5upplied_demand

So there is no problem to solve?

> My research suggests that all U.S. states that require identification at the polls accept a driving license as a form of valid photo ID.

Not today. However, there is a bill in the Senate, that the President is demanding to be passed, that would eliminate this reality.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2026/03/17/save-amer...

> If speed limits were automated rigidly enforced 100% of the time, it would be impossible to drive.

Why? Plenty of people drive in areas with speed cameras, isn't that exactly how they work?

> That's absurd hyperbole. A competent policeman will recognise the difference between me driving 90 km/h on a 80 km/h road because I didn't notice the sign.

I'm not sure it is hyperbole or that we should assume competence/good faith. Multiple studies have shown that traffic laws, specifically, are enforced in an inconsistent matter that best correlates with the driver's race.

[0] https://www.aclu-il.org/press-releases/black-and-latino-moto...

[1] https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2020/may/bl...

This whistleblower didn't forget, neither did I.

It does sound like a bunch of people in this thread forgot. Perhaps they found it more politically convenient to forget rather than admit a mistake?

> the best attack that someone could make on the Trump administration.

It doesn't need to be, nor should we measure things against eachother by their ability to be used as an attack. We should measure this on it's own, based on what has happened.

In this case, an agency created by the President's Executive Order, that reports directly to the President made significant personnel and security access changes. There have been many security issues coming from that new personnel and department. If this doesn't fall on the administration, what does?

> In due time, this one will fall out of your mental stack, too.

I bet you said the same thing a year ago when people were warning about exactly this scenario.

I agree. I'm not trying to point out the hypocrisy, it is obvious to anyone watching. I am more interested in testing the limits of how people will justify actions to themselves and others. It is fascinating to see the twisting happen in real time.

> there is not yet proven public evidence for the most explosive version of the claim.

Again, there doesn't need to be evidence. The point is that a claim like this is clearly plausible and worth investigating because of political decisions this administration made. They took a non-political issue (access to social security data) and explicitly made it political. You don't get to later use those same politics as a protective shield for criticism.

> it maps perfectly onto an existing fear people were already primed for.

People were primed because of the repeated warning that experts were giving about the security of this data and carelessness in allowing access. You are helping to prove my point that the administration encouraged this by their own actions.

Neither of these involved legal allegations later proving to be false, they were simple news story retractions (just like Fox News did Sunday with Trump's dignified transfer performance [0]).

The topic at hand was a whistleblower report, which would have serious ramifications if proven false. It isn't apples-to-apples.

[0] https://thehill.com/homenews/media/fox-news-donald-trump-dig...

I didn't treat it as anything. It really doesn't even need to be proven as fact. The actual thing people were warning about was untrained and unqualified people having access to this data in the first place. I can't find a statement denying that this employee had that level of access.

If those people weren't granted unprecedented access to our data, there would be no whistle to blow. You can wait for the "investigation" to play out, the rest can see that obvious risks were ignored to benefit someone.

Can any of the administration's defenders explain to me how this is actually a good thing and not the exact thing people were warning about a year ago?

The portion after the semi-colon wasn't relevant to your initial claim. Which was this:

> There is a reason American families move away when Asian immigrants move into school districts

The study shows that "American" families didn't move away, "white American" families moved away.

> not racial animus like you suggested.

Can you share what it is you think I suggested? I don't see where I provided a view on this topic. I simply pointed out your incorrect assumptions of the data.

You haven't addressed the breakdown I provided showing why those initial assumptions don't match the data. Can we acknowledge that the original premise was based on a misinterpretation of the figures rather than just delete the history of your statement?

That's fair, but it is the same story over and over with this user. At some point, it needs to be called out.

> It could be that there simply weren’t enough hispanic and black families in the sample to draw an inference. The study looked only at affluent school districts in California. There’s not a lot of black and hispanic students in those school districts to begin with. And the white families are much more likely to be wealthier and have more freedom to move.

It could be that, but the study itself doesn't show that at all. It actually shows the opposite. Hispanics were, by far, the largest subset of students in the study. In the Central Cities area of the study, Asian and black student population was about even.

> There is a reason American families move away when Asian immigrants move into school districts

Here, you equate "American families" to "white families." Your source (below) says that Hispanic and black student enrollment didn't change, just white enrollment. Maybe there are other factors?

"First off, no statistical relationship existed during those years between Asian American student enrollment and that of students from other groups, such as African Americans or Hispanics"

> they don’t have the mentality of someone who is a generation away from having to take a boat to school during monsoon season.

Are Asian immigrants in the California suburbs (the location of your source study) coming from this type of poverty?

EDIT: As has become traditional, rayiner edited the original post when it was proven completely false. Here is the article that "proved" their point: https://www.the74million.org/article/fear-of-competition-res...

Imagine using this logic in the 1930s when scientists from Germany, Hungary, and Italy were flocking to the US.

Did the advances they helped spur actually maximize opportunities for native born people in the long run?

Would we be better off if we had blocked them from researching in the US?

> we are importing foreigners to paper over the fact that we have ruined our own education system.

Are you familiar with any of these scientists we "imported" during the 1930s? Was that also a sign of a failed education system?

- Albert Einstein - Enrico Fermi - Leo Szilard - Hans Bethe - Edward Teller - John von Neumann - Eugene Wigner - Felix Bloch

I don't believe that will happen. The Constitution will continue to be paraded as a tool to attack perceived enemies and protect allies. We already see it all over the place when MAGA talks about the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

The hypocrisy doesn't matter to them because it isn't (and never was) about the "ideals" of the Constitution, it is about punishing enemies.

Isn't this the type of attitude that is giving cover to the types of actions the OP mentions, i.e. throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

Thanks for clarifying. I believe I misunderstood your initial comment.

> California can't restrict the importation and sale of items manufactured legally in other states if the item itself (after manufacture) is safe.

I'm not sure about that, maybe it is based on the definition of "safe". There are tortilla chips made in Chicago that explicitly say they cannot be sold in California on the packaging. This is due to chemicals banned in Prop 65.

https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/1220zn9/...

> The bus is stopped for twice as long.

I'd like to see your math, as it isn't just the loading of passengers that takes time. It would seem that slowing down, completely stopping, lowering the bus, opening the doors, and then closing the doors takes up at least some of the time at each bus stop.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra

Your own example undermines your point. Solyndra, a company, was part of a much larger Energy Department program that was profitable for the US government. Tesla itself was kept afloat by loans from this program [0]. This has all been well-reported, you can read up on it. [1]

[0] https://www.theverge.com/2013/5/22/4356860/tesla-repays-465-...

[1] https://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363572151/after-solyndra-loss...

The Bakke decision in 1978 upheld that race could be used as a factor in admissions. Your counter-example is precedent from 50 years ago. Does that same precedent exist in this tariff case?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_C...

> the first step to improving a situation isn't "try to make everyone who disagrees with me feel bad about themselves via hostility" let me know.

Is an eye-opening comment from a person who called me "insufferable", "incapable of doing anything other than attacking", and a "zealot" just in this one comment. Further up thread are plenty of other insults you have lobbed at anyone who dares to challenge you. All while continuing to claim that everyone else is attacking, insulting, and looking down at you.

This conversation is over, you can project on someone else.

> the assertion that the administration is willing to inflict unlimited pain on Americans (no electricity, no water) to get and maintain power.

The assertion was that the administration is ok with collateral damage that might further their stated goals. Did anyone use the term "unlimited pain on Americans" or just you?

You latched narrowly on "American who depends on running water, electricity" and turned it into them doing things "no matter the cost." Nobody was making that argument. The entire country doesn't even run on the same water or electricity services. It's a made up scenario you created to paint the people using the President's own words as overreacting.

You asked for statements and I provided them. Now you are pivoting to "policy" as if authoritarians would release policy papers about how they want to end free and fair elections. Please cite some of those examples if you can find them.

One the other side, we have many historical examples of authoritarians claiming elections to be free and fair in order to cement power. The rest of the world knows Putin isn't receiving 88.5% of the vote in a free and fair election. Stalin and Mussolini also held elections. None were free, fair, or honest and that is the entire point.

> Politicians say lots of things to get elected, or to troll, or symptoms of senility, etc.

Why ask for the statements in the first place if they don't matter and can be waved away?

> The lack of more urgency or extreme counter action suggests to me that not enough people truly think that that is fact the goal.

This isn't about whether "enough people truly think it is the goal." It is about the stated claims and goals of the administration, which have been shared with you multiple times in this thread. Please stop with the red herrings.

Other people have already shared the multiple statements Trump has made, I've added some below.

> “I won’t say cancel the election, they should cancel the election...”

> "You Won't Have to Vote Anymore"

> "The Republicans should say: 'We want to take over. We should take over the voting in at least 15 places.' The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting,"

> OK, let's assume that.

No need to assume, they have explicitly stated it!

> To wit, top Republicans warn GOP will face midterm election ‘bloodbath’. Why bother caring?

This isn't about "Top Republicans," it is about the administration. The same administration that is actively trying to nationalize elections to prevent that bloodbath.

Secondly, is it conceivable that Republicans fearing an electoral bloodbath would make them more likely to support aggressive election interference (ICE a polling stations, new election laws, Federal takeover of elections, re-litigating 2020 Georgia results)?