent the specific state demographics that were the hold out votes back then. There were two hold out democrats in the Senate if I remember correctly. They most of the other 58 on board for whatever. Is the same explanation being used for universal background checks? On February 09 2017 08:53 Nevuk wrote:
Specifically the hold out was Joe Lieberman. And Ben Nelson who went on to work for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners as CEO. I guess it's fine to chalk it up to circumstances, but where was the anger from elected Democrats about their own party stopping what Americans actually wanted for their healthcare.? They were angry. The progressives tried to primary Joe Lieberman and failed. He left the party. I can't remember what happened to Ben Nelson, but bet there was some blow back. The ACA is likely going to pave the way for single payer down the road to fix its problems. Assume it doesn't get destroyed by this congress. But that is looking less and less likely as the house and senate realize they cannot deliver that unicorn they promised. Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 09:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:
There was pretty significant blowback against the Dems. Many viewed it as the establishment fucking up.
But in 2009 a Senator making one policy decision the base disagreed with was not sufficient reason to scream "crush them in their next primary" so there you are.
Blowback just meant something different before the hyperpartisan social mediasphere came to dominate both parties. The death of Ted Kennedy and the election of Scott Brown made them slam the bill through. I bet if it went longer it might have ended in single payer, but I could be wrong.
So yeah, establishment Democrats didn't speak out about it.
What about the universal background checks? Why doesn't that get passed with ~90% support among Americans?
|
On February 09 2017 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 09:03 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2017 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 08:51 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2017 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 08:35 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
I try not to correlate public opinion too much with how votes would go. 90 percent of people support gun background checks for example but good luck getting that through congress.
also 70 percent support funding planned parenthood 70 percent ish believe climate change is real etc. That's the point. Congress doesn't represent their voters, they represent their contributors. That's how you get 90% support for something in the country, but less than 50% in congress. What we are trying to say is that public opinion poll also does not represent the specific state demographics that were the hold out votes back then. There were two hold out democrats in the Senate if I remember correctly. They most of the other 58 on board for whatever. Is the same explanation being used for universal background checks? On February 09 2017 08:53 Nevuk wrote:
Specifically the hold out was Joe Lieberman. And Ben Nelson who went on to work for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners as CEO. I guess it's fine to chalk it up to circumstances, but where was the anger from elected Democrats about their own party stopping what Americans actually wanted for their healthcare.? They were angry. The progressives tried to primary Joe Lieberman and failed. He left the party. I can't remember what happened to Ben Nelson, but bet there was some blow back. The ACA is likely going to pave the way for single payer down the road to fix its problems. Assume it doesn't get destroyed by this congress. But that is looking less and less likely as the house and senate realize they cannot deliver that unicorn they promised. On February 09 2017 09:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:
There was pretty significant blowback against the Dems. Many viewed it as the establishment fucking up.
But in 2009 a Senator making one policy decision the base disagreed with was not sufficient reason to scream "crush them in their next primary" so there you are.
Blowback just meant something different before the hyperpartisan social mediasphere came to dominate both parties. The death of Ted Kennedy and the election of Scott Brown made them slam the bill through. I bet if it went longer it might have ended in single payer, but I could be wrong. So yeah, establishment Democrats didn't speak out about it. What about the universal background checks? Why doesn't that get passed with ~90% support among Americans?
Are the background requirements and grounds for disqualification agreed on, or are those polls just "Do you want background checks" as a broad question?
|
I wonder to what extent american medicine has the problem of well-meaning requirements meant to ensure minimum/higher standards of care end up raising the prices by excluding the possibility of lower levels of care that some people might still find acceptable.
i.e. similar effects to the problems with various zoning regulations that raise the price of housing and can price the poor out of neighborhoods.
|
On February 09 2017 09:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 09:03 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2017 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 08:51 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2017 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 08:35 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
I try not to correlate public opinion too much with how votes would go. 90 percent of people support gun background checks for example but good luck getting that through congress.
also 70 percent support funding planned parenthood 70 percent ish believe climate change is real etc. That's the point. Congress doesn't represent their voters, they represent their contributors. That's how you get 90% support for something in the country, but less than 50% in congress. What we are trying to say is that public opinion poll also does not represent the specific state demographics that were the hold out votes back then. There were two hold out democrats in the Senate if I remember correctly. They most of the other 58 on board for whatever. Is the same explanation being used for universal background checks? On February 09 2017 08:53 Nevuk wrote:
Specifically the hold out was Joe Lieberman. And Ben Nelson who went on to work for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners as CEO. I guess it's fine to chalk it up to circumstances, but where was the anger from elected Democrats about their own party stopping what Americans actually wanted for their healthcare.? They were angry. The progressives tried to primary Joe Lieberman and failed. He left the party. I can't remember what happened to Ben Nelson, but bet there was some blow back. The ACA is likely going to pave the way for single payer down the road to fix its problems. Assume it doesn't get destroyed by this congress. But that is looking less and less likely as the house and senate realize they cannot deliver that unicorn they promised. On February 09 2017 09:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:
There was pretty significant blowback against the Dems. Many viewed it as the establishment fucking up.
But in 2009 a Senator making one policy decision the base disagreed with was not sufficient reason to scream "crush them in their next primary" so there you are.
Blowback just meant something different before the hyperpartisan social mediasphere came to dominate both parties. The death of Ted Kennedy and the election of Scott Brown made them slam the bill through. I bet if it went longer it might have ended in single payer, but I could be wrong. So yeah, establishment Democrats didn't speak out about it. What about the universal background checks? Why doesn't that get passed with ~90% support among Americans? Are the background requirements and grounds for disqualification agreed on, or are those polls just "Do you want background checks" as a broad question?
I imagine most people are presuming the same grounds as the already existing background checks just not making it as easy to avoid them
|
On February 09 2017 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 09:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 09 2017 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 09:03 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2017 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 08:51 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2017 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 08:35 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
I try not to correlate public opinion too much with how votes would go. 90 percent of people support gun background checks for example but good luck getting that through congress.
also 70 percent support funding planned parenthood 70 percent ish believe climate change is real etc. That's the point. Congress doesn't represent their voters, they represent their contributors. That's how you get 90% support for something in the country, but less than 50% in congress. What we are trying to say is that public opinion poll also does not represent the specific state demographics that were the hold out votes back then. There were two hold out democrats in the Senate if I remember correctly. They most of the other 58 on board for whatever. Is the same explanation being used for universal background checks? On February 09 2017 08:53 Nevuk wrote:
Specifically the hold out was Joe Lieberman. And Ben Nelson who went on to work for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners as CEO. I guess it's fine to chalk it up to circumstances, but where was the anger from elected Democrats about their own party stopping what Americans actually wanted for their healthcare.? They were angry. The progressives tried to primary Joe Lieberman and failed. He left the party. I can't remember what happened to Ben Nelson, but bet there was some blow back. The ACA is likely going to pave the way for single payer down the road to fix its problems. Assume it doesn't get destroyed by this congress. But that is looking less and less likely as the house and senate realize they cannot deliver that unicorn they promised. On February 09 2017 09:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:
There was pretty significant blowback against the Dems. Many viewed it as the establishment fucking up.
But in 2009 a Senator making one policy decision the base disagreed with was not sufficient reason to scream "crush them in their next primary" so there you are.
Blowback just meant something different before the hyperpartisan social mediasphere came to dominate both parties. The death of Ted Kennedy and the election of Scott Brown made them slam the bill through. I bet if it went longer it might have ended in single payer, but I could be wrong. So yeah, establishment Democrats didn't speak out about it. What about the universal background checks? Why doesn't that get passed with ~90% support among Americans? Are the background requirements and grounds for disqualification agreed on, or are those polls just "Do you want background checks" as a broad question? I imagine most people are presuming the same grounds as the already existing background checks just not making it as easy to avoid them
Well, that was kind of the point of my question. When you ask "why doesn't that get passed...", I'd assume that there is actually a "that". Like, a defined criteria rather than a vague concept.
I'd guess that defining what a background check entails is where the issue will always fall apart.
|
On February 09 2017 09:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 09:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 09 2017 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 09:03 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2017 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 08:51 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2017 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 08:35 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
I try not to correlate public opinion too much with how votes would go. 90 percent of people support gun background checks for example but good luck getting that through congress.
also 70 percent support funding planned parenthood 70 percent ish believe climate change is real etc. That's the point. Congress doesn't represent their voters, they represent their contributors. That's how you get 90% support for something in the country, but less than 50% in congress. What we are trying to say is that public opinion poll also does not represent the specific state demographics that were the hold out votes back then. There were two hold out democrats in the Senate if I remember correctly. They most of the other 58 on board for whatever. Is the same explanation being used for universal background checks? On February 09 2017 08:53 Nevuk wrote:
Specifically the hold out was Joe Lieberman. And Ben Nelson who went on to work for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners as CEO. I guess it's fine to chalk it up to circumstances, but where was the anger from elected Democrats about their own party stopping what Americans actually wanted for their healthcare.? They were angry. The progressives tried to primary Joe Lieberman and failed. He left the party. I can't remember what happened to Ben Nelson, but bet there was some blow back. The ACA is likely going to pave the way for single payer down the road to fix its problems. Assume it doesn't get destroyed by this congress. But that is looking less and less likely as the house and senate realize they cannot deliver that unicorn they promised. On February 09 2017 09:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:
There was pretty significant blowback against the Dems. Many viewed it as the establishment fucking up.
But in 2009 a Senator making one policy decision the base disagreed with was not sufficient reason to scream "crush them in their next primary" so there you are.
Blowback just meant something different before the hyperpartisan social mediasphere came to dominate both parties. The death of Ted Kennedy and the election of Scott Brown made them slam the bill through. I bet if it went longer it might have ended in single payer, but I could be wrong. So yeah, establishment Democrats didn't speak out about it. What about the universal background checks? Why doesn't that get passed with ~90% support among Americans? Are the background requirements and grounds for disqualification agreed on, or are those polls just "Do you want background checks" as a broad question? I imagine most people are presuming the same grounds as the already existing background checks just not making it as easy to avoid them Well, that was kind of the point of my question. When you ask "why doesn't that get passed...", I'd assume that there is actually a "that". Like, a defined criteria rather than a vague concept. I'd guess that defining what a background check entails is where the issue will always fall apart.
That's how it's done. You may want to look into what those disagreements on what the details are and come back and let us know what you find.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
uh i typed up a big thing on r&d but basically it is not a singular market. different types of drugs/devices etc can be sustained by different regimes.
you can create a lottery system for rare diseases research right now that doesnt really interact with the mass market stuff. problem is there is no political capital behind something like this
|
On February 09 2017 10:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 09:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 09 2017 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 09:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 09 2017 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 09:03 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2017 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 08:51 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2017 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 08:35 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
I try not to correlate public opinion too much with how votes would go. 90 percent of people support gun background checks for example but good luck getting that through congress.
also 70 percent support funding planned parenthood 70 percent ish believe climate change is real etc. That's the point. Congress doesn't represent their voters, they represent their contributors. That's how you get 90% support for something in the country, but less than 50% in congress. What we are trying to say is that public opinion poll also does not represent the specific state demographics that were the hold out votes back then. There were two hold out democrats in the Senate if I remember correctly. They most of the other 58 on board for whatever. Is the same explanation being used for universal background checks? On February 09 2017 08:53 Nevuk wrote:
Specifically the hold out was Joe Lieberman. And Ben Nelson who went on to work for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners as CEO. I guess it's fine to chalk it up to circumstances, but where was the anger from elected Democrats about their own party stopping what Americans actually wanted for their healthcare.? They were angry. The progressives tried to primary Joe Lieberman and failed. He left the party. I can't remember what happened to Ben Nelson, but bet there was some blow back. The ACA is likely going to pave the way for single payer down the road to fix its problems. Assume it doesn't get destroyed by this congress. But that is looking less and less likely as the house and senate realize they cannot deliver that unicorn they promised. On February 09 2017 09:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:
There was pretty significant blowback against the Dems. Many viewed it as the establishment fucking up.
But in 2009 a Senator making one policy decision the base disagreed with was not sufficient reason to scream "crush them in their next primary" so there you are.
Blowback just meant something different before the hyperpartisan social mediasphere came to dominate both parties. The death of Ted Kennedy and the election of Scott Brown made them slam the bill through. I bet if it went longer it might have ended in single payer, but I could be wrong. So yeah, establishment Democrats didn't speak out about it. What about the universal background checks? Why doesn't that get passed with ~90% support among Americans? Are the background requirements and grounds for disqualification agreed on, or are those polls just "Do you want background checks" as a broad question? I imagine most people are presuming the same grounds as the already existing background checks just not making it as easy to avoid them Well, that was kind of the point of my question. When you ask "why doesn't that get passed...", I'd assume that there is actually a "that". Like, a defined criteria rather than a vague concept. I'd guess that defining what a background check entails is where the issue will always fall apart. That's how it's done. You may want to look into what those disagreements on what the details are and come back and let us know what you find.
Let me restate this to something more specific and actually important: was there a bill drafted and presented to the people being polled, did those people read that drafted bill and then vote if there were or weren't interested in that bill being passed?
|
Jeff Sessions has been confirmed as Attorney General, by the way.
|
Poll about Sessions:
+ Show Spoiler +Poll: is he racistyes (24) 86% no (4) 14% 28 total votes Your vote: is he racist (Vote): yes
(Vote): no
|
bah, the stuff I had to disable to make the site not crash on me prevents me from seeing polls (without going through a bunch of rigamarole). oh well.
|
On February 09 2017 10:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 10:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 09:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 09 2017 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 09:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 09 2017 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 09:03 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2017 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2017 08:51 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2017 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
That's the point. Congress doesn't represent their voters, they represent their contributors. That's how you get 90% support for something in the country, but less than 50% in congress. What we are trying to say is that public opinion poll also does not represent the specific state demographics that were the hold out votes back then. There were two hold out democrats in the Senate if I remember correctly. They most of the other 58 on board for whatever. Is the same explanation being used for universal background checks? On February 09 2017 08:53 Nevuk wrote:
Specifically the hold out was Joe Lieberman. And Ben Nelson who went on to work for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners as CEO. I guess it's fine to chalk it up to circumstances, but where was the anger from elected Democrats about their own party stopping what Americans actually wanted for their healthcare.? They were angry. The progressives tried to primary Joe Lieberman and failed. He left the party. I can't remember what happened to Ben Nelson, but bet there was some blow back. The ACA is likely going to pave the way for single payer down the road to fix its problems. Assume it doesn't get destroyed by this congress. But that is looking less and less likely as the house and senate realize they cannot deliver that unicorn they promised. On February 09 2017 09:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:
There was pretty significant blowback against the Dems. Many viewed it as the establishment fucking up.
But in 2009 a Senator making one policy decision the base disagreed with was not sufficient reason to scream "crush them in their next primary" so there you are.
Blowback just meant something different before the hyperpartisan social mediasphere came to dominate both parties. The death of Ted Kennedy and the election of Scott Brown made them slam the bill through. I bet if it went longer it might have ended in single payer, but I could be wrong. So yeah, establishment Democrats didn't speak out about it. What about the universal background checks? Why doesn't that get passed with ~90% support among Americans? Are the background requirements and grounds for disqualification agreed on, or are those polls just "Do you want background checks" as a broad question? I imagine most people are presuming the same grounds as the already existing background checks just not making it as easy to avoid them Well, that was kind of the point of my question. When you ask "why doesn't that get passed...", I'd assume that there is actually a "that". Like, a defined criteria rather than a vague concept. I'd guess that defining what a background check entails is where the issue will always fall apart. That's how it's done. You may want to look into what those disagreements on what the details are and come back and let us know what you find. Let me restate this to something more specific and actually important: was there a bill drafted and presented to the people being polled, did those people read that drafted bill and then vote if there were or weren't interested in that bill being passed?
Is there ever, and even if there are, do you honestly think people appropriately process it? But for what it's worth, actual legislation did pass in NV.
On February 09 2017 10:18 biology]major wrote:Poll about Sessions: + Show Spoiler +Poll: is he racistyes (24) 86% no (4) 14% 28 total votes Your vote: is he racist (Vote): yes
(Vote): no
Most (if not all) of Congress is racist, it's more a matter of degrees than either or. I suppose if were just using the conservative definition of racist, it's hard to say if he is now, but it's undeniable he was.
|
On February 09 2017 10:16 Nevuk wrote:
Jeff Sessions has been confirmed as Attorney General, by the way.
He's going to do a great job, three cheers!
|
Sessions represents a brand of social conservatism that I find to be far too extreme for my taste. That said, a lot of it isn't directly relevant to his role as attorney general.
At the very least, we can expect from Sessions a level of experience and competence that exceeds what we've seen from the rest of the Trump administration thus far.
|
Sessions was confirmed 52-47, Manchin crossed party lines. (Not a particularly surprising thing, Manchin is the bluest of blue dogs nowadays).
My only real objection to Sessions in the role of AG is about his extreme views on marijuana, as any other extremely problematic thing he does is likely to be tied to Trump in general, but I'm not really sure how well positioned Sessions will be to go against the states on the issue.
|
I agree with Yango and Nevuk about Sessions. Ironically his opinion on religious freedom being equally applied to Muslims is probably another aspect that will need to be minded, particularly in Trump's administration (Ban).
As has been suggested by conservative posters here, Jeff Sessions role is to be Trump's personal lawyer and defend his actions whether they are constitutional or not (or resign).
So I suppose the concern is that he'll side with defending Trump over the constitution or going into the private sector (since he won't be a senator anymore).
|
i'd prefer nominees that can get approved by wide margins.
haven't followed sessions closely enough to have a highly accurate assessment on him in particular.
|
I expect Sessions will do nothing damaging beyond aggressive indifference that board-lines on malice to civil rights issues. It is sort of amazing that he and Rick Perry are the nominees I had the fewest problems with.
|
On February 09 2017 10:46 Plansix wrote:
I expect Sessions will do nothing damaging beyond aggressive indifference that board-lines on malice to civil rights issues. It is sort of amazing that he and Rick Perry are the nominees I had the fewest problems with.
Tom Price?
Mattis?
Kelly?
Shulkin?
Zinke?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
