America - The Official Thread

[Joey D]

Shocker! Democrats don't actually care to do anything at all because why would they?

Dems Reportedly Angry That Progressives Are Pushing Them to Act Like an Opposition Party | Common Dreams

"Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer are architects of the crisis that allowed Trump's fascism to arise and succeed," argued one progressive organizer. "They have zero credibility to be leading the fights we face today."

www.commondreams.org

They are pushing the blame to the Republicans:

https://www.axios.com/2025/02/06/democrats-congress-trump-musk-doge-calls

Increasing numbers of Democrats want their party to oppose Trump — CBS News poll analysis

Democrats express mixed confidence in Democratic congressional leaders' ability to oppose Trump.

www.cbsnews.com

Which yes, the Republicans are the ones doing all the bad stuff, but people are calling their Democratic representatives because the people can't actually do anything to stop what's happening. Elected Democrats have way more power to do something than any regular citizens do, yet they continue like everything is status quo. This is why I believe the Democrats are either completely useless or being controlled by the same people who control the Republicans (i.e., billionaires). If it really is that the Democrats aren't being controlled by billionaires, then they're either too lazy to fight back because, yes, it will take a ton of work and effort to fight back, or they simply don't care.

Democrats need to hurry up and refocus their party if they hope to put any kind of dent in the Republican's power come mid-terms. I don't have a ton of faith that happens though and they end up losing more seats in Congress.

 

[GBO Possum]

So glad that RFK, who shouldn't even be allowed near doctor's offices, has been confirmed as head of HHS because no Republican, except for Mitch McConnell (a polio survivor), had any spine to stand up against Trump. I don't wish death upon anyone, but the fact RFK Jr. STILL thinks people with autism (like myself) were the result of vaccines makes me secretly wish for the Kennedy curse to strike again.

Serious question. I used to go to the CDC website for vaccine advice. Where do we go for scientifically supported vaccine information now?

 

[Danoff]

yet they continue like everything is status quo.

Without the will of the people (which we do not have), there is nothing that can be done. America has to suffer, a lot, before it will turn.

 

[Blitz24]

Serious question. I used to go to the CDC website for vaccine advice. Where do we go for scientifically supported vaccine information now?

@Joey D has there been a push towards another location? I cannot imagine everything will go poof so it is very likely some faction of health professionals will create their own site.

 

[Joey D]

Serious question. I used to go to the CDC website for vaccine advice. Where do we go for scientifically supported vaccine information now?

@Joey D has there been a push towards another location? I cannot imagine everything will go poof so it is very likely some faction of health professionals will create their own site.

You can't really go wrong with the Mayo Clinic:

Questions about vaccination? Mayo Clinic can help.

Medicines called vaccines help your body stop an infection before it starts. Vaccines help children and adults avoid infections that can be severe or deadly.

www.mayoclinic.org

Most large university medical centers will give solid advice that is scientifically accurate. @GBO Possum in Massachusetts that would be Boston Medical Center (part of Boston University), Cambridge Health Alliance, and MGB. Where I work, we frequently work with MGB, which is part of the Harvard Medical School. It's either the largest, or one of the largest, research health systems in the US.

There's also:

Home | Immunize.org

www.immunize.org

And National Foundation for Infectious Disease:

Immunization

Information about vaccines recommended across the lifespan, including vaccines for children, adolescents, and adults

www.nfid.org

If you want the actual science behind vaccines, The Lancet publishes a ton of research papers:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/home

But for legal reasons, I need to tell you that ideally, it's best to ask your doctor, assuming you trust them. They should be up to date on all the latest regarding vaccines and which ones are right for you, given your medical history.

 

[MatskiMonk]

they're either too lazy to fight back because, yes, it will take a ton of work and effort to fight back, or they simply don't care.

I'm not saying it's the case, but there is a third option... the sooner American society fails the sooner people will turn away from Trump. If it can get really bad before the mid-terms, that's going to harm the Rapeublicans more than the Democrats, surely.

 

[Danoff]

I'm not saying it's the case, but there is a third option... the sooner American society fails the sooner people will turn away from Trump. If it can get really bad before the mid-terms, that's going to harm the Rapeublicans more than the Democrats, surely.

There's nothing they can do anyway. If they remain relatively quiet, Trump will get the blame for high prices. If they make a lot of noise, he can shift it.

 

[Blitz24]

I'm not saying it's the case, but there is a third option... the sooner American society fails the sooner people will turn away from Trump. If it can get really bad before the mid-terms, that's going to harm the Rapeublicans more than the Democrats, surely.

This is assuming there will be midterm elections. I am not read up on this but is there anything in the Constitution that allows for a suspension of mid-term elections?

 

[Danoff]

is there anything in the Constitution that allows for a suspension of mid-term elections?

I have no idea why you would think that would matter.

But if there are no mid-terms, the whole conversation is moot anyway. So either way, nothing can be done at the moment.

 

[Joey D]

I'm not saying it's the case, but there is a third option... the sooner American society fails the sooner people will turn away from Trump. If it can get really bad before the mid-terms, that's going to harm the Rapeublicans more than the Democrats, surely.

Knowing you could do something but willingly not doing anything so it benefits you in the next election is peak politician behavior, so this doesn't seem like a stretch.

Also, while it should benefit the Democrats, they'll probably fumble the message or focus on things that most people don't care about, and it won't help them at all. The Democrats continuously place their focus on things that are meaningful but that a majority of people just don't care about. It's hard for someone who can't afford groceries to give a damn about a trans kid being able to play sports or even access to abortion. Are those things important? 100% but independent voters, for the most part, don't really care. They just want to be able to afford stuff, have a functioning economy, and be able to live their lives. Trump promised them in simple terms, which helped him win, even though many of us knew his policies were going to be a trainwreck. The Republicans will continue to do the same thing in 2026 and focus on what people want to hear while scapegoating something and it'll probably work.

If any of Trump and Musk's thing do actually work, and there's a chance they might, Republicans will absolutely sweep the midterms and get even more power. I don't think the Republican policies will work, but it's hard to say what will happen. Fascism has a way of making the economy work at the expense of doing some really terrible things.

 

[Exorcet]

Without the will of the people (which we do not have), there is nothing that can be done. America has to suffer, a lot, before it will turn.

Trump's campaign gained a lot of popular support but at the same time there was a good amount of opposition to it. The Democrats may lack majority support but there are plenty of people that would get behind them to protect the US from Trump and the Republicans. I've always been bothered by the notion that someone hated by 49.9% (or more) of the population could be considered a representative of the nation as a whole. I don't think the fight is over yet despite the situation being as bleak as it is, but winning is going to rely on people organizing and pushing back which is easier said than done. There is also the question of what happens next and I agree with your stance that some people aren't going to learn unless they get burned.

 

[05XR8]

I guess those that couldn’t see how bad a trump presidency would be, will really feel how bad it is being baggage class citizens.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The only thing that will save us from Trump is Trump's own supporters turning on him. He will do anything to get people to like him, and he will do a hell of a lot more than that to save his own skin.

 

[Liquid]

I guess those that couldn’t see how bad a trump presidency would be, will really feel how bad it is being baggage class citizens.

Wrong, sir. Dirt tastes amazing as long as you're owning the libs.

 

[Darla Starch]

Wrong, sir. Dirt tastes amazing as long as you're owning the libs.

With the occasional boot as a change of pace

 

[Blitz24]

With the occasional boot as a change of pace

Have some worms while you're at it:
Dirt Cake

 

[Imari]

Oh look, someone in the WH read 1984 again and remembered that enforcing arbitrary naming and speech was part of the methods of control.

https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2024/index/usa

View attachment 1428467

Aww, BFFs Israel and the USA are right beside each other! How cute!

 

[dylansan]

You misunderstand both votes. You're voting for a representative in that case - they are not doing that in a confirmation hearing. Let me try to give you an example to help you understand.

Suppose you're on a jury and you're asked to determine whether the evidence for some question reaches a threshold (what the threshold is depends on the type of case). How you answer this question will ultimately be used to determine whether the person is sent to jail. You can vote, as a jury member, on whether you think the person should be sent to jail. But this is not the question being posed to you. You're being asked about how convincing the evidence in front of you is. You're not being asked about what you want, or who would represent you.

When congress is asked to confirm an executive appointment, they are not being asked to vote for a representative. To think otherwise is just confused about how the government works, what the confirmation process represents, and a little confused about general election voting as well.

Right, they're not voting for a representative, they're being asked to consent to the appointment of a harmful individual to a position of power. And they provided their consent willingly and unanimously.

I don't see how that's better.

It's actually pretty rare for cabinet members to get confirmed with a 100-0 vote. In Trump's last term only one person was confirmed unanimously (I'm ignoring voice votes for now). So when Rubio gets 100 votes, while Rex Tillerson was confirmed 56-43 and Mike Pompeo 57-42, what am I supposed to take from that? It sounds like Democrats have fewer concerns about this administration and this appointment than they ever did before.

Do you think Democrats were abusing their power when some of them voted against Trump's nominees back then? Do you think all 45 Democrats and 2 Independents (and Mitch McConnell!) who just voted against RFK Jr.'s confirmation, did so because they are "confused about how government works"? Would the country be better off, more "institutionally sound" if they had unanimously supported him instead?


And by the way, what exactly do you think is being asked of voters when they vote in US elections? What is my civic duty? To vote for the candidate who best represents my interests? Or to stop bad candidates from getting elected? Because the latter is a very pragmatic stance that seems at odds with your ideals about process and your implication that Senators are not supposed to act toward any practical ends in a confirmation hearing but only do what's "asked of them."

Again, they're not being asked to vote for a representative. Donald Trump is the democratically elected president of the US. He gets to place appointees. That's how our government is supposed to work. Confirmation is not an opportunity to try to vote for a representative.

Is it ever moral to break a rule? To violate a norm? To break precedent? If so, when?

I'm not sure what you're talking about with this. You mean before the election? Yes, before the election democrats needed support and messaging was important. After the election it doesn't really matter. Don't mistake my critique of you, constantly coming in complaining about democrats when some republican does something, for what actually matters in government.

It's currently after the election, yet when I suggest a strategy for Democrats to delay and obstruct Trump's agenda you reject it because it's "more effective communication" to only obstruct a subset of confirmations instead of all of them:

I have no doubt that picking and choosing battles over nominees is more effective communication.

Which is also extremely strange given that you think it's congress's job to confirm the President's choices, not pick battles. I don't understand how you rationalize that.

Strawman nonsense.

I could respond flippantly to this but I actually don't understand your point at all. Someone suggested Democrats should obstruct this administration and your response was to compare them unfavorably to Republicans who obstructed Obama? Do you not want Democrats to obstruct Trump? Why?

Not how I roll. Feel free to block me if you like.

I did a long time ago, but apparently blocking doesn't prevent you from quoting my posts to lecture me when I haven't mentioned you at all.

I can't stop you I guess. I'll probably still respond when there's something I feel like refuting, but I honestly don't know why you find this a valuable use of your time.

"Stop telling me that I have to face the consequences of the actions I provided full-throated defense for even after I was told exactly what was going to happen by several people when I committed to them."

Sorry, you're right. If I don't regularly receive my lecture on the consequences of my actions, it's because I'm deeply ashamed and too afraid to face reality, not because I value my time and would prefer not to spend so much of it rehashing the same conversation, knowing neither side will change their minds.

If you want to talk about people avoiding conversations, perhaps instead of posting mocking imitations of me without quoting or tagging me, you could respond directly to something I say and form an argument?

I was just trying to save you guys some time, but sure, let's have a conversation:

I'm still yet to see any evidence that my actions led to this consequence.

Can you please just spell out the chain of events, of cause and effect, from my vote to the election of Donald Trump? Step by step please, don't skip anything.

Because I keep getting tripped up at:

I voted third party>Kamala Harris wins Massachusetts>???>Donald Trump wins the election.

Can you fill in the question marks for me?

 

[Danoff]

Right, they're not voting for a representative, they're being asked to consent to the appointment of a harmful individual to a position of power. And they provided their consent willingly and unanimously.

I don't see how that's better.

You're talking about Marco Rubio correct? That's the harmful individual being confirmed to a position of power? At least, that's the person I thought we were talking about. There is a difference between determining whether someone meets the qualifications and minimum standards (including past ethical violations, or impeachment, etc.) and voting for a representative. Don't move the goalposts here, you were the one making a comparison with voting for a representative. Since you seem to have conceded the point, I'll move on.

It's actually pretty rare for cabinet members to get confirmed with a 100-0 vote. In Trump's last term only one person was confirmed unanimously (I'm ignoring voice votes for now). So when Rubio gets 100 votes, while Rex Tillerson was confirmed 56-43 and Mike Pompeo 57-42, what am I supposed to take from that? It sounds like Democrats have fewer concerns about this administration and this appointment than they ever did before.

Maybe. Or maybe you take from that that Democrats wanted to send a message about Mike Pompeo and Rex Tillerson that was different than the one about Rubio.

Do you think Democrats were abusing their power when some of them voted against Trump's nominees back then? Do you think all 45 Democrats and 2 Independents (and Mitch McConnell!) who just voted against RFK Jr.'s confirmation, did so because they are "confused about how government works"? Would the country be better off, more "institutionally sound" if they had unanimously supported him instead?

Again, the question is about whether the person meets the qualifications, minimum standards, or has any other disqualifying issue when it comes to holding the office. It's obvious that RFK should not have been confirmed. I have no idea why you can't tell the difference between RFK and Rubio, but it seems that the democrats can, and I agree with them.

And by the way, what exactly do you think is being asked of voters when they vote in US elections? What is my civic duty? To vote for the candidate who best represents my interests? Or to stop bad candidates from getting elected? Because the latter is a very pragmatic stance that seems at odds with your ideals about process and your implication that Senators are not supposed to act toward any practical ends in a confirmation hearing but only do what's "asked of them."

I have no doubt that Senators will act toward practical ends, and were doing so with Rubio, if nothing else than to draw a contrast with the RFK confirmation. I'm not sure why you think I think they shouldn't do that, but you're attributing a position to me that I don't hold.

Your civic duty during a general election is to speak clearly with your vote for what best represents you. When you vote for Jill, what your speech conveys is that you care more about the difference between Kamala and Jill than between Kamala and Trump. That is just the reality of the situation.

Is it ever moral to break a rule? To violate a norm? To break precedent? If so, when?

Rules, norms, and precedent don't establish morality, so in and of themselves the answer is "always". If the rule, norm, or precedent is also establishing a moral requirement, then it's the moral requirement, not the norm, rule, or precedent that is what defines the "break" as immoral.

It's like you asked me whether it's moral to use a toothbrush. Yes... as long as you're not doing something immoral with the toothbrush.

It's currently after the election, yet when I suggest a strategy for Democrats to delay and obstruct Trump's agenda you reject it because it's "more effective communication" to only obstruct a subset of confirmations instead of all of them:

As I replied earlier, don't mistake my critique of you for what is important or meaningful in government today.

Which is also extremely strange given that you think it's congress's job to confirm the President's choices, not pick battles. I don't understand how you rationalize that.

Strawman. A confirmation hearing does not and should not have the foregone conclusion of confirmation. It is very much for picking battles over confirmation. It is not for picking battles over political representation. This is not hard to follow. It's like you're trying not to.

I could respond flippantly to this but I actually don't understand your point at all. Someone suggested Democrats should obstruct this administration and your response was to compare them unfavorably to Republicans who obstructed Obama? Do you not want Democrats to obstruct Trump? Why?

This is what I called a strawman. Not flippantly, accurately.

And apparently a world where blocking a president's agenda is bad regardless of what that agenda is?

This is a strawman because it's not my argument. You made that argument up to fight against.

I do want democrats to obstruct Trump, specifically in confirmations of people like RFK. But I try to be realistic about what is feasible. Apparently even convincing republicans on something as outlandish as RFK is not feasible, which shows you just exactly how powerful congressional democrats are today. Even something that insane is not within reach to stop.

 

[Scaff]

Well done the USA, your already messed up healthcare system is about to get a lot worse.

The lunatics have truly taken over the asylum.

RFK Jr., America's Loudest Anti-Vaxxer, Confirmed As Health Secretary

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will lead America's public health response. Doctors say that's a "slap in the face."

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

 

[Com Fox]

Well done the USA, your already messed up healthcare system is about to get a lot worse.

The lunatics have truly taken over the asylum.

RFK Jr., America's Loudest Anti-Vaxxer, Confirmed As Health Secretary

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will lead America's public health response. Doctors say that's a "slap in the face."

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

Did Trump learn nothing about how much he messed up COVID? Pretty sure that screwed him over in the 2020 election.

 

[TheCracker]

I guess those that couldn’t see how bad a trump presidency would be, will really feel how bad it is being baggage class citizens.

No because as long as Trump and co keep telling his supporters that a little pain now is what it will take to Make America Great Again, again, they'll take the hit because its all part of his genius plan and they don't have the cognitive ability question it. Doesn't matter if eggs* double in price, "things will surely get better soon because he said they would - and he doesn't lie to us".

*Always thought the price of eggs as a guide to consumer price rises was a bit random. The UK uses Freddos. A much better indicator.

 

[UKMikey]

Almost $500 million in food is at risk of spoilage after USAID pause, report says

A report from the USAID inspector general says that almost $500 million in food assistance is sitting in ports, ships and warehouses.

www.cbsnews.com

Trump fires USAID inspector general who released report on impact of agency cuts

President Trump fired the USAID inspector general one day after he released a report detailing the impact of the administration's cuts to the agency.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[McLaren]

Well done the USA, your already messed up healthcare system is about to get a lot worse.

The lunatics have truly taken over the asylum.

RFK Jr., America's Loudest Anti-Vaxxer, Confirmed As Health Secretary

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will lead America's public health response. Doctors say that's a "slap in the face."

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

This is ripe for pissing off Trump supporters with the ideas RFK Jr. has proposed. Those people will still whine about masks/Covid, not a shot in hell they accept RFK Jr. trying to make a serious push to make food healthy for American consumers that likely pales in comparison to what Michelle wanted & we all know how they reacted towards her.

This also has another influx of Herman Cain potential. Covid killed off a lot of ignorant folks who refused a vaccine until it was too late. RFK Jr. succeeding in making vaccinations a choice rather than an obligation to society, will surely result in another large amount of anti-vaccine hospitalizations or deaths. The downside of course, being that we'll all suffer as these idiots re-release diseases that should be long eradicated or worse, create new strands we'll be crippled against because vaccine research will probably be "taboo".

 

[Joey D]

This is ripe for pissing off Trump supporters with the ideas RFK Jr. has proposed. Those people will still whine about masks/Covid, not a shot in hell they accept RFK Jr. trying to make a serious push to make food healthy for American consumers that likely pales in comparison to what Michelle wanted & we all know how they reacted towards her.

This also has another influx of Herman Cain potential. Covid killed off a lot of ignorant folks who refused a vaccine until it was too late. RFK Jr. succeeding in making vaccinations a choice rather than an obligation to society, will surely result in another large amount of anti-vaccine hospitalizations or deaths. The downside of course, being that we'll all suffer as these idiots re-release diseases that should be long eradicated or worse, create new strands we'll be crippled against because vaccine research will probably be "taboo".

I don't know, Crunchy Conservatives are becoming more and more of a thing and it's weird. These morons like to drink raw milk and won't bother with vaccines because they're not natural. I don't know when crunchy people went from being super liberal to right wing assholes, but it's been in the last 10 years for sure. Even a guy I went to school with who used to be hardcore conservative, drove a big truck, hated gays, wanted to join the Marines, you know all that stuff, is now a crunchy conservative tech bro who only shops at Whole Foods, drinks raw milk, drives a Tesla, won't vaccinate his kids, and all the stuff he used to make fun of.

 

[McLaren]

I don't know, Crunchy Conservatives are becoming more and more of a thing and it's weird. These morons like to drink raw milk and won't bother with vaccines because they're not natural. I don't know when crunchy people went from being super liberal to right wing assholes, but it's been in the last 10 years for sure. Even a guy I went to school with who used to be hardcore conservative, drove a big truck, hated gays, wanted to join the Marines, you know all that stuff, is now a crunchy conservative tech bro who only shops at Whole Foods, drinks raw milk, drives a Tesla, won't vaccinate his kids, and all the stuff he used to make fun of.

True, but these people also create infighting within' conservatives, esp. when Tesla is brought up. I've seen it myself when local MAGA goofballs start blaming Teslas whenever there is an issued power conservation alert & you'll have conservative Tesla owners coming out, (correctly) defending how their cars use power. It's right up there when these Texas chuds start spewing California hate & the occasional Californian chimes in, "We're not all bad, we came here to get away, too" before still being met with, "We're full".

If Crunchy Conservatives are becoming more of a thing, good for comedy then b/c they will not get along with boomer Republicans longing for steaks, V8s, & guns.

 

[GBO Possum]

The following paper argues that Musk has not just streamlined bureaucracy but replaced traditional power structures with his own network of loyalists, aligning with the neoreactionary (NRx) movement—a Silicon Valley elite group that seeks to dismantle democracy in favor of a corporate-monarchic model.

https://america2.news/content/files/2025/02/Musk-NRx-Memo-February-5-2025.pdf

 

[Danoff]

What will the RFK fallout be?

RFK is a different animal than Trump. He's a true believer, a conspiracy theorist, and I think he genuinely wants to fix what he thinks are problems with public health. Obviously he has lots of terrible ideas, and some of those ideas are about to be played out. So what do I think the fallout will be, or could be, and what am I missing?

First - a doctor/nurse shortage and higher prices. RFK being in charge of HHS in the US is going to cause some people to give up on medicine altogether, or not go into in the first place. This will raise prices.

Second - a lot of resignations at the CDC, FDA, etc. This might seem like a win to conservatives, but there will be a lot of institutional knowledge lost, and it will set back US health policy for a long time when it is lost.

Three - confusion. Right now, when my kids go to the doctor there is a clear recommendation for vaccinations and preventative care. This is probably not going to be the case anymore, and doctors are going to make it up as they go, or rely on some knew guidance that will come from some new organization. In the interim, there will be confusion about what to do among both patients and providers.

Four - lack of action. Bird flu, coronavirus, other pandemics, etc. will continue to spread and infect. And the US is not going to have clear guidance or action on those issues with RFK in charge.

Five - reduced medical funding for promising medicine, and increased funding for things that probably aren't promising. So waste, and delayed future medicine.

Six - Legalization of unsafe practices. I'm thinking raw milk and other practices where people will make themselves sick and placing a burden on the healthcare system. I'm not sure how much I really care about this one, but it seems highly likely.

Seven - vaccination barriers. I'm not sure RFK will go so far as to try to demand that polio vaccines lose their FDA approval (I don't even know if he can do this). Certainly he could try, and we could end up in a situation where none of us can get vaccinated or gets our kids vaccinated. But short of that kind of action, an annual flu or covid vaccine could be brough under more strict scrutiny. Even to the point where we cannot release annual vaccine updates at all - which would leave all of us more exposed to these viruses, and increase the chance that those viruses continue to spread, and increase annual mortality numbers for them.

Eight - bans on lifesaving or reproductive medicine. I don't know if RFK will actually do this. I don't think he wants this job for the purpose of hurting people or crusading for embryos or against sex or women's lib. But it is certainly a possibility, and there are those within the Trump admin that would like this kind of action to be taken. If that pressure gets applied to him, will he resist it? Seems questionable.

What else?

 

[McLaren]

The following paper argues that Musk has not just streamlined bureaucracy but replaced traditional power structures with his own network of loyalists, aligning with the neoreactionary (NRx) movement—a Silicon Valley elite group that seeks to dismantle democracy in favor of a corporate-monarchic model.

https://america2.news/content/files/2025/02/Musk-NRx-Memo-February-5-2025.pdf

Dismantle democracy? Someone close to Vance had an interesting quote about democracy last year that caught a couple headlines.

"I don't think we're ever in a cyclical world but there are certainly certain parallels in the U.S. in the 2020s to Germany in the 1920s," Thiel said. "Liberalism is exhausted, one suspects that democracy, whatever that means, is exhausted, and that we have to ask some questions very far outside the Overton window."

The Overton window means the range of views or opinions considered politically acceptable at a given time.

Peter Thiel's pre-Nazi Germany comparison to US resurfaces

Thiel said liberalism and democracy are "exhausted," and said, "We have to ask some questions very far outside the Overton window."

www.newsweek.com

 

[Danoff]

Regarding probationary federal worker layoffs

The word probationary just means they're in their first year of the job. It doesn't mean they've done anything wrong or are under-performing somehow. Federal workers are easier to remove in their first year on the job (probationary). But they're also some of the harshest to target, because they likely just quit a job, or moved, or otherwise transitioned their lives to the new job opportunity.