Making America Greater

David:
Memorial Day has just passed, and we remember and honor those that died defending our country and the American way of life, with all of our guaranteed freedoms. When it was founded, our country was unique in its premise that the populace could govern itself. Many other countries have since modeled their governments after ours.

What do you think are some things Americans can work on together to make the country better?

Doug:
What is that "American way of life"? What are those "guaranteed freedoms"? What countries are you thinking of that modelled themselves after the USA?

There are lots of things that we can do to make our country better. First, we need to admit that we have problems. Then look to other countries that have solutions.

David:
Because I know you, I'll assume you are just being facetious rather than being ignorant of US and world history. But just in case: before the US fought for our independence and established our constitution, the rest of the world had been largely established as monarchies and dictatorships. Ancient Greece and Rome had gone through periods of democracy and a republic, but had devolved into government by emperor before their subsequent declines. Borrowing heavily from those periods, our founders crafted a balanced republican form of government that most of Europe has embraced.

As for our freedoms, I'll refer you to the Bill of Rights. We have the freedom to travel, to speak our minds, to work in whatever field we wish (or to start our own businesses if we wish). Our American way of life and the freedoms we enjoy are what brings immigrants from all over the world to come and become Americans.

So again, what things can Americans work together on to make the country even better?

Doug:
You can't start your own business if you have no money. You can't travel if you have no money. You can't protest if you would lose your job. The trouble with our country is the difference between what those pieces of paper say, and reality. It is getting harder and harder to make ends meet for a majority of US workers. Our country is worse off now than it has ever been due to the disparity between those that have, and those that have not. How can we work together to fix that?

David:
You can start your own business if you want to, or at least you could have a decade ago. There was a poll a few years ago that indicated that almost half of Americans had an idea to start a business, but didn't because they felt there were too many regulations. They didn't mention anything about obtaining loans or finding cash for the venture, just the overwhelming regulations that now exist. When governmental interference stifles entrepreneurship, a key portion of what made America great has been lost. Cutting down the size and scope of government is a way to help small business.

Doug:
That doesn't sound like any of the businesses that I know about. There is very little regulation on software development or its use. Not enough regulation in my mind. Who knows who can buy your data from Facebook? Can that data be linked to data from Google? Europe has much better regulations.

David:
Immigrants continue to come to this country with almost nothing. And yet many of them continue to succeed. We have had to cut down several ash trees in our yard that succumbed to the ash bore. We hired a start-up company of hispanics who are first-generation immigrants from Mexico. They started the business with one old truck, a chainsaw, and several members of the family. The last time we called them up to remove another tree, they now have several trucks and work crews, and new equipment. Hard work and a dream still works in America.

Doug:
Cool! An anecdote! How much can you extrapolate from one instance? It doesn't sound like you believe the country can get any better.

David:
What would make you say that? The country is great because of the inventiveness and drive of the people who live here. As long as government, regulations, or high taxes don't interfere, American ingenuity will continue to create and imaginer things that will make our lives better. That is the American way.

An error I think Democrats continue to make is the idea that this is a zero-sum game. There is not a set about of cash in the world. If I make a dollar, then someone else forfeited a dollar. If I get rich, someone else gets poorer. That isn't how economics works. I can make a dollar, and so can every one else.

Doug:
If a company makes a dollar, those profits are spread across the employees, bosses, and shareholders. It is a zero-sum game! If the boss makes more, then there is less for everyone else. You don't have to be in the rocket manufacturing business to understand the growing income inequality.

David:
Ooooo, a graph.  Unfortunately, your graph is showing wages, not wealth in the real world.

" In the 1960s, for instance, nearly a third of poor households had no telephone. Today, not only are telephones nearly universal, but roughly half of poor households own a computer. More than 98 percent have a television, and two-thirds have two or more TVs. In 1970, less than half of all poor people had a car; today, two-thirds do.⁷² Clearly, the material circumstances of poor families have improved significantly despite any possible increase in inequality."

The following graph indicates that although income inequality has grown, the lowest quintile of the population has continued to consume goods at exactly the same rate as in 2000. Inequality of income does not equal a decrease in buying power.

You're arguing two totally different things here. There has been a growing income inequality between the richest and the poorest, but the money flowing within the entire economy has nothing to do with a single company's profits. If the company makes more money, then everyone at the company can make more money, or the company can hire more people at the same salary.  There is not a finite amount of money in the world, that everyone is fighting over. While the top 10% has increased their wealth, mainly through the stock market, the poorest 10% have also shown an increase in their wealth and have maintained their buying power for goods and services.

Doug:
I wish you were correct, but you are not. It is true that many more people have TVs, computers, cars, and mobile phones now than they did in 1960. But it is also true that household debt (mortgage and credit card) is increasing, savings are decreasing, and people have to work more for less:

David:
But again, now that governmental regulations are decreasing, investors are once again investing in companies, and companies are expanding and hiring. The way to put money in someone's pocket is to provide them with a job. Making it easier for investors to invest, and for companies to expand and hire workers is a way to improve the quality of life for Americans.

Doug:
Many of my friends who have started startups were very excited about Obamacare because it allowed them to leave their company and start a new one, without risk of losing their healthcare. That looks like it will change, for the worse.

I think voodoo trickle-down economics was disproved a long time ago. Such a great country that people can continue to believe whatever they want! USA! USA!

David:
You don't understand your own mantra. Supply -side economics, the actual term for what we are discussing, provides for more earned incomes across the spectrum. Wealth doesn't trickle, but productivity, employment opportunities, and general population wealth increases.

"Higher taxes on the rich mean that those people have less wealth to invest, donate, and spend, while the government has more for its purposes. The taxpayers usually are pretty careful with their own money, but politicians are notorious for squandering it. When they throw scarce resources into boondoggles like “green energy” companies or websites that don’t work, they make the country poorer for having wasted resources that could have been put to better use.
Far from “stimulating” the economy, most government spending simply gives a few people a temporary income boost that does no lasting good. Here’s one of my favorite stories about the “stimulus package” of 2009, told to me by a friend who lives in western Maryland. One of the “stimulus” projects (as announced by a big sign that itself was a waste of resources) consisted of laying sod in the median of a highway.
The locals all knew what would happen. Winter would kill the grass, which it did. The labor had been wasted and the sod had been wasted. That’s what happens when politicians make decisions about the use of money they have taken by force. You wouldn’t pay for sod where you know it won’t grow, but politicians will.
If anything, the epithet “trickle-down” applies to the government method of taxing those who earn money so that officials can then do with that money as they please. A little of the money will be given to the poor through giveaway programs such as Food Stamps and Obamaphones, but most of it will wind up in the pockets of much wealthier, politically-connected people who know how to play the system.
What poor people should want is more freedom and more growth, so they will have better opportunities."

Freedom of opportunity is what makes America great. Making sure the government doesn't interfere with that freedom, or enact rules that actually make things worse, will make the country better.

#Partisanship

David:
Has the political climate become too partisan too actually allow for anything productive to be accomplished in Washington anymore? Do you think social media has made this much worse than it has been in the past? What can be done to improve the partisan climate?

Doug:
Things should get done in Washington when a majority of people agree on an agenda. One would think that when one party controls the Presidency, the House, and the Senate, that that would imply that they could implement their agenda. But they haven't been able to. I believe that is because they really don't have a common agenda that their constituents understand. For example, the Republican party platform is "Obamacare is bad" but most Americans want affordable healthcare. It is impossible to reconcile (literally) these two positions.

David:
Perhaps you should just stick with your own party's platform which states you must be pro-choice to be a Democrat, and God is dead.

Doug:
Since it is National Brother Day, I'll just let that slide. And Happy National Brother Day!

David:
Ditto. It's also National Asparagus Day and International Tiara Day. Perhaps you could wear a tiara made out of asparagus. Tasty and good looking.

The Republican platform is much more involved, and won the Presidency. People want affordable health insurance, which is why Republicans won with the promise to repeal Obamacare. The new health insurance bill is just a start, and hopefully will get some Democrats on board as it moves forward. Bipartisanship is needed to reach a bill that is structured to benefit the most Americans. Obamacare is not sustainable. Democrats should be sitting at the table.

Doug:
I think we are seeing a new kind of partisanship, but it isn't between Left and Right. It is between Right and Far Right. The problem is that gerrymandering has created safe seats where extreme Far Right views have been able to have a larger impact than their numbers of constituents would allow. Therefore, the frozen Republican party is attempting to represent all of their members, but can't. Does social media and the rise of fake news make the situation worse? Absolutely. But the problem is bigger than that.

David:
So your definition of bipartisanship is to cooperate with only your own political party? Bipartisanship means working across the aisle. No wonder Democrats aren't cooperating. They don't think people are talking about them when they say we need bipartisanship.

As to your gerrymandering-is-the-reason-Republicans-have-control argument, many districts across the country voted for Clinton for POTUS and a Republican for Congress, or they voted for Trump, but a Democrat for Congress. There are over 1000 seats across the country that were held by Democrats when Obama entered the White House and now are Republican. Did Democrats gerrymander those districts to put Republicans in their place? There are "safe seats" for both the extreme right and the extreme left because people who live in those districts are more extreme than in the past. Politicians must still get elected by majorities within their districts. The country is becoming more polarized, and social media is amplifying the voices of the extreme partisans.

Although Democrats began the Obama years with control of all of the government, they also had a supermajority in the Senate. And they forced through Obamacare along strictly party lines. There was no bipartisanship there. Currently, Republicans have a very narrow majority, and Democrats have made it their goal to oppose anything that Republicans do in Washington. As we have seen, a handful of Democrats can block just about anything from moving forward. Have we entered a new era in government where the only things that can happen are by Presidential fiat through executive orders or supermajorities? Has Congress, through its inability to work together, become a stagnant pool in the swamp?

My question is: have things become so partisan that common ground cannot be found? How has social media made the partisanship within Washington toxic? If a Democrat joins with Republicans to vote on a better health-care plan, would he be instantly branded a traitor to the cause and vilified? Would a Republican joining with Democrats suffer the same fate? What do you think can be done to promote bipartisanship and cooperation?

Doug:
When the Republican party wants to eliminate government, or greatly lessen its use, then there isn't much to agree with. We need to get back to electing people that know what government is, and how to make it work for us.

David:
So your answer is Democrats are not interested in bipartisanship or cooperation. Government must get bigger. Government must have more control. If you're not for that, then we won't work with you. Apparently, you believe that only Democrats even know what government is. That seems to me to be a foolish thing to say. Republicans and Democrats have different philosophies of what role government should have. That difference of opinion has been there since our founding, between those who supported a strong, central federal government, and those that favored a weaker federal government and more state control. Both Hamilton and Adams on the one side, and men like Jefferson on the other, understood what government was and how it should be used. You apparently believe Thomas Jefferson should never have been elected.

Here's an interesting TED Talk about partisanship:

Can a Divided America Heal Itself?

Doug:
If you have never spoken to an academic elite, this is what it sounds like. Jonathan Haidt is a typical professor. Whether the topic is climate science, computer science, or social psychologist, you will often find sound, rational comments. That is not to say that all academics agree. In fact there are some that find Haidt's framing of the issue problematic. "Social psychologist John Jost wrote that Haidt 'mocks the liberal vision of a tolerant, pluralistic, civil society, but, ironically, this is precisely where he wants to end up.'" But Haidt makes some good points, and most of his comments are a cogent, straightforward understanding of social psychology. Note that these comments were right before the election when Clinton was expected to win. I wonder what he might say now?

What he says can be considered useful throughout time and place. The idea of tribalism is relevant now, 1,000 years ago, and probably in the future. It was relevant during the rise of Hitler, and after WWII. But that doesn't give us a clue as to what we should do, what actions we can take. However, I believe that there are also people studying this same topics attempting to take advantage of us. There are people attempting to use the facts of human nature against us. They want to make us distrust one another, and the press. They want us to dislike the government. They want us to fear those that aren't like us.

David:
Or to ban those who aren't like us from speaking their ideology on campuses. We must all think alike. Fear and hate those that think differently. Diversity of skin color and gender, but not of ideas, right?

Doug:
I liked his comments on empathy. Even in the age of Trump, we are seeing some empathy spread. Over just the last couple of weeks, we have finally seen the removal of some southern civil war statues removed. Here is a beautiful speech by Mayor Landrieu on their removal.

On a humorous note on empathy, last night I was at the Late Show with Stephen Colbert, and he had this to say: "Dear President Trump, your tweeting has affected me in the following ways: my ratings are up... ". President Trump needs to think about his actions affect others, like Colbert! See the whole bit at the link.

Haidt is right about one thing: Democrats will attempt to paint all Republicans the same color that they paint Trump. It will be up to Republicans to distance themselves from the President. We will see if they value their tribe over country.

David:
Again, you are exhibiting exactly the tribalism Haidt comments on. According to you and the Democrats, it's up to Republicans to change. They are wrong, and we are right. Democrats are just fine the way they are. Republicans must bend to the will of Democrats and see things their way, or we don't need to even talk to them. They are ignorant anyway, and don't even know what government is. So much for sound, rational arguments or discussion.

But to solve the problems that face the nation, we need compromise. Both sides need to come together. Right now, Republicans have been elected by American voters to a majority of both houses of Congress and the presidency. That gives them an edge as far as how far they need to bend. Is there anything that you could bend on within the Republican agenda? Or are you and Democrats just planning to obstruct, resist, and make your platform "anti-anything-Trump" to try to hurt the other side for political gain?

Doug:
There are many things I think Democrats could work towards. The question is: should they work together the way that Republicans did, or wait for the next election.

David:
Which brings me right back to my original question. And again you have taken the stance that there are things Democrats should work towards, but you make no mention of things that Democrats can work towards with Republicans. There is no cooperation mentioned in any of your words, but more of a they-didn't-work-with-us-so-we're-not-gonna-work-with-them attitude. Of course, you fail to mention that Republicans had the exact same reason you mention to pursue such a course after Democrats rammed Obamacare through over the concerns of Republicans. But what about national security? What about the economy? What about bringing down the costs of health insurance (which Obamacare has failed to do). What about improving the education system for our children? What about bringing down the cost of college? What about improving training for blue-collar jobs? What about improving opportunities for the middle class? What about coming to grips with the Debt?

So what comes next? It appears we will face a future of wall building between the parties, if Democrats refuse to even sit at the same table with Republicans to do their jobs. Voters may hold Republicans responsible and vote for Democrats in 2018, which is what Democrats are hoping for, but as long as President Trump stays off of Twitter, and maintains the bully pulpit, the blame may rest with the obstructionists and lead to a super-majority for Senate Republicans.

I'm sure we'll have lots of angst, gnashing of teeth, and more protesting when that happens.

In The News: Comey, Obamacare, and Omaha

This week's blog contains adult language that may not be suitable for children. It also probably contains misspellings, improper grammar, lapses in judgement, and irrational arguments. As we said: not suitable for children.

David:
A lot has been going on lately. I thought we might touch on several issues, and hope I'm not biting off more than we can chew in a single blog.

FBI Director James Comey was finally fired after months of mismanagement and irregular behavior. The brand new Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, the majority of Senators and Congresspersons, and the vast majority of Americans (85%) felt he was doing the job poorly. Rosenstein, who is the FBI Director's immediate superior, met with Comey, and recommended to the President that he be fired.

The first steps in reforming the debacle known as Obamacare has finally passed the House. The House blueprint promises to change the basic, mortally-flawed structure of Obamacare. The bill now moves on to the Senate. Although Democrats have blamed Republicans for years for not "fixing" their flawed bill, this new ACHC does just that. It isn't a repeal, as that cannot be done through reconciliation. It does put all of the problems inherent in Obamacare on a more financially-stable platform. Yet Democrats are still screaming that Republicans are trying to kill children.

A Democratic candidate for mayor of Omaha, Nebraska, had his campaign severely damaged by the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee, the foul-mouthed Tom Perez, over the objections of Bernie Sanders. The DNC has taken the stance that if you are not pro-choice, you are not welcomed in the Democratic party. From the polling in Omaha, it looks like Perez stole a victory from a Democrat and handed it to the trailing incumbent Republican. That doesn't seem very smart to me.

I'm tying these three episodes together as examples that in each and every case, the Democratic leadership has taken the most far-left, extreme position it could possibly take. They have unleashed a barrage of bizarre and foul-mouthed talking points that don't follow a majority of American's opinions or make any attempt to tone down the rhetoric in Washington. Why is that?

Doug:
Why in the world would you believe the President's narrative of these events? The White House has zero credibility when it comes to reality. Do you really believe that Trump decided that Comey was mean to Hillary, and thus needed to be fired right now? Actually, a different narrative is emerging:

David:
Sorry to interrupt, but before you carry on with this line of "thoughtful" questioning, I might point out that only you and hard-core Democrats believe every Republican administration has zero credibility when it comes to reality. I find your comment most alarming coming from someone who accepted everything Obama said as absolute truth. (If you like your doctor...) But please, carry on.

Doug:
You are defending Trump's credibility? You dare to compare what Trump says on a daily basis to one statement by Obama? Do you not worry about your own credibility when you say such things?

1. It appears that Trump was angry that Comey kept talking about Russia.

David:
If you are the President, and have agenda items that you wish to keep moving forward (such as tax reform and efforts to improve the economy), and you believe that you have done nothing wrong in regards to the collusion assertions (for which everyone involved with this case has continually said there is no evidence for), you also might be frustrated that Democrats and others in the media keep pushing that narrative.

Doug:
2. It appears that Trump, not Rosenstein, decided that Comey should be fired. And Sessions had recused himself from the Russian investigation. Why was he involved at all?

David:
Um, the President is the only one who has the authority to fire the FBI director. It is his decision, and his alone. The Congress can impeach a director if it chooses, overriding the President if needed. This has been the case since 1968. Jeff Sessions was involved because Comey's firing has nothing to do with the Russia investigation, but everything to do with how he handled himself during the prior election. Why fire him now? Comey just gave testimony last week in which he admitted he inserted himself into the election, admitted that he overstepped his bounds, and then stated that if he had it all to do over again, with what he knows now, he'd still do all of the same things! He has not learned anything from the experience. He has no apologies. He'd still jump out in front of ongoing investigations and act as investigator, prosecutor, judge, and jury. The time for his firing was at hand.

Doug:
3. "Rosenstein threatened to resign after the narrative emerging from the White House on Tuesday evening cast him as a prime mover of the decision to fire Comey and that the president acted only on his recommendation". One can try to claim that Comey was fired for other things, such as "irregular behavior." But why would Rosenstein be so upset then?

David:
How long are these points of yours going to go on? Now you're quoting a single, unnamed source in a single article that says Rosenstein threatened to resign. Rosenstein himself denies that claim. Sounds like you'll believe just about anything if it fits your "narrative that's emerging".

Doug:
4. The interim head of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, is the same fellow that secretly (and improperly because, of the investigation) met with Reince Priebus on Feb 15th and told him that the then-reporting by the New York Times was "bullshit."

David:
Goodness gracious! Now you're eating your own. McCabe is a hard-core Democrat whose wife ran as a candidate for the Virginia State Senate.

"His wife Jill McCabe ran for a Virginia State Senate seat as a Democrat in 2015, during when she received nearly $500,000 in campaign donations from Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe — a close Clinton family ally."

$500,000 for a State Senate seat?!?!!? Are you saying that you, as a Democrat, don't trust this guy to lead the FBI? Is there anyone who can possibly meet your standards? If Andrew McCabe believes the investigation into collusion between the Trump administration and the Russians is bogus, then it is truly bogus.

Doug:
There are people that meet my standards. But not these: Jared Kushner may be a Democrat. Trump claimed that he was a Democrat. What is your point? That I must trust anyone who claims they are a Democrat, or whose spouse is a Democrat, regardless of their behavior? No.

5. The White House then instructed the heads of the investigations in the House (Devin Nunes) and Senate (Richard Burr) to call reporters and discredit the NYT article. They did. Since then, the NYT article has been found to be true, and has been confirmed by all other reporting.

David:
Let me quote your own link:

"The (unnamed, anonymous) officials broadly dismissed Trump associates’ contacts with Russia as infrequent and inconsequential. But the officials would not answer substantive questions about the issue, and their comments were not published by The Post and do not appear to have been reported elsewhere."

That equals bogus, fake news. Parts of the story were true, but both of these men have denied this portion of your conspiracy tale. That's two more dots in your connect-the-dots conspiracy theory that don't exist. 

Doug:
6. Nunes has since stepped down from his head of the House investigation. That was weird. Part of the backstory was just revealed: Trump had asked for veto power over Yates' testimony. Yates rejected that idea as “overbroad, incorrect, and inconsistent with the department’s historical approach to the congressional testimony of current and former officials.” Her testimony was quickly cancelled by Nunes.

David:
You think it's weird? That's one of the dots you're trying to connect? That's weird. Nunes was the one who invited Yates to testify. Now, your argument is he cancelled her testimony to somehow protect the President. If that were the case, he wouldn't have invited her in the first place.

As to the executive privilege matter, it isn't as simple as it seems. While Yates attorney makes the case she could testify, there is certainly a mound of precedent that argues she couldn't.

"The Trump administration is probably correct that Yates’s testimony would touch on conversations traditionally covered by the presidential communications component of executive privilege. United States v. Nixon is most famous for ordering production of the Nixon tapes and hastening Nixon’s resignation. But the Supreme Court held that presidential communications are subject to claims of executive privilege that flow from the very structure of the Constitution."

In the end, the White House decided to allow Yates to testify. But it was an issue that could have spent some time in the courts, and in this instance, the White House may have been on proper grounds. But the optics would have been terrible. It would surely look like they were trying to hide something. Better to forfeit your executive privilege at this time than to give Democrats something else to harp on.

Doug:
7. Why, then, was Comey fired now? It appears that he had just asked for expanded resources for the Russian investigation. The investigation into Trump and Russia is just getting started.

David:
There is no evidence or paper trail that Comey actually requested any further resources from anyone, and McCabe, under oath, has said no such request was made. Who, exactly, would the director of the FBI need to make this request to? Congress. Not the White House. This is an example of shameless fake news being propagated by Democrats in Congress who know the request was never made.

Doug:

8. Sarah Huckabee Sanders claims that it is "time to move on" from these investigations. I don't think that is going to happen. The FBI has just centralized their Russia investigations. There are investigations into the people behind the election hacking, collusion, and the DNC email hack. All of these may be independent actions by Russia. Or there may be connections. Most people would, I think, want to know.

David:
Finally, you've come to a point (hopefully a final point) in your argument that makes about 1/3 of an once of sense. There are actually three different investigations going on. Are the Russians trying to influence elections? If they are, how much success are they having, and what should we be doing about it? At this point, there is circumstantial evidence to believe the Russians were behind the DNC hacks. But again, it matters less who was behind them and matters more what can we do about potential hackers from all sources, whether Russia, China, North Korea, or anyone else. The last question, about collusion between Trump and the Russians, has no evidence to support it. It seems that we may be able to put a lid on that assertion, but Democrats appear to want that to remain the issue as long as they can string it out, for political gain. The only portion of the investigation that has no evidence supporting it, is the only part Democrats care about.  This seems to back up my argument that the  Democrat Party leaders are going to take the most left-leaning and extreme position on any issues that come up in Washington. They have embraced a scorched-earth policy. Bipartisanship is dead.

We all do want answers to the questions of hacking and electioneering. Will Democrats actually help to find the answers to those questions, or are they too bent only on destroying Trump to focus the investigation on the things that there actually is evidence for?

Doug:
9. Trump admits that he fired Comey because of the Trump-Russia investigation. He admits that he was going to fire Comey regardless of what McCabe and Sessions said, and it was because Comey would not pledge his allegiance to Trump.

10. On top of all of this, it is revealed that Trump disclosed highly sensitive information to the Russians when they met in the oval office. Can he survive all of this? I don't think so.

David:
Once again, you are parroting stories with unnamed, anonymous sources that were not there at the meetings where Trump allegedly did horrible, terrible things. Everyone who was actually there, at the meeting, denies these claims.

"During President Trump's meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov a broad range of subjects were discussed among which were common efforts and threats regarding counter-terrorism.  - Rex Tillerson, Secretary of Stae

"The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation.  At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." -H R McMaster

From what I've seen from the articles about this new breaking story: CNN is citing HuffPo, who is  citing Rachel Maddow, who is citing CNBC, who is citing ABC, who is citing the Washington Post citing anonymous sources citing rumors that they heard from some guy in a parking garage.

Doug:
You can stop defending him: Trump just admitted it. But one thing that does appear from the last 100+ days: Trump appears to have considerable persuasive abilities to get Republicans to do what he asks. This may be his biggest strength, and will also be seen as his biggest weakness. Politicians know that there should be independence between the executive branch and those performing investigations. They need to operate independently. Following directions from the White House will bring the entire Republican party to its knees.

David:
Right. His powers certainly orchestrated a smooth pathway for the ACHC health-insurance bill, money for the border wall, a decrease in government spending, and getting a tax overhaul signed in his first 100 days. Republicans are trying to keep Trump focused on the things they want to accomplish. They need his bully-pulpit to help make the case, not his tweets, which continue to derail the agenda.

Doug:
Frankly, I think this may be more than the Trump administration can handle. I'm not claiming that there is collusion. Trump's Meeting with the Russians the day after firing Comey doesn't make for good optics. But Trump doesn't care. He is the President, right? But that gets right to the heart of the issue. Legally, Trump can fire Comey. But he can also be legally impeached if congress believes that he did it to stop the investigation, even if there is no collusion.

White House claims it was "tricked" by the Russians when they took, and then published, these pictures. American press was not allowed to take pictures, or to even be in the room.

David:
Why would Trump dump Comey and have a staunch Democrat (and good friend of McAuliffe) now be the one left in charge of the FBI if there was collusion?  And if there is no collusion, as you just said, and the President knows there is no collusion, why would he stop the investigation?  The only thing that makes sense is that Trump made a poor decision to fire Comey now instead of some other time, and there is no collusion. The investigations have not slowed even for an instant. Firing Comey was the right move.

But to the Democrats, this is Watergate, and treason, and impeachment, and scandal, and so on and so on. Comey was the Devil until last week. Now he's a saint and a martyr. That seems a bit inconsistent. Have you noticed how the same exact words and headlines are coming from all sorts of Democrats and all of the left-leaning mainstream media? I'll refer you back to our blog on talking points.

"People will die in the streets if the ACHC passes". (Even though another big carrier, Aetna, has pulled completely out of Obamacare, and all health-insurance rates have gone up an average of 39% since 2014.). "If you are not pro-choice, you are not welcomed to be a Democrat". Those are certainly words that imply the Democrats are only interested in obstruction and ideology.

And I'll also reiterate my theory that Democrats are going to continue to take the most extreme positions as long as they are out of power. Hillary Clinton even announced that she's forming a new super PAC, not to benefit progressives, not to help Democrats win offices, not to make the party more inclusive, but just to resist Trump in all of his efforts. Oh, and she's back on the multi-million dollar lecture-circuit again, along with former President Obama. Raking in the big dollars from Wall Street, while funding resistance to the duly-elected president. The bad news for Democrats? Americans are not stupid, nor are they sheep.

Doug:
But Hillary's making money! Trump is using the Presidency to make money for himself, and you are worried about a private citizen making money and creating jobs. Something doesn't add up...

David:
How is Trump using the Presidency to enrich himself? How? That's nonsense.

As I said before, after 8 long years of talk about bringing the country together, due to the new extreme words and actions of Democrats,  bipartisanship, compromise, and pragmatism are dead.

Doug:
Obama done it. You mentioned some other things that are somehow linked in your mind, but this phrase of yours caught my eye: "the foul-mouthed Tom Perez." What did Tom say to be forever labeled as "foul-mouthed"? He said, and I quote to be absolutely clear:

Perez told an audience in Las Vegas this weekend that Trump "doesn't give a shit about health care." - CNN, April 24, 2017

It appears that he has repeated this claim. I can't find any other evidence of swearing, other than this one phrase. That isn't that bad of a swear word, is it? It means "poop", right?

I was wondering what it takes for someone to be labelled in your mind as "foul mouthed"? Because I have heard much more vulgar words and ideas come from politicians lately, but they did not draw your ire. For example, Candidate Trump said:

"You're going to have businesses coming back to New Hampshire. You can tell them to go fuck themselves."  - YouTube

He also said:

"Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything." - NYTimes

Trump also said that he was going to "bomb the shit out of ISIS." I think it was also Trump who said that he would begin negotiations with China like this: "Listen you motherfuckers! We're going to tax you 25%!" There are other f-bombs in that last one, but you get the picture.

But you never once called him "foul-mouthed Trump." But Tom Perez is foul mouthed for using the poop word? Really? Do you think that the "foul mouthed" insult will, ahem, stick? "Since the average American uses 80 to 90 curse words a day, perhaps [you] are overestimating the potential offense."

David:
Just a few things:

I don't approve of Trump using words like that as a candidate or in our political discourse. I don't believe anyone else does either. The reason you were able to find those quotes is they made headlines. They are outliers in the realm of political discourse. Yet Tom Perez, as the head of the DNC has made swearing the new standard of Democrats, who have followed that lead. Michelle Obama had a great quote during one of her speeches, "When they go low, we go high." I think the Democrats missed an opportunity to not use M. Obama much more during the campaign, and using this particular quote as a theme. But now, the Democrats seem to have embraced a new theme: "There is no point low enough for us". Surely you are not embracing the idea that swearing is a good way to elevate our political discourse in the country, when it is already at the low point that it is at? Or are you arguing that the Democrats should be more like Trump?

Doug:
We need to win elections. If talking like regular people helps, then so be it. When one third of Americans don't know that Obamacare and the Affordable Health Care bill are the same thing, it does seem that that would be enough to make a person curse. There are worse things than swearing. But even if you don't agree, Trump is worse, even in swearing.

David:
Good call. Democrats can't win elections with their ideas, so they'll talk like those deplorable fools to win them over. Maybe they can even start carrying Bibles and guns to fool them. Americans are too stupid to understand their big, important ideas.

Second, Perez is swearing at every one of his rallies.

"With children on stage behind him, Perez told an audience in Las Vegas this weekend that Trump "doesn't give a s***t  about health care."

"They call it a skinny budget, I call it a sh***y budget," Perez said in Portland, Maine."

Doug:
Clever... hadn't heard that one. He made a rhyme. 

David:
While you have pulled a few Trump quotes from 8-10 years ago, when he was not a candidate, Perez has made a conscious decision to insert swearing into the current political dialogue.

Doug:
Let's be specific: the "pussy" quote was from 2005 which was twelve years ago, not 8-10 (when Trump was 58 years old). All of the others are from the last year. And remember, Tom is saying "poopy." Look at the content of the things that Trump says. It is vulgar in its meaning. Some of these he actually is describing sexual assault. 

David:
Third, we don't swear at our house, and sometimes my children read the blog while I'm working on it. In my examples of Perez, I blanked out the actual swear words. It isn't that hard to do, and I'd prefer you do that as well within our blog. Even major media does this, or they insert a warning label before the story. The links you used above all have them. For someone who lives in a realm of "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces", you don't seem to be bothered by the thought of offending anyone.

WARNING: This post contains profanity and language readers might find offensive. -CNN 

Doug:
Isn't that weird? You claim that I live in the overprotective world, and yet you are the snowflake? We don't swear in my house either. What I object to is that you feel as if you can call Tom Perez "foul-mouthed" when in reality you ignore much worse from others. That is offensive. It offends logic and consistency. (And by the way, your comment indicates that you don't understand, at all, these phrases "trigger warnings" or "safe spaces".)

David:
You are defending your stance that it's okay for you to needlessly offend people? Why should that be okay?

I'm quoting from CNN, NBC, ABC, Fox News, and multiple other sources when I call Perez foul-mouthed. His swearing is an outlier. It's something different. I'm not ignoring anything. You are ignoring a new low in discourse, and trying to make it seem to be okay for Democrats to make it their policy to swear in their major speeches in a superficial way to act and talk like working-class people. "Hey, maybe we can dress up like hillbillies and swear a lot, and those dumb bumpkins will vote for us." Democratic leaders fail to recognize that Republicans have won big in the past 8 years without swearing. Americans are voting for what works. 

While you seem to be defending and embracing the new Democrat strategy, I find it disheartening. But it does continue to make my point. Democrats are out to destroy any chance at cooperation or bipartisanship. They'll go so far as to completely undermine polite discourse. They'll make arguments based on even the slightest innuendo.

This interview of Maxine Waters is a good representation of  the nonsensical arguments Democrats are making. Even the MSNBC reporter has trouble talking to her with a straight face. While claiming Comey was incompetent and had no credibility, she says it would still be better for him to stay in his job than to have Trump fire him. But, if Hillary Clinton were president, it would be fine if she fired Comey under the same circumstances. I hope and pray Maxine stays in office forever. For Republicans, she's the gift that just keeps on giving.

Doug:
You are just now disheartened?! Your self-identified "pussy grabbing" candidate is President, and is about to be impeached. And you are disheartened that Democrats are swearing, too? That is offensive.

David:
Why are you doubling down on using blue language in the blog, when I just asked you not to?

Doug:
If you are going to label people as "foul mouthed" then we will explore that fully and truthfully. You could remove that descriptor off of Tom Perez and we could remove the entire section. But I think it is rather informative about how the Republicans attempt to smear others without coming to terms with what they are actually saying. You can't have it both ways.

David:
The entire mainstream media has labeled him foul-mouthed. Yet you're going to hold our blog hostage because of it? Do you even listen to yourself? On the one hand, Democrats preach that they should not offend anyone (conservatives can't even be allowed to speak because their ideas are so offensive and hateful), but now you are actually going out of your way to be offensive and hateful in an effort to get your way. You can't have it both ways.

You seem to have the idea that I'm defending Trump. I'm not, to the extent that he says and does things that are outside of what would be considered normal for a politician. He does not follow the rules of protocol or decorum. He is oftentimes vulgar. His middle-of-the-night tweets are bizarre. But the narrative Democrats are pushing is mostly unsubstantiated, anonymous baloney. It may all turn out to have some truth to it, and investigations are ongoing, but for now, there is little to no evidence to support almost any of it. Presidents don't get impeached for being vulgar blowhards, yet that is the case Democrats are making. 

Doug:
No. But I like your new name for Trump, "Vulgar Blowhard." Sounds like a Bond villain. I see that you are started to waver in your support of the Republican administration. That is a very good sign.

David:
I call em like I see em. You seem to believe that all Republicans are sheep. Actually, it seems the Democratic leadership believes that all Americans are sheep. "Talk dirty and they'll just follow us blindly." You need to have a little more faith in Americans.

There is probably more evidence that Obama was not born in the US than there is that Trump colluded with the Russians, or gave classified information to the Russians, or interfered with any FBI investigations. 

Doug:
I think I will quote you for the rest of your life on that one! The sad thing is that I think you really believe it. Which is why I am not trying to change your mind. It can't be changed.

David:
Obama's literary agent listed him as being born in Kenya in Obama's first book. It was wrong, of course, but it is in print:

As Snopes says: "It is evidence — not of the President’s foreign origin, but that Barack Obama’s public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times." Now, before you have a conniption about the birther issue, I'm only presenting this as an example. Obama's literary agent has much more credibility than the anonymous unnamed sources in all of your examples above, yet we can all accept that the agent made a mistake. But the media and Democrats claim these sources in the news (whom they admit they cannot even quote because their information is so tenuous) are all accurate and unquestioned. But I digress.

 There is testimony (in some cases under oath) by the people who were there that none of these rumored  things happened. There is no evidence that these things did, in fact, happen. But Democrats don't care. 

Doug:
I think the more that you write this blog, the more that you believe your own propaganda. Democrats do care. They want an investigation. An investigation would reveal whether these things happened or not. That is all that matters. At that point, maybe things won't be so poopy. 

David:
Ha. For a minute I thought you were serious. Or are you? You're accusing me of being a propagandist after you printed all of those ridiculous, unsubstantiated points above? Perhaps you don't really believe all of that nonsense? I hope not. You'll lose credibility, Mr. Angry Poopyhead.

And the investigations are continuing as before. Nothing Trump has done has changed that. Nothing he has done is out of the purview of the POTUS. Yet Democrats are screaming "impeachment!!" That's exactly what I'm talking about. All of their ranting isn't for anything meaningful. It's just to lower the discourse.

The curious thing is that despite all of these stories in the news, Trumps poll numbers have not changed one bit. They were never stellar, to be sure, but they have not dipped, and remain right at about 45%. Americans know when they are being scammed, and too many anonymous sources are being relied on, and subsequently refuted, for Americans to buy into all of these stories. The danger in the current Democrat The-sky-is-falling-everyday strategy is  when something serious really does show up, and it may, no one will care. Hysterical hyperbole fatigue will set in. 

Doug:
Donald Trump's poll numbers should terrify Republicans, unless they just don't believe it. 

Jon Stewart on Crossfire

Doug:
I was just re-watching the episode of Crossfire with guest Jon Stewart. If you haven't seen it, please take a look. It got me thinking: are we as bad as Crossfire was? Are we just partisan hacks spewing the political message? I don't think so, but I thought I'd ask your opinion about Jon Stewart, Crossfire, and Blank v. Blank.

David:
Re-watching episodes of Crossfire? You need to get a hobby.

Doug:
I think that this episode is historic and had at least a small impact on TV punditry.

David:
Sometimes, we probably are that bad. When we recently asked our readers to ask us questions, Elle requested we offer up more real discussion, and less "gotcha" type of responses. I've taken that to heart, and I think you have always had that attitude towards the blog. But sometimes, we're brothers and talk to each other like brothers. And sometimes, we digress to political talking points.

Doug:
Well, I don't think I fall back on talking points because I don't know what the Democratic talking points are. I try to come at each position through a consistent philosophy. And I don't even know what a "gotcha" response is... can you give an example?

David:
Talking points are the messaging that each party tries to put together to convey their side of an issue. If you are watching MSNBC then you are receiving Democratic talking points. If you get your news from the New York Times, you are receiving Democratic talking points. The reason for that is they interview top Democrats for their stories. Fox News relies more heavily on conservatives, and their stories reflect more of the Republican talking points. Talking points are very important in politics. You want to craft a narrative to fit the facts at hand, to benefit your party or to hurt the other.

Doug:
I read a lot of varied sources, therefore I must "receive" (your word) lots of different "talking points," some of which must be contradictory. But "talking points" are not the same as "framing" an issue. Framing is about understanding, and making analogies. Different people can come to the same frame without being told what the "talking points" for the day are.

But can you give an example of a "gotcha" response?

David:
If all of your sources are from the left-leaning media, then you certainly are receiving Democratic talking points, and framing the story is exactly what talking points are about. It's about framing the facts to benefit a certain narrative. Party leaders will literally create a list of bullet points to promote their agenda. Any story, legislation, or set of facts will fall within this process. They will disseminate the list of points to their surrogates so they are all on the same page when they talk to the public or the media. This reinforces the narrative their side is selling. They may leave out key information if it doesn't fit, and promote other information that presents their narrative in a better light. Pick a big story and then go to CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, and any other liberal site of your choice. You'll likely find the same phrasing used. Often, you'll find reporters using exactly the same words verbatim at different sites. How can this be? Everyone they are interviewing for their stories have received talking point memos, and they are all repeating the exact, carefully worded narrative. Now go to FoxNews, The DrudgeReport, or some other conservative sites and you'll find the same thing. The more people that are out in public using the same language reinforces the message. Repetition is key.

Doug:
Right: "talking points" are often points produced by the party leaders, or a think tank. Framing is a more general understanding. I try to frame each issue myself, and so don't always agree with the Democratic leaders' talking points.

But what are these "gotcha" responses your friend Elle speaks of?

David:
You are misunderstanding a very important and key concept. If all of the news stories you read are using the exact same words, phrases, and ideas, how can you possibly come away with a different idea about any topic? You come away accepting that very narrative that has been framed for you. If every article you read, or every news item you watch includes the same information, and consistently leaves out other facts, you have nothing with which you even could form some alternate framing for the issue.

When I ran for office, all of the state house candidates and incumbents met with party leaders and discussed the phrasing and wording to use when talking about issues. It reinforces the party message, and also makes sure that everyone is on the same page. You are not required to use their language, but the talking points are carefully considered, and the phrasing itself may touch on several themes that are all woven together. On the national scale, there are many paid staff people whose only job is to analyze issues and to weave together talking points to further the entire political agenda. You and I, and all of America, are manipulated on a daily basis. Politicians and their surrogates get talking-point memos daily. They then discuss these points with as many people as they can, especially within the media (including social media), and the talking points get disseminated across the entire spectrum of society to frame the discussion. Remember Clinton's use of paid trolls during the last election? Her campaign spent an estimated $6 million to hire people to create multiple identities to spread Clinton talking points across social media, to give an appearance of populist support, and to attack those opposed to Hillary.

Right now, there are very smart people who do this for a living, studying all sorts of issues and putting together talking points based on focus groups. They are not only framing the debate about ongoing issues like the replacement of Obamacare, but also framing the debate using wording to help candidates running for Senate seats in 2018. The language may be tweaked to suit a certain region better, like Montana versus Mississippi for example.

Do you really think it's just an interesting coincidence that within a single week, multiple Democratic candidates across the country, along with the DNC chairman, have all taken to using swear words in their speeches? And at the same time, the DNC is selling shirts with swear words emblazoned across them? What once was taboo, and would itself make the news because it was so rare, is now the Democratic calling card. Democrats have decided swearing polls well, apparently. After haranguing Trump for a year about him being too vulgar to be President, Democrats have decided they need to be even more vulgar. And now, it seems to be overflowing to their surrogates in media.

Doug:
Hmmm... you may be right that some think tank just released some notes on the topic. I hadn't seen either of those articles. But this is also my point about "talking points" versus framing: I certainly didn't get the memo on talking in the kids' vernacular. I saw a third instance this weekend of such colorful language: Senator Kamala Harris asked a very direct question. I wondered about it, but you make a very good point about it probably being a think tank memo.

I guess if this is what it takes to win over some Trump voters, then they should talk dirty to them. I would not want them to degrade women, of course, like some of Trump's comments. But if they need to be a bit more free with their language, then so be it. And, apparently, smart people use more swear words. Win win!

David:
Right. Republicans are bad because they are vulgar. Democrats are good and smarter, when they are vulgar. I don't recall you claiming Trump was smart when he used swear words.

Doug:
I don't believe Republicans are vulgar because of their use of colorful language. I presume that is what the think tank found out about Democrats in general. Maybe they even like it. I have no idea.

David:
Of course, sometimes the talking points from either side resonate more because they are actually true points that don't need coloring. Separating the unvarnished truth, without political shading, can sometimes become very hard. Sometimes, only top political party leaders have the actual facts, and they release only the ones they need to tell their side of the story.

I don't think we would ever reach the low point shown in this episode of Crossfire, however.

Doug:
You'll have to say what you think is the "low point" in the Crossfire video is. Do we not reach the low point because I never criticize your choice of bow tie?

David:
Ha. I have no nerd ties, professor.

This entire episode of Crossfire is a low point for that show, I'm afraid. It doesn't get any more ridiculous, or pathetic, than that.

Doug:
Can you elaborate? Are you saying that you think Stewart had a point? Or are you saying that Stewart being on the show was a low point?

David:
I can guarantee that the producers of Crossfire rue the day they invited John Stewart to appear on the show. He makes Begala and Carlson look fairly ridiculous. But only because they refuse to listen to what he is saying, and continue to treat him like a trained monkey, when he appears to be more thoughtful and interested in dialogue than they are.

Doug:
Wow, I think I agree with you. Did you know that Crossfire was cancelled shortly after this segment? It came back briefly in 2013, but the show was never the same after Stewart's appearance. Of course, political Crossfire-like shows didn't go away. In fact, there may be more now than ever.

David:
And there should be.

I generally agree with what Stewart is saying about their particular brand of show, where they invite hacks to spar back and forth while spewing the talking points of the day. The discussion is predictable, and at the end, no one is any better off than before. However, I disagree that we don't need a show like Crossfire. We actually need more shows that follow the mold of Blank Versus Blank. Many issues don't have a definitive answer or solution, despite mounds of data or studies. A discussion (sometimes heated) about these issues, and presenting all of the information should be informative and help people navigate through all of the information. As we have both said at different times, about many different issues, "It's not that simple". Problems are often much more complicated than a meme, and there are usually many factors to consider. Details matter. Democrats and Republicans serving in office usually have the same motivations for serving in office. They differ in philosophy. Neither of them is evil. We can help to present competing philosophies to find solutions to big problems. Right?

Doug:
"It's not that simple" can always be (correctly) pointed out. Except that Trump ran on an opposite campaign strategy. I believe that he actually thought it would be easy.

"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."  - Donald Trump

Really?! Trump can be educated quickly though:

"After listening for 10 minutes, I realized it’s not so easy." - Donald Trump 

Really?! So people may not want to hear that "it's not that simple". It appears that some Americans want to hear the opposite. In fact, it is even worse: many Americans don't even want to hear the otherside. I don't want to hear it like Crossfire did it, but I do want to understand the details in order to make informed decisions. We don't often get that from the party hacks.

David:
But running for office is a different animal all together than campaigning.

Doug:
I so wish that were true. Of course, Trump has started campaigning, blurring the line between those two animals.

David:
Hillary also framed things as being simple and uncomplicated.

"I have to admit that a good deal of what my husband and I have learned (about Islam) has come from my daughter. (As) some of you who are our friends know, she took a course last year in Islamic history." - Hillary Clinton

Doug:
That link is more political porn. Come on: a fictional piece on what Hillary would have done in her first 100 days?! I still find it hard to believe that Trump's first 100 days are not fictional. I am just so happy that he is so incompetent; that may be our saving grace. But I think you will admit that you can learn a lot of details about a subject in only one semester. And there is a lot of Islamic history that many Christians have never heard of. I teach many a topic to others that I only had a semester of training in.

David:
Defending the former First Lady and SOS for getting a good deal of her knowledge of Islam from her daughter's class, are we?

Doug:
Sure. I have learned a lot from my daughter.

David:
While these examples are ridiculous, all politicians simplify out of necessity. It takes too long to explain the nuances and vagaries of all of the variables, especially when the variables change. Candidates use talking points to hit big themes, and then hit them over and over and over if they resonate. Many Americans do want to know the details, but you're right, many could care less, and only want the cliff-notes, dumbed down version.

Doug:
Another aspect of Crossfire was that people never agreed, even on the facts. Of course, this has only escalated with the current Republican administration's "alternative facts." I'd rather hear those academic elites (non-politicians) that know a topic well, and can comment on the merits of an issue.

David:
There is a very nice article  this weekend from a Dickinson College philosophy professor, Crispin Sartwell, about what exactly is truth. It can vary based upon your belief system, or what you hear and see. "Truth" can be influenced by talking points, as not all truth is anything more than informed opinion. Rigid truths should ultimately prevail in the end.

Not all people who are experts on a topic are in academics. I'm biased that most academics are already biased in favor of a certain worldview that excludes certain possible solutions to questions, before the questions have even been asked. If you are biased in your beliefs, your comments on the merits of an issue may not be the same as someone with other beliefs.

 "Let us take for a moment the commonplace claim that left and right, or blue and red, live in “different realities”—each fed by different streams of information, each figuring out what to believe by feeling for the consensus of people they believe are like themselves.Far from suggesting that the truth is a matter of coherence within a set of beliefs, or the way they hang together, this suggests that nobody on either side thinks that at all. Each side thinks the other side’s version of reality is globally false, and that its own is globally true.That does not commit anyone to saying they are both right—though they may both be quite wrong—but it does commit each of them to saying that a belief system can hang together very well and not be true.That is, if you’re on the left, you probably think the right is getting its information from bad sources, believing whatever serves its agenda, producing a false worldview. If you’re on the right, you likely believe that the mainstream media is feeding people slanted information, a false narrative.But both sides agree the coherence of their opponent’s worldview is irrelevant to its truth. In some ways, the better it hangs together, the more dangerous and deluded it is."  -Crispin Sartwell

Doug:
It is ironic that you quote the most elite kind of academic expert (tenured Professor of Philosophy at a small liberal arts college in the east) in order to show that academic experts are biased. As our Granny would say: "Bless your little heart." But my point is that you can easily find another academic expert that would tease Sartwell's weak points apart. Most academics argue on the merits, not on "talking points" or with the use of colorful language. I want to see good debate. I want to participate in good debate.

David:
I have to say I find it just a tad ironic that you believe a tenured professor at a small liberal arts college in the East is the most elite of academics, and then say he is biased because of that fact.

I never did get around to explaining what a "gotcha" question is. It's the type of question one might ask to try to trap the respondent into a no-win type of answer. Like the old example of the prosecutor asking a witness,"Do you still beat your wife?" There is no yes or no answer that satisfies that question, if the respondent is not a wife-beater at all. Both answers are damning. If you say no, the prosecutor will come back with a follow up that you said that you once did beat your wife, then. The question requires some explaining to come up with an answer that makes sense. The question itself is designed to put the respondent on the defensive.

Doug:
I'm glad that Stewart went on Crossfire, and I am glad that Crossfire had a stake driven through its heart. It may be impossible to get to "truth" (let alone "rigid truth"), but as one of my good friends said, we can try to get it "less wrong." 

Republican inconsistency?

Doug:
There seems to be a bit of evidence that suggests that Republicans are very sensitive to perceptions versus reality in how they feel about their lives. This could perhaps explain why Republicans appear to be inconsistent: one minute they feel one way, but the next they feel another.  What changed? Who was elected. A gut reaction might be "sure, but Democrats are too!" But this isn't true. Consider these three cases:

On the economy: At the end of the Obama presidency, only 31% of Republicans thought that the economy was in good shape. But instantly, when Trump took office, 61% of Republicans now think the economy is doing fine. Democratic views didn't change at all (57% at the end of Obama's tenure thought that the economy was fine, and now that figure is 60%, within the margin of error).  From Pew research.

On bombing Syria: 22% of Republicans polled under Obama were for bombing Syria; under Trump Republicans now are 86% for bombing Syria. Democrats, again, didn't change their opinion: under Obama, 38% of Democrats polled supportive of bombing Syria, while under Trump the percentage was 37% (within the margin of error). From ABC/Washington Post survey.

On income tax: polled on the question "does the amount of  taxes you pay seem fair to you?" Under Obama, 39% of Republicans said it was fair, while under Trump, the number of polled Republicans that think what they pay is fair jumped to 56%, even though they hadn't paid any taxes under Trump yet. From a Gallup poll.

I can understand a little sway, but these are huge swings, and all are consistently inconsistent with Republicans. Do you find this problematic? It seems to me that if beliefs are based in perceptions rather than reality, then that will be a very hard group of people to deal with. How do you convince them if they can be swayed so much by perception?

David:
I've noticed that you weigh consistency heavily in how you evaluate others. You bring up inconsistency often in the blog. I don't think that in itself is a fault, and probably reflects your scientific mindset. However, I do think you paint broad pictures without paying attention to the specifics when it suits you, finding inconsistency when there is none. Did I criticize President Obama for using executive orders, but am not critical when President Trump uses executive orders? Yes. But I'm not against executive orders. I was against the specific executive orders Obama was signing. I'm against using executive orders to unconstitutionally expand the Executive's power. I am not against using executive orders to decrease the size or scope of government. There's a difference. There is not inconsistency.

Doug:
I actually didn't mention you in the three cases above. But let's look at what you said before: "...instead of working with all of Congress, [Obama] passed his own executive orders, and then blamed Republicans for making him do it. Arrogant is the word that comes to mind. Arrogant and condescending." But when Trump uses the executive order, he is just fulfilling his campaign pledges, you said. Does the so-called Muslim Ban decrease the scope of the government? No. In fact it increases the scope. Trump can't "blame" congress... he didn't try to work with congress on immigration yet. So even though I didn't mention your inconsistency above, I find your comments on the use of the executive order to be very inconsistent.

David:
At least you're consistent. You again fail to put the comments into context and only see inconsistency. Details matter.

In the example you have chosen, Obama said repeatedly that he did not have the Constitutional authority to just create laws by executive order and needed Congress to pass legislation. When they didn't, he then decided he did have the authority and created new laws by executive order. That was wrong, arrogant, and illegal, and the courts agreed that he did not have that authority. He did blame Republicans for making him do it because he claimed he would not have made that move if they had only legislated what he demanded.

Doug:
Obama tried to work with congress. They weren't going to play. So he went the executive order route. Trump did not try to work with congress. He went directly with executive orders. I don't see how the path to the outcome matters. The results are the same. That appears to many people as an inconsistency.

David:
The Constitution specifically details what each branch of the government is responsible for, and what they are allowed to do. The executive branch cannot create law. The path does matter, as a rule of law. As I said, the courts have agreed that Obama overstepped his bounds with some of his executive orders.

I also admire your consistency in calling Trump's executive order a "Muslim Ban", when it is no such thing. It was a temporary halt to all immigration (not based on religion) from selected countries for national security purposes, which is a task specifically outlined for the President within the US Constitution. Performing duties that are provided within the Constitution does not expand the scope of the Executive Branch.

Doug:
But this ban was halted because it appears to be a "Muslim Ban." This will likely end up in the Supreme Court.

David:
But appearance is not the same as being. The language of the order is specific.

Doug:
Hey, don't tell me... tell the supreme court! (However, for them intentions do matter, and that may be the downfall of the ban.)

David:
You're right that we will see what the SCOTUS determines. That's where it's headed.

You've stated that Republicans are somehow different than Democrats regarding perception versus reality. I think most studies actually show that there is no difference, and this is a trait shared across political spectrums, gender, race, and cultures.

Doug:
I've pointed to three different polls that demonstrate that Republicans are different from Democrats. I don't know what "most studies" you refer.

David:
But let's look at your first study regarding the economy. Trump was elected in November. This poll question was asked in April of this year. That's a six month spread. That isn't exactly an instant change. During that time, Carrier, Ford, GM, Fiat, Apple, Intel, and other mid to large sized corporations have said they are staying, building, and investing in plants and expansion here in the US. Billions are being invested in these companies, and they are actively hiring more workers. The stock market has hit all-time record highs, which is a marker of optimism for the economy. These are signs the economy is healthy and should do well in the future. I would answer that the economy is in better shape than it was before Trump was elected.  The poll question was not "Is the economy in good shape?" The question was "The current economic situation in our country is..." good or bad? The majority of Americans, in all groups, said the economy is good. 60% of the general population said it is good compared to 44% at the same time last year. I'l grant that Republicans are slightly more impressed than the general population, because we see our policies being put into place, and we believe that will bring economic growth after years of lackluster growth under a regulation-heavy administration. I assume the reason Democrat's numbers are lower than the general population's answers is their view that Republican policies are not good for the country, and won't equal growth. Too bad for them. 

Doug:
If this could be explained away by politics, then you would expect that Democratic views would be higher under a Democratic president. But the Democratic views didn't change. It was consistent regardless of who the president was. That is my point about consistency.

David:
Or, Democrats just don't understand economics...

Doug:
But my point is that the Democrats are consistent, however you dismiss it. Ok, check. Next.

David:
I'm actually serious. If your numbers are correct (multiple other polls show they are not), then Democrats don't think that it makes any difference whether you have high taxes or low taxes. They don't see any difference for the economy whether corporations stay in the US, invest billions of dollars in factories and hiring, or if they move to Mexico. They apparently don't see dropping the corporate tax rate from one of the highest in the world to one of the lowest as having any influence on our economic trajectory. For them, it doesn't matter who's in the White House. That seems to indicate a very fundamental lack of economic understanding. Either that, or your numbers are wrong.

Doug:
There is another option: Republicans are inconsistent in a way that Democrats are not.

David:
If I'm a gambler, I can bet on horse number four in race after race. That would be very consistent. If I bet on horse number four when that horse shows up at the gate with a broken leg, I may be consistent, but also not very smart. I obviously don't understand how horse racing works. Recognizing fluid variables and changing your actions or opinions based on real-world information is also consistent, if you do it regularly. Having the same opinion all of the time, despite changes in those variables is not a good thing. It indicates rigid thinking.

Doug:
Two things I just learned: (1) you should not gamble, and (2) you are trying to "spin" this poll in a way that it just can't go. Here is a graph of the poll data over time:

The blue line is the Democrats; the red line is the Republicans. If Democrats are "stupid gamblers" who won't change their minds, you'd expect that line to be flat. But it isn't. Again, what explains these data better is that Republicans are inconsistent.

David:
The two lines parallel each other. If Democrats were consistent, as you say, their line should be flat.

As to your second case regarding Syria, the numbers are comparing apples and oranges. Again, you're looking at the broad picture without paying any attention to the specifics.

Doug:
But can't you use that excuse whenever differences are noted? "Oh, you just aren't looking close enough at the details! You see the first case was on a Tuesday. This one is a Wednesday. That explains the difference!" Let's see your apples and oranges.

David:
Details matter.

In 2013, when Obama famously drew his imaginary red line, no one in America was interested in getting into another war, no diplomatic efforts had been undertaken, and the situation in Syria was much different. In 2017, all of the chemical weapons were supposed to have been removed, Russia was supposed to have guaranteed their removal, and US troops are now located nearby. Russia and Syria lied, and have shown they have no fear of using weapons of mass destruction flippantly in the face of coalition and humanitarian forces. There was good reason to reinforce our diplomacy with force in this instance. I, for one, would have supported Obama's use of a similar strike back in 2013.

Doug:
Uh huh. Well, there is no evidence of that, and I'm not talking about you. But Republicans polled in 2013 disagreed with you. So maybe you are more consistent than many Republicans.

David:
It isn't a matter of consistency. It's a matter of evaluating all of the information at hand and deciding what is the best action to take at that time. If important variables have changed, you may need to take a different action than you did before.

Doug:
And yet, you just said that you would have sided with Obama, where your fellow Republicans did not. I'm not arguing that your fellow Republicans didn't see things differently. I am arguing that they do, even when there is no difference.

David:
But I didn't say I would have supported Obama for the same reason as I support Trump's move. Obama made a dunderheaded statement drawing a red line. When he failed to execute a response, it hurt the countries standing, and weakened our negotiating position. If he had not placed us in that position, I would not have supported the move.

If anything, I think the case you show indicates Republicans, along with the rest of America, recognize a dynamic situation, and can change their opinion not because of who is in the White House, but what is going on in real-time on the ground. It also indicates that only 35-40% of Democrats support using the military, ever. Whether it's the use of weapons of mass destruction, or outright genocide, it appears that 60-65% of Democrats will never support the use of the military, no matter who's in the White House, or what's going on in the world.

Doug:
That is called consistency. Check. Next.

David:
Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result is also being very consistent. It's also been said that is the definition of insanity.

Doug:
But you just said that you would have supported Obama's use of force. Does that make you insane? But you forgot about the inconsistency on taxes. How do you explain that Democratic consistency?

David:
Just saying that consistency is not always the best or only marker to keep track of.

I didn't forget, we just haven't gotten here yet. I was unable to link to the original Gallup poll through the article you had as your link, but went straight to the original poll without all of the filters. (Perhaps you thought that linking to a republished Vox analysis of a Gallup poll in The Christian Science Monitor might lend it more credence?)

Doug:
In all three cases I linked to analysis of the data.

David:
Several things draw my interest in this poll. This poll was also done this April, over 5 months after Trump was elected. One of his promises was to decrease taxes, but also to spend government money on different priorities than Obama had. With that in mind, it is true that Republicans find the taxes they are paying to be more fair now than before.

Doug:
That is my one and only point.

David:
Only 4% of Democrats found their taxes to be different now than before. 14% of Republicans now feel that way compared with their taxes under Obama. Interestingly, 13% of independents also feel their taxes are fair now compared to Obama's term. Even the folks at Gallup felt "the increase this year may suggest that Americans are anticipating a tax cut from Trump". If you feel your tax dollars are spent on the things you believe are important for the government to be spending tax dollars on, you are likely to feel your money is well spent.

Doug:
Sure, I don't mind you explaining their inconsistencies away by saying that it is based on perception of what, someday, may happen. In some ways, that makes it even worse. Your explanation of why they change their mind is completely detached from reality. For example, the "short term" budget (lasts until September 2017) just passed the House, and looks nothing like what Trump claimed it would:

These are increases in spending across the board, except for a few percentage decrease in EPA and DOE. Where is this money coming from? Either we will spend what we don't have, or we raise taxes. Will Republicans' opinion change based on the facts? Hard to tell.

David:
The same Gallup poll, if done today, might reflect the disappointment Republicans feel with this CR bill.

An additional finding in the Gallup poll, which has remained consistent for years, is that only 4% of Americans feel their taxes are too low. Even among Democrats, almost none of them think we should raise taxes. (You might be the only one, actually.) The majority of Americans still feel that taxes are too high.

Doug:
That is a tricky one. For example, many might believe that we could reallocate DOD spending to better uses, and thus we don't need to pay more, but spend better. But that is a separate point because Democrats are consistent. Check.

David:
It isn't tricky. Essentially no one thinks we pay too much in taxes, and no one wants their taxes raised. Republicans, and everyone else, is consistent in this thinking.

In looking back through years of polling, Gallup found that Americans feel taxes are less fair when a Democrat is in office, and they feel that taxes are fairer when a Republican is at the helm. that also appears to be a consistent finding.

One last question regarding a huge inconsistency among Democratic office holders: At the national level, corporations are usually typecast as greedy, evil, and anti-labor.

Doug:
No, but I understand that is how you see it. Go ahead...

David:
Donald Trump was roundly criticized for offering incentives, like tax breaks, to encourage corporations to stay in the US. But at the state and local level, Democratic governors and mayors offer those same incentives to try to woo those same corporations to build their factories in their states or cities, because they recognize the investment and jobs these "evil" corporations bring to their constituents. Corporations are good for communities, but bad for the country? Or is it only bad for a Republican to secure a valuable job-producer for a community, but good for a Democrat? That seems terribly inconsistent to me.

Doug:
You are absolutely right, but the inconsistency is in your Republican perception. Which, lines up exactly with the data, and how I started this post: "There seems to be a bit of evidence that suggests that Republicans are very sensitive to perceptions versus reality in how they feel about their lives."

David:
I'm absolutely right, but somehow that means that Democrats are consistent, and Republicans are not? A Democratic mayor giving away tax breaks to lure a major corporation to town is not a perception. That's a reality that occurs everyday.

One other American consistency I noted recently was the Washington Post poll that showed that if the election was held in April, 2017,  Donald Trump would have won again. Hillary is still a loser. In fact, she would now lose the popular vote as well, as some Democrats have changed their minds. Ah, the sweet smell of consistency...

At the end of the day, I think it is good to be consistent in your philosophy. But details may cause you to express opinions that may seem inconsistent, or even contradictory, under a very superficial scrutiny. Details matter and variables change. The world is dynamic. The only thing that is truly consistent, is change.