US Politics: Deep State Solution

[Altherion]

22 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

No, I don't see the problem. This idea is basically the foundation of any democratic system. Our society (or perhaps a segment of our society) identifies a problem or an inequality and our elected officials react to this perception by enacting legislation that seeks to correct it. What "mode of reasoning" would you suggest as a superior option?  

How would you like it if the anti political correctness aspects of Trump's ideology catch on and a future President, Congress and Supreme Court decide that the "anti-discrimination" measures had gone too far and, for the sake of fairness, we should now discriminate in favor of white people until they decree that the scales have been balanced?

The alternative and, in my opinion, superior, mode of reasoning has been neatly summarized by our current Chief Justice: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

57 minutes ago, Altherion said:

How would you like it if the anti political correctness aspects of Trump's ideology catch on and a future President, Congress and Supreme Court decide that the "anti-discrimination" measures had gone too far and, for the sake of fairness, we should now discriminate in favor of white people until they decree that the scales have been balanced?

The alternative and, in my opinion, superior, mode of reasoning has been neatly summarized by our current Chief Justice: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

 That's part and parcel of our system. I wouldn't like it, but if they can affect that change within the confines and rules of our system, then so be it. 

 Your alternative is pie in the sky. It's a great ideal, but we have simply not evolved to the point where that is going to happen without legislation. And yes, it's going to occur even with legislation, or in the case of affirmative action, include a smaller level of discrimination that is paid to correct a larger level of discrimination.

[Fragile Bird]

12 hours ago, Altherion said:

 

Seriously? No, I honestly had not heard it before and it doesn't make any sense to me. Unlike "racism", "discrimination" is a very old word which has kept a similar meaning throughout and it can be used in this context without making up new terms simply by specifying for or against whom it is directed. But you're right -- it's even in the online dictionary. Oh well, at least I learned something new. Thanks.

You're in your 20s????

[mormont]

3 hours ago, Altherion said:

How would you like it if the anti political correctness aspects of Trump's ideology catch on and a future President, Congress and Supreme Court decide that the "anti-discrimination" measures had gone too far and, for the sake of fairness, we should now discriminate in favor of white people until they decree that the scales have been balanced?

The alternative and, in my opinion, superior, mode of reasoning has been neatly summarized by our current Chief Justice: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

How else does one 'stop discriminating on the basis of race', other than by implementing anti-discrimination measures?

[butterbumps!]

8 hours ago, MerenthaClone said:

Fundamentally Altherion is okay with "shaking things up" because he's well-off and insulated enough that he'll probably be able to weather whatever storm comes.  It also makes him an asshole. 

I thought he was emphasizing the assertion that this would be saving taxpayers money otherwise being wasted on idle positions.   Because if he brought this up to show us that the Trump administration was "draining the swamp" of unnecessary expenses taxpayers finance as a triumph, he must surely be clutching his pearls over the egregious cost to taxpayers that is the personal habits of the first family.  The Obamas spent an average of $12.1m per year on family travel.   Trump has nearly exceeded that in the first month for his personal weekend travel, which doesn't include the $500,000/ day* cost of guarding Trump Tower (another $15m monthly in federal taxes), all the boondoggle foreign travel his kids choose to do, or the rent he's going to charge the Defense Dept for setting up in his building.   I thought by electing a billionaire we were getting a president who'd have no need to fleece taxpayers.  Sad!

*I thought this was costing NYC $1m daily, per other reports.   Does NYC split the cost with federal taxpayers?

[Savannah]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

How else does one 'stop discriminating on the basis of race', other than by implementing anti-discrimination measures?

It's just that positive discrimination is not an anti discrimination measure. 

[Martell Spy]

What a Failed Trump Administration Looks Like
 David Brooks

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/opinion/what-a-failed-trump-administration-looks-like.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0

Quote

Bannon has a coherent worldview, which is a huge advantage when all is chaos. It’s interesting how many of Bannon’s rivals have woken up with knives in their backs. Michael Flynn is gone. Reince Priebus has been unmanned by a thousand White House leaks. Rex Tillerson had the potential to be an effective secretary of state, but Bannon neutered him last week by denying him the ability to even select his own deputy.

 

Quote

 

Other key voices in the party say the Trump controversies are adding up and preventing Republicans from devoting their full attention to their top legislative priorities: repealing and replacing ObamaCare and overhauling the Tax Code.

“It is a distraction,” Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said this week after Trump fired his national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and news outlets reported close ties between Trump campaign aides and Russia. “I mean every day you guys, you're not focused on tax reform right now... nor [are] the American people. It's taking away from other efforts.”

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/320088-gop-congress-unnerved-by-trump-bumps

GOP Congress unnerved by Trump bumps

[OldGimletEye]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/upshot/why-trumps-2-for-1-rule-on-regulations-is-no-quick-fix.html

Quote

President Trump intends to pare back a vast array of government regulations in fields like environmental protection, food and drug safety, and consumer finance. On Jan. 30 he ordered that for every new regulation it imposes, the government must get rid of two old ones.

It is an interesting idea but a misguided one. Even if government regulations are sometimes a burden, they are clearly critical to the functioning of a modern economy and society.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-17/beware-of-consultants-bearing-rosy-news-about-mergers

Quote

Amid the blizzard of election news last November, two writers at the nonprofit news organization ProPublica came out with a startling investigative report. Jesse Eisinger and Justin Elliott wrote about a small but very wealthy group of American economists who make millions of dollars helping companies deal with the federal government on antitrust cases.

They focused on Dennis Carlton, a professor at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, and a senior managing director at the consulting firm Compass Lexecon. According to Eisinger and Elliott, Carlton has been paid more than $100 million from consulting activities during his career.

 

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/02/trump-decrees-economy-grow-twice-fast

Quote

The Congressional Budget Office forecasts that the labor force will grow 0.5 percent annually over the next ten years and productivity will grow 1.4 percent. That's total economic growth of 1.9 percent per year. But the Trumpists are forecasting 3.5 percent growth over the next decade. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they supercharge the economy, pulling everyone back into work and achieving labor force growth of 0.8 percent. They still need productivity growth of 2.7 percent. That's astronomically higher than anyone thinks possible. So how are Trump's economists justifying this?

Don't know about y'all, but just like I was Bullish on Bush, I'm Pumped About Trump!

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Savannah said:

It's just that positive discrimination is not an anti discrimination measure. 

It counters discrimination: by definition, it is an anti-discrimination measure.

[Martell Spy]

GREAT ESCAPE
9 People Escape Border Patrol, Scramble Across into Canada

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/02/18/9-people-escape-border-patrol-scramble-across-into-canada.html?via=desktop&source=copyurl

 

Mark Zuckerberg Rebuffs ‘America First’

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/02/16/mark-zuckerberg-rebuffs-america-first.html?via=desktop&source=copyurl
 

 

[OldGimletEye]

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-trade-policy-tariffs-by-richard-baldwin-2017-02

Quote

Donald Trump’s ignominious executive order barring entry into the United States for refugees and others from seven predominantly Muslim countries has dominated headlines in recent weeks. But the damage done to America’s image, and to the global economy, will only be further compounded by Trump’s early decisions on trade.

In speeches and tweets, Trump has aggressively lashed out against globalization. He has appointed the famously protectionist trade litigator Robert Lighthizer to be US Trade Representative. And the other two members of his trade triumvirate – Commerce Secretary-designate Wilbur Ross and White House trade adviser Peter Navarro – are no less protectionist than Lighthizer.

Many working- and middle-class Americans believe that free-trade agreements are why their incomes have stagnated over the past two decades. So Trump intends to provide them with “protection” by putting protectionists in charge.

But Trump and his triumvirate have misdiagnosed the problem. While globalization is an important factor in the hollowing out of the middle class, so, too, is automation. Most of Lighthizer and Ross’s business experience has been in twentieth-century industries such as steel production, which has conditioned them to pursue twentieth-century solutions for America’s twenty-first-century industrial problems.

You know, if your goals here are to improve the US's export position and to help the middle class and poor, it would seem to me that a better route to go would be something like:

1. Nix the tax cuts for the wealthy.

2. Pass a VAT, then cut income taxes for the middle class and the poor, to off set the regressive nature of the VAT. The idea here is basically to change savings and spending decisions, at least somewhat.

3. Think about hitting a higher inflation target.

And of course, stuff like:

Quote

the US needs to restore its social contract so that its workers have a fair shot at sharing in the gains generated by global openness and automation. Globalization and technological innovation are not painless processes, so there will always be a need for retraining initiatives, lifelong education, mobility and income-support programs, and regional transfers.

 

[Einheri]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

It counters discrimination: by definition, it is an anti-discrimination measure.

It's still discriminatory against the people who do not belong to the prioritized group(s), and it goes against the principle that people should be evaluated/selected on the basis of their qualifications, merits and character, and not because of factors we have no control over such as what genitals we’re born with, sexual preference, skin color, eye color, the ability to grow an awesome beard, etc.

[Seli]

11 minutes ago, Einheri said:

It's still discriminatory against the people who do not belong to the prioritized group(s), and it goes against the principle that people should be evaluated/selected on the basis of their qualifications, merits and character, and not because of factors we have no control over such as what genitals we’re born with, sexual preference, skin color, eye color, the ability to grow an awesome beard, etc.

 

No not really, because they (all else being equal) still have it easier than the prioritized groups. Which is a sad result of our societie still being biased on sexual preference, gender, age, skin colour, cultural background etc, regardless of ideals. As such it is an embodiment of the principle of meritocracy, not a contradiction. 

[mormont]

19 minutes ago, Einheri said:

It's still discriminatory against the people who do not belong to the prioritized group(s)

Again, it isn't discriminatory when you don't get something if you wouldn't have got it without discrimination in your favour. That's the absence of discrimination.

19 minutes ago, Einheri said:

and it goes against the principle that people should be evaluated/selected on the basis of their qualifications, merits and character

No, it doesn't. It enforces that principle by removing the bias in favour of other qualities, such as being white.

[Commodore]

if the deep state Obama intel chiefs that illegally leaked to torpedo Flynn end up installing John Bolton at NSC, that will be sweet karma

[Einheri]

17 minutes ago, Seli said:

No not really, because they (all else being equal) still have it easier than the prioritized groups.

Well, that is a generalization, and it’s not going to be true for every individual (or even the majority) in these groups. Also, an individuals previous hardships should have no say in meritocracy.

As such it is an embodiment of the principle of meritocracy, not a contradiction. 

No. It’s your achievements/merits/talents that define you in a meritocracy. Noting else.

[Savannah]

40 minutes ago, Einheri said:

It's still discriminatory against the people who do not belong to the prioritized group(s), and it goes against the principle that people should be evaluated/selected on the basis of their qualifications, merits and character, and not because of factors we have no control over such as what genitals we’re born with, sexual preference, skin color, eye color, the ability to grow an awesome beard, etc.

 

That's right. 
Also even if we would want to dismiss the fact that we are talking about perceived discrimination in the first place and would take the perceived discrimination as a fact, positive discrimination would still not be an anti discrimination device, it would just be a discrimination rerouter, at best. 

[Einheri]

13 minutes ago, mormont said:

Again, it isn't discriminatory when you don't get something if you wouldn't have got it without discrimination in your favour. That's the absence of discrimination.

Discrimination in favor of whatever group is discrimination. The end.

No, it doesn't. It enforces that principle by removing the bias in favour of other qualities, such as being white.

Well, being white or any other skin color shouldn't matter.

[mormont]

3 minutes ago, Einheri said:

Well, being white or any other skin color shouldn't matter.

But there's copious evidence that it does. When that changes, get back to us. In the meantime, that closes the discussion as far as I'm concerned.

[James Arryn]

31 minutes ago, mormont said:

Again, it isn't discriminatory when you don't get something if you wouldn't have got it without discrimination in your favour. That's the absence of discrimination.

No, it doesn't. It enforces that principle by removing the bias in favour of other qualities, such as being white.

That's not strictly true, though. There surely are individuals...let's say a prospective soldier...who do see less objectively qualified individuals gain what would otherwise be theirs due to prejudicial 'corrections'. 

I actually agree with the fact that, in principle, affirmative action promotes the kind of discrimination by classification it seeks to correct. It stresses identifying people according to 'type' when ultimately we ought to be tearing down those walls.

 That said, I have not been able to think of a better correction*, I understand that a correction is necessary for the greater good, and I do know that the vast majority of people who purport to share my idealogical concerns do so as a cosmetic rationalization for very real bigotry. It usually becomes pretty clear when they expand beyond that point, or somehow try to pretend that the inverted bias in real life comes anywhere near the 'traditional' one, which is preposterous. (with custody bias being the one arguable exception).

So, I find myself with at least a toe in the enemy camp, and will therefore object to inaccurate broadstrokes like above, even though I know that in reality I am therefore coming to the defense of people holding views I despise. I suppose the tree of life springs ever grey after all.

 

*my best current hope is that increased interaction via Internet will make irrelevant qualifiers like gender, race and orientation non-factors, but that's still a long way off.