Problem is in practice, I suspect something is pretty wrong in most teams.

Some common examples come to my mind:

• Management hears "talk about what you've done and what you will do" so great time to sit in and take notes for performance review, and it becomes a "make sure management knows you spent all your time and did really impressive stuff" meeting. Also throws a kink in "things I need help with" as there's always the risk that management decides you aren't self sufficient enough if they hear you got stuck, so you also need to defend why you got stuck and how it isn't your fault.
• The people who feel like everyone needs to know the minutia of their trials and tribulations including all the intermediate dead ends they went down on the way to their final result. Related to the above, but there are people who think to do this even without the need to impress management.
• The people who cannot stand to "take it offline" and will stop everything to fully work a problem while everyone is still ostensibly supposed to stay in the meeting despite having nothing to do with the two people talking (sometimes even just one, a guy starts talking to himself as he tries to do something live).
• Groups that are organized but have very little common ground. An "everything must be scrum" company sticks a guy who does stuff like shipping and receiving into a development team and there's no 'scrum-like' interaction to be had and yet, there he is wasting his time and having to talk about stuff no one else on that meeting has a need to hear either.

I think the argument is there's a baseline that should not be up for debate. But some states should be able to offer different beyond the baseline. For example, presume that the federal government lacks the will to provide universal health care, it still should be quite reasonable for states to provide it, should they feel they have the ability and the will.

I would suggest that abolishing it is impractical, however it needs to be reigned in a lot. There are a few circumstances that call for the decisiveness of a strong singular authority, but not many. These "executive orders" have been nuts and shouldn't be such a routine thing.

I'd say it's even worse than that. Part of the culture on the right is that "yeah, it's a lie but that's fine". Even proving they lie beyond a shadow of a doubt doesn't dissuade the core, because they have been conditioned to take lies in stride, so long as it agrees with them.

You have Vance going on and saying the lies are necessary because unless they lie about Haitians and paint them as barbaric savages then people will fail to recognize them as the barbaric savages that everyone knows "those people" really are, even if the facts don't support that. That maybe they can't accurately state how they are savages or they can't support it, it "sounds right" and that's good enough because surely they are up to something like that, because they are "those people".

You have people in their camp like Scott Adams spinning things as "directionally true", again, they may not be actually true, but common sense tells everyone Haitians are bad people, so it's good enough.

Speaking of common sense, Vance said during the debate that experts are explicitly people to disregard and to follow that "common sense". Expertise, research, honoring the facts, all these are bad things because "common sense" knows better (so long as "common sense" agrees with whatever Trump camp feels, if your "common sense" disagrees, well then you don't have common sense or you are somehow evil).

Like the one "outright lie" they caught Walz in, that 35 years ago he was in Hong Kong in August instead of June, Walz seemed genuinely ashamed about that pretty mild scenario. Meanwhile Vance just effortlessly carries on without a hint of caring about being called out on anything.

Well, yes, that was sort of the point. He's so die hard MAGA that even when faced with a hateful and demonstrably false statement, he still calls it "directionally" true, which is even worse than any of the corporate misspeak he ever made fun of in his days of popularity.

Scott Adams calls these sorts of lies "directionally true"

Problem is for a company like Amazon, even if the brain drain will result in obviously inferior customer experience, it could take years before that happens and for it to be recognized and for the business results suffer for it. In the meantime, bigger margins and restricted stock matures and they can get their money now.

Particularly with business clients, like AWS customers, it will take a huge amount of obvious screwups before those clients are willing to undertake the active effort of leaving.

It's real and it can suck.

Any time someone has one of the 'big names' on their resume, they get to skip the line and call the shots. Problem is in many of these cases, they got fired from those big companies for very blatantly obvious reasons once you work with them. They will tank their new projects, and executives will just say "this can't be right, Google is such a success" yeah, because they fired that guy...

My relatively poor experience with Prime I attribute to deliberate bad choices rather than lack of workers. It probably doesn't help to be sure, but even with the most awesome staff, I think Prime was going to suck no matter what. The whole economy is particularly "screw the customers over, get us money now, no need to attract or retain customers now"

So they believe that Democrats automatically means higher taxes for them, regardless of income level.

Should you manage to get them to consider the taxation would only target the wealthy, they are afraid the wealthy class will fire them due to the loss of money. Similarly afraid that stronger worker protections would just lead to the jobs going away. They think the benefits achieved by Democrats favor cities and rural areas don't see their moneys worth. Now they didn't spend that much money on taxes and they do get great benefit, but they see the cities get bigger stuff and that leaves an impression.

Speaking of jobs going away, they fear immigrants. Both on racist grounds and the general perceived increase in labor competition.

Fewer arms to Ukraine because they see it as wasting money on a cause that has nothing to do with them. More arms to Israel because they are afraid of Muslims.

Particularly dangerous as key people recognize this is a lot of people, but not the majority. So there's a great fear that democratic voting means they would ultimately be marginalized. So they also are the party most inclined to game the vote however they can, mapping districts, limiting voting access, stalling absentee ballots.

Well yeah... The electoral college consistently lets a minority opinion override the majority, so of course a majority want it done.

Problem is that minority that gets their way today aren't going to yield if they can help it.

Well, he might be on to something.

I'm studying world history for the first time and I've so far gotten to 1938 and while I know absolutely nothing that happened after that, so far it looks like this suggestion has worked with this Hitler fellow.