Larry of the Lawn Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Not to mention Trump and congress are going to gut the EPA or attempt to. And that damage cannot be undone, and disproportionately affects poorer communities. As far as a Trump being a counter to the neoliberal agenda, I think it's foolish to think he would be in anyway more likely than Clinton to improve either inequality or more likely to keep corporations in check regarding environmental and consumer protection regulations. His cabinet choices reflect this, and his past history reveals a worship of money, power, and image above all other concerns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 14 minutes ago, Altherion said: And affirmative action most certainly is discrimination against white people; I don't think there is any doubt about that. I have news: it isn't and there is. The purpose of affirmative action is to correct discrimination. The beneficiaries are the subjects of discrimination. The effects are anti-discriminatory. It ceases the moment its own effects become discriminatory: in fact, before that. It ceases when the discriminatory effect is eliminated, and fairness is established. The idea that AA, then, is in fact discrimination is pretty hard to stand up. It rests on the idea that being given a proportionate slice of the pie, instead of a disproportionately large one, is discrimination. And that's bollocks. There is absolutely and utterly no doubt about that. If one individual white kid who would otherwise have had a place at university that he shouldn't have got, doesn't get it because of AA, then there is no discrimination taking place, whatever that poor kid feels about it. I understand that the feelings of white people are the basis of your support for Trump, but there it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Just now, Altherion said: What Trump did was turn identity politics against the left. Or maybe conservatives having been using and perfecting identity politics for years with talk of welfare queens, strapping young bucks, "state's rights", "the food stamp president" and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felice Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 9 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: I think there some long term issues that we are going to have figure out. But, there are some things that we could do right now to help people out that are struggling. That would include raising the minimum wage and expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit and continuing to make sure people have access to adequate health insurance. And reducing the working week (30 hours seems like a good start) and increasing number of holidays. There aren't enough jobs to go round, so sharing them out more is good for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 17 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: Wishful thinking in the extreme, I'd say. A guy intending to implement a bunch of progressive economic policies doesn't go out and hire Larry Kudlow, Stephen Moore, and then a bunch of rich billionaire guys for policy advice. Most of Trumps stuff seems to be:"By helping the rich guy out, you help yourself!" I think we've been there and done that. And I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, it just doesn't seem to ever pan out. Judging by the amount of squealing in the media, I am reasonably confident that at least some of the elite are losing something due to Trump's policies. Of course, it could be that Trump is merely going to reallocate resources from his enemies to his allies and himself in which case we'll just have to try again with someone different. 8 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: Or maybe conservatives having been using and perfecting identity politics for years with talk of welfare queens, strapping young bucks, "state's rights", "the food stamp president" and such. There's a difference between using Aesopian language and saying something openly. Trump didn't quite do the latter, but he is much closer to it than anyone before him. 14 minutes ago, mormont said: The purpose of affirmative action is to correct discrimination. The beneficiaries are the subjects of discrimination. The effects are anti-discriminatory. It ceases the moment its own effects become discriminatory: in fact, before that. It ceases when the discriminatory effect is eliminated, and fairness is established. I think we're disagreeing over the meanings of words here. In my view, "anti-discriminatory" is inherently discriminatory against some group. It may be just and fair, it may be intended to correct previous discrimination, but it is still a form of discrimination. I think my definition is better: a given parameter is either being used for selection or it is not. The problem with yours is that it relies on the concept of fairness which is extremely vague (entire books have been written on the subject). For example, who gets to evaluate the fairness of a given situation and decide that it has been established? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, Altherion said: I think we're disagreeing over the meanings of words here. You do seem to have a peculiar understanding of some important concepts, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Just now, Altherion said: Judging by the amount of squealing in the media, I am reasonably confident that at least some of the elite are losing something due to Trump's policies. Of course, it could be that Trump is merely going to reallocate resources from his enemies to his allies and himself in which case we'll just have to try again with someone different. Like what are they going to lose? Now maybe Trump starts a trade war or something or disrupts international relations or something and these people lose out. Now I will be honest. I think it will be kind of hilarious that some of these people lose out, because evidently they 1)believed Trump on the tax cuts and the deregulation and voted for him on it, but 2) didn't believe Trump on the the other stuff. They basically said,"Wut tax cuts? Well, that's all I need to hear!" In a way, it would kind of serve them right. But there is just one thing: If Trump does some of his crazy stuff a lot of people who aren't wealthy will lose out too. His policies will bad for everyone. If you believe that excessive neo-liberalism or whatever has been a problem, there were better ways to handle it, then the way Trump is going to go about things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 12 minutes ago, Altherion said: For example, who gets to evaluate the fairness of a given situation and decide that it has been established? If we decided to use this logic regarding pretty much any sort of governmental or administrative action, nothing would ever get implemented. It is a law that is addressed and modified by all 3 branches of our government, so i suppose the answer to your question is our three branches of government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Just now, Altherion said: There's a difference between using Aesopian language and saying something openly. Trump didn't quite do the latter, but he is much closer to it than anyone before him. Well, whatever. But the fact is conservatives have been practicing "identity politics" for years, while pointing fingers at the left for it. It wasn't like Trump created white nationalism in the Republican Party overnight. It had been nurtured for years before he ever showed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Quote And reducing the working week (30 hours seems like a good start) and increasing number of holidays. There aren't enough jobs to go round, so sharing them out more is good for everyone. Yep, and phase in a universal income. It's not that there aren't solutions, it's that Republicans repeatedly block them. Which is why there's been only minimal fighting of inequality out of Washington DC for 50 years. It's actually false that the main GOP agenda is tax cuts for the wealthy. Their top priority is shutting down any wealth redistribution policies and they have been hugely effective at it. The only places addressing income inequality are the states and cities, and of course Republicans have been trying to stop that as well. For example, preemption laws to stop cities from raising the minimum wage. Our own Republicans here in Washington state are right now trying to create a bunch of minimum wage exceptions, the big one being that the new raises that just went through wouldn't apply outside of King County, the county around Seattle. Preemption Bills: A New Conservative Tool to Block Minimum Wage Increases https://newrepublic.com/article/130783/preemption-bills-new-conservative-tool-block-minimum-wage-increases Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 1 hour ago, Altherion said: My point had nothing to do with the opinion of white people; it was simply that the vast majority of minority citizens are in the same economic position as white people and thus are also not doing too well. Um, this is about as wrong as wrong can get: Quote Take income. In 2014, the median household income for whites was $71,300 compared to$43,300 for blacks. But for college-educated whites, the median household income was $106,600, significantly higher than the $82,300 for households headed by college-educated blacks, the report found. And even more to the point: Quote The report found that in 2013, white households in the U.S. had a median wealth of $144,200 --almost 13 times the median wealth of black households at $11,200. But here again is an example where the gap is not significantly narrowed by education. White households headed by someone with a college degree have a median wealth of $301,300 compared to college-educated black households, which have a median wealth of $26,300. http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/27/news/economy/racial-wealth-gap-blacks-whites/ Your comment is dead wrong. 1 hour ago, Altherion said: There are certainly privileged white males in our society and they constitute a majority of privileged citizens, but there are also those of the working class and you're going to have a really hard time convincing them that they're privileged. And affirmative action most certainly is discrimination against white people; I don't think there is any doubt about that. Having a hard time convincing them that white privilege exists doesn't change the fact that it is real. Poor white people still experience a ton of benefits that poor minorities do not. Quit feeding the narrative that feelings trump facts. You do it all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savannah Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 59 minutes ago, Altherion said: I think we're disagreeing over the meanings of words here. In my view, "anti-discriminatory" is inherently discriminatory against some group. It may be just and fair, it may be intended to correct previous discrimination, but it is still a form of discrimination. I think my definition is better: a given parameter is either being used for selection or it is not. The problem with yours is that it relies on the concept of fairness which is extremely vague (entire books have been written on the subject). For example, who gets to evaluate the fairness of a given situation and decide that it has been established? You are right, the problem with positive discrimination is that it tries to correct perceived discrimination with more discrimination, it just can't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Quote If the White House had actually wanted to offer clarity on its plans or make people aware that it wasn’t planning to create a terrifying mass deportation force, the solution would have been simple: They could have simply denied the report on Thursday when the AP sought comment or explained that the proposal was never seriously considered. But the benefits of further delegitimizing the media and any dissenters inside the administration far outweigh any potential upsides of clear communication. Instead, this method builds on what Trump’s press conference and “media survey” qua fundraiser accomplished on Thursday: Attack the group Trump sees as his principal adversary. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/02/trump_s_chaos_has_real_consequences_for_everyone.html Trump’s Chaos Has Real Consequences When the White House refuses to acknowledge the truth of deportation force plans, it serves multiple nefarious purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 This is fucking dangeorus. He called he free press the enemy of the people. This is the same rhetoric that Stalin, Lenin used. I cannot believe Republicans are quiet. It also means there is another big story going to break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, Mexal said: This is fucking dangeorus. He called he free press the enemy of the people. This is the same rhetoric that Stalin, Lenin used. I cannot believe Republicans are quiet. It also means there is another big story going to break. That tweet is wrong on so many levels. You are our President. If something is the enemy of the American People (interesting capitalization aside) then isn't it also your enemy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 8 minutes ago, Mexal said: This is fucking dangeorus. He called he free press the enemy of the people. This is the same rhetoric that Stalin, Lenin used. I cannot believe Republicans are quiet. It also means there is another big story going to break. I'm starting to think they'll capitulate to just about everything he does. It's like the outrage inbox is full and nothing matters anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGP Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 @Rippounet Welp, so much for the talks in Munich, where the grains of salt were a'flying. #sabotrumped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 I think Republicans can see the advantages to them in cowing the press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said: Like what are they going to lose? Now maybe Trump starts a trade war or something or disrupts international relations or something and these people lose out. Now I will be honest. I think it will be kind of hilarious that some of these people lose out, because evidently they 1)believed Trump on the tax cuts and the deregulation and voted for him on it, but 2) didn't believe Trump on the the other stuff. They basically said,"Wut tax cuts? Well, that's all I need to hear!" In a way, it would kind of serve them right. But there is just one thing: If Trump does some of his crazy stuff a lot of people who aren't wealthy will lose out too. His policies will bad for everyone. If you believe that excessive neo-liberalism or whatever has been a problem, there were better ways to handle it, then the way Trump is going to go about things. There are undoubtedly better ways to handle it, but none of them were available as options -- it was Trump or the status quo. And yes, it would be funny if the tax cut people lost out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Just now, Altherion said: There are undoubtedly better ways to handle it, but none of them were available as options. I'm not buying this. Trump and the Republicans will make things worse. Taking "a gamble" on Trump made no sense. It was pure wishful thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.