U.S. Politics: Can't Stand It, I Know Ya Planned It, Gotta Set It Straight this Morongate

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

1 hour ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

White privilege is a myth, Michael. If anyone is going to associate "privilege" to being white, then I ask them to explain why there are twice as many homeless whites than there are blacks, and overwhelmingly more than any other minority group? Whites are going to over represent pretty much everything because they're a substantial majority in numbers. When we talk "privilege," conceptually it's suggesting that someone is giving them this privilege. So, one way you can stave off these assertions of white privilege, Michael, is by challenging those who believe it's true to identify who's giving them this privilege. Is it the government? And if so, how are they doing it?  

Well, short and simple the argument I always get is that your born with it. Now, don't get me wrong, I believe it a real thing decades ago. But, it is slowly fading away and can't be used as an excuse anymore. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

One doubts they know or care that Armageddon is supposed to lift everyone everywhere to heaven, including sinners and non-believers. 

If we're going to go the religious right misunderstanding basic theology route, I'm afraid we don't have the time.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

32 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Trump employed a literal nazi in Gorka. Trump is an antisemetic piece of shit. Also, don't forget what he said about jews last year during his hate campaign. 

That he'd rather have them counting his money than black people? Yeah, that's a revolutionary concept.  

[Darth Richard II]

21 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

If we're going to go the religious right misunderstanding basic theology route, I'm afraid we don't have the time.

No, but it's pretty fascinating stuff. A noted catholic scholar absolutely ripped left behind to shreds so bad on his blog he got it published as a book, that's apparently sold more then the series it shuts on. (Apparently most Catholics really really hate those books)

[Darth Richard II]

36 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Trump employed a literal nazi in Gorka. Trump is an antisemetic piece of shit. Also, don't forget what he said about jews last year during his hate campaign. 

I rember on genocide awareness whatever day he forgot to mention the holocost.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

I rember on genocide awareness whatever day he forgot to mention the holocost.

He signed the Israeli Holocaust Museum's guestbook like a yearbook entry...

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/05/donald-trump-israel-holocaust-museum-book-of-remembrance-signed-2017

[DMC]

So, forgive me if I'm missing anything blatant, but I think the constant Harvey news at least needs to be reiterated.  It's an important story that may not but should affect US politics.  The latest victims are Angie Everhart and Minka Kelly, although I'm sure I'm out of date by the time I post this.  The Harveys of this world need to be stopped, and they're all too common with men in power.  It's gross, it sucks, and the ubiquity of the good ol boys club throughout professions need to be called out by other men first and foremost.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Not sure how this is going to play out, but I hope he ends up doing time on the back of this and losing his production company. This whole entering himself into rehab bullshit is so insincere. 

[Mother Cocanuts]

9 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Well, short and simple the argument I always get is that your born with it. Now, don't get me wrong, I believe it a real thing decades ago. But, it is slowly fading away and can't be used as an excuse anymore. 

Decades ago, one could argue that the government gave Whites privilege because they were legally discriminating against black people. (Though, in practice, a large number of black people were economically better off decades ago.) That would at least make sense. But in a legal, political, and economic environment where it's stigmatized and often prohibited to discriminate based on race or ethnicity, it's almost willfully ignorant to assert that Whites are privileged. Who is giving them this privilege? And if they're "born with it" why doesn't it manifest in every single white individual? The problem with politics is that it's now primarily based in seeking entitlements through emotional reaction. And nothing stirs up emotions more than conveying the image of a victim. You see it with Black Lives Matter, Feminism, Men's Rights Movement, Cyber Bullying, Body Shaming, etc.

Political discourse has been neutered in the sense that being provocative and yes, even a little offensive demands censors and safe spaces. It's more about prioritizing "feelings" than challenging philosophy and ethics, which promise a better condition for us all. Subterfuge instead of persuasion; docility instead of controversy. Do you know who needs their feelings protected and accommodated? Do you know who have an unchecked sense of entitlement? Children. I know it's a bit ageist of me, but modern (Western) politics, if nothing, represents the gradual regression to infantilism. And it's only going to get worse.

Sorry, I went off on a tangent there.

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

White privilege is a myth, Michael. If anyone is going to associate "privilege" to being white, then I ask them to explain why there are twice as many homeless whites than there are blacks, and overwhelmingly more than any other minority group? Whites are going to over represent pretty much everything because they're a substantial majority in numbers. 

Wait, what?

You ask a question then you provide a reasonable answer but you nonetheless reach the wrong conclusion... how is that possible. Are you drunk ? 

[The guy from the Vale]

6 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Wait, what?

You ask a question then you provide a reasonable answer but you nonetheless reach the wrong conclusion... how is that possible. Are you drunk ? 

No. Just numerically illiterate. It's quite frequent.

MC at least knows that being a majority makes people of that group more likely to be found in any kind of position, which is progress, I guess, but this poster still has no idea what over- or underrepresentation is, apparently.

[DMC]

25 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Not sure how this is going to play out, but I hope he ends up doing time on the back of this and losing his production company. This whole entering himself into rehab bullshit is so insincere. 

Well, he's already lost his company.  That's the insidious thing - appears as if his brother is using this in a power move in spite of the fact Bob and the entire board undoubtedly knew what was going on for decades.

10 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

You ask a question then you provide a reasonable answer but you nonetheless reach the wrong conclusion... how is that possible. Are you drunk ? 

This is offensive.  Please don't conflate us drunks with such hazy arguments.

[Relic]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Wait, what?

You ask a question then you provide a reasonable answer but you nonetheless reach the wrong conclusion... how is that possible. Are you drunk ? 

Don't even try with this guy. Seriously, not worth it. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

Still letting the whole ("Met with the President of the Virgin Islands......" ) thing digest, smmfh.

So here's some interesting Puerto Rican history, just think, if you watch 20 minutes of this, you will know more about P.R. than the dumbass President of P.R., V.I & the U.S.of Effin A.

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

9 hours ago, Ormond said:

In September 2015 the Gallup poll found that 91% of Americans said they would vote for a Jewish candidate for President --which means the majority of those who would claim they are "evangelical" Christians must have said they would vote for a Jewish candidate. I know that answering an abstract question is different from one's reaction to a particular candidate, but I think if 91% will tell Gallup they'd vote for a Jewish candidate, a charismatic Jewish candidate could certainly get to 51% in a real election. 

And I know a lot of "devout Christians" who would vote for a non-Christian for President. Of course, I am a mainline Protestant who is a member of a liberal-leaning congregation.

http://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/185813/six-americans-say-yes-muslim-president.aspx

P.S. By the way, i would say I am a Christian first, a liberal second, and a Democrat way, way third.

I'd take those polls with a grain of salt, as I think that social desirability might lead to quite different results between poll and voting booth.

On another note @The Great Unwashed @DanteGabriel @Tywin et al. and whoever I have forgotten to mention, I take it, the American Public did remember Obama's convention speech better than I thought, which also means I concede that point Ormond in terms of that Obama was less unknown than I thought.

[DanteGabriel]

16 hours ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

@DanteGabriel

I recognize that. But, what else are in WV but white men? Someone posted in the other thread what Hillary would've done. She wouldn't have, just like Trump isn't going to do anything. I find it funny that people don't recognize the reason Trump is in office is because the white working man has been ignored for decades. And, Trump noticed that and fed upon it. The Democrats messed up, they ignored their biggest constituency for a long time. At a certain point, people get fed up with it. Bill Maher said it, a host of MSNBC and CNN hosts said it and it's the truth. Wether your willing to believe it or comes to terms with it, that's on you. It has nothing g to do with privledge. In fact, just working where I work (Coca-Cola factory), I see that at least a 5-1 ratio of minorities/women hired over whired men. The days of white privledge are slowly starting to fade. Is it a bad thing, no. But, it should be based upon experience and such, not your skin color. And, I know I'll catch flack for what I say next, but, it's the truth, at least where I work and others say the same thing at different factories in the same area. The ones who end up staying and working for our company are white males. And our job is not strenuous. Why is that? I don't know. I think it's today's youth, they don't think they have to work to make a living. They work for two weeks, get a paycheck and see ya later. 

This is post nicely illustrates what frustrates me about modern politics. You complain that you've been ignored. Someone linked you Hillary Clinton's proposal to spend billions of dollars on rural Americans who weren't going to vote for her, and you just throw it off, assuming she'd never do it. Why wouldn't she do it? Did you know, during Bill Clinton's Presidency, she helped wrangle support for a bill to provide federal money to states so that they could provide low-cost, higher-quality health insurance for poor children? Do you know that this Republican President and Congress let that funding lapse, and now millions of poor kids, all over the country, are at risk of losing health insurance?

Obama wanted to spend more money to help poor Americans. Do I need to tell you again how hard the Republicans fought him when he was trying to do that? Do you remember how dire the economic situation was he was elected, and people were losing their homes due to predatory capitalists? Obama's leadership saved the American auto industry (Republicans wanted to "let Detroit go bankrupt") and saved the jobs of a lot of people who now scorn him. Of course, it's not just about Detroit (which is code for "undeserving black people" in Republican talk) -- plenthy of the factories that would have been shuttered if GM closed are in the South, in places that don't vote Democrat. But Obama risked a lot of political capital very early in his term to keep American car companies afloat. Meanwhile, "Foreclosure King" Steve Mnuchin, who made hundreds of millions off foreclosing on people's mortgages (often with underhanded or deceptive tactics, like backdating documents), is Trump's Treasury Secretary. Spare a moment to think of Mnuchin and his trophy wife and the privileged attitude she revealed when she ranted at an ordinary mom who questioned her for taking a government plane on day trip to Fort Knox.

Then of course, there's Obamacare. It's not a perfect program. It needs a lot of fixes. But Obama used up just about all his political power to get health insurance to millions of Americans who couldn't afford it before. Republicans fought him tooth and nail, and Trump is trying to destroy it. None of their proposals will work. It's just an excuse to give more tax breaks to the wealthy. Do you dispute these characterizations?

These seem to me to be pretty concrete examples of how Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Democratic Party tried to help poor and working-class people all around the country, and how Republicans don't give a fuck. Yet you seem to think that both parties are equally culpable in ignoring you. If you like facts, think on those facts for a bit. 

Since we're illustrating broad social trends with personal anecdotes, I'll observe one reason why I think Democrats don't get enough credit from the "white working class" for their economic efforts. The (white) wife of a former co-worker used to be on government assistance before she met my friend. High school education, two kids. A couple of years ago, when Trump was just getting attention, a discussion about him and his remarks about Mexicans caused her to go on a Facebook rant about how she couldn't get enough government money to assist her kids because the state was giving it all to "illegals." That her kids were the "wrong color" to get more assistance. 

What was driving this woman to Trump was not some belief in Republican economic policies. It's racial resentment.  I don't believe the "white working class" or "less educated white people" or whatever you want to call the demographic actually wants less government. They want a government that provides benefits to people who look like them and resents it when the government helps non-white people. It's a racial resentment that was stoked hundreds of years ago to keep poor white laborers divided from black slaves, rather than focusing their anger on the wealthy and landed classes that kept everyone else poor. It's a racial resentment capitalized on by Richard Nixon, with his Southern Strategy and launch of a racist drug war and coded "law and order" appeals. It continued with Reagan and his language about "welfare queens in Cadillacs" and "young bucks" with able bodies who don't work.

Let's talk about Shirley Sherrod. She once told a story at a conference about how, as an official in Obama's Department of Agriculture, she overcame her own racial biases (her father had been murdered when she was a girl) to help rural white families in need. She was telling a story about how she had helped saved a white couple from losing their farm. Andrew Breitbart, Republican shit-flinger and the founder of the site Steve Bannon used to elevate Trump to the Presidency, edited footage of her speaking to make it look like she'd refused to help a white farmer. Sherrod got fired before the deception was revealed. Why make up a lie about a hard-working black official who helped white farmers? Why fire an innocent woman who was doing what she could to help people and heal racial divides? To stoke the racial resentment that is the Republican Party's bread and butter.

The Republican Party has been feeding your communities bullshit about lazy black and brown people and welfare abusers (meanwhile I've seen posters here who say they are white and in poor communities and talk about how their relatives game the system for disability and welfare checks). And it works so damn well because of the racism baked into this country.

Part of the reason I stayed away from the US Politics thread for so long is because I got so tired of trying to have arguments with people who start from the flawed bullshit premises of the Republican Party. I have to trot out some kind of rant about the Republicans' conscious efforts to appeal to white racial resentment. I don't have the energy to get into it about white privilege today. I doubt you can be convinced. But for fuck's sake, think about the auto bailout, Obamacare, the children's health insurance program, and Shirley Sherrod and Steve Mnuchin, and let me know if you think both parties are equally dismissive of the concerns of poor white Americans.

[Altherion]

9 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Why?  Explain your logic.  Obama won Iowa.  South Carolina was obviously a layup for him, but you're going to have to do better than that.

Because against anyone except an African-American, a majority of African-Americans would vote for Clinton and they constitute a significant fraction of Democratic primary voters. Obama won Iowa by a narrow margin in a 3-way split; this is not a stable configuration (especially after what came to light about Edwards shortly).

This is all kind of moot though -- there aren't any juggernauts like the Clinton campaign anymore so the 2020 Democratic primary will be very different from the 2008 and 2016 ones.

[kairparavel]

@DanteGabriel  Thank you for your post. 

[Mother Cocanuts]

7 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Wait, what?

You ask a question then you provide a reasonable answer but you nonetheless reach the wrong conclusion... how is that possible. Are you drunk ? 

So I'm assuming this is the question:

10 hours ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

White privilege is a myth, Michael. If anyone is going to associate "privilege" to being white, then I ask them to explain why there are twice as many homeless whites than there are blacks, and overwhelmingly more than any other minority group?

This is the reasonable answer:

10 hours ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Whites are going to over represent pretty much everything because they're a substantial majority in numbers.

And this is the conclusion you take issue with:

10 hours ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

When we talk "privilege," conceptually it's suggesting that someone is giving them this privilege. So, one way you can stave off these assertions of white privilege, Michael, is by challenging those who believe it's true to identify who's giving them this privilege. Is it the government? And if so, how are they doing it?  

Technically it's not a conclusion. I expanded on the concept of privilege. Nevertheless, I'd like to see what you think is wrong with it.

7 hours ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

No. Just numerically illiterate. It's quite frequent.

What's "numerically illiterate"? The only "numeric" I provided was the comparison of homeless white and black demographics. And there being twice as many homeless whites as there are homeless blacks is a fact. And we've argued just once before, so I don't understand what's frequent.

7 hours ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

MC at least knows that being a majority makes people of that group more likely to be found in any kind of position, which is progress, I guess, but this poster still has no idea what over- or underrepresentation is, apparently.

Please illuminate me.

7 hours ago, Relic said:

Don't even try with this guy. Seriously, not worth it. 

Yet it's still worth just enough for you to chime in. You're doing a pretty good job at ignoring me.

[Ormond]

13 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

I might be mistaken here but wasn't gallop the site that predicted Clinton winning in a landslide?

NO. I don't know of any pollster that predicted that Clinton would win "in a landslide". There were pollsters (or poll aggregators) who claimed her chances of winning were well over 90%, but that is NOT the same thing as saying she would win "in a landslide." The polling predictions for the 2016 election in terms of national popular vote were more accurate than they were in 2012. It's the distribution of votes between the states that goofed up the pollsters in terms of the electoral college. The overall polling was about as accurate as could be expected, and, again, nobody was predicting a "landslide".