US Politics: Let's Discuss US Politics

[Bonnot OG]

7 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

What's sad is how the attack is barely news.

I'm like a 45-50 minute drive outside of the city (with traffic it's at least an hour and twenty minutes), it was all over the news, no commercials for a good while. Just straight uninterrupted coverage for an hour or so.

[Fragile Bird]

Nice to see how everyone is discussing US Politics.

[GAROVORKIN]

4 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Nice to see how everyone is discussing US Politics.

We do seem to drift off topic just a bit. 

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

I guess I wonder about such a statement because I think that many if not most people who call themselves Nazis today are also Holocaust Deniers, and so do not believe that the World War II Nazis committed genocide or killed 6 million people. So that may not be one of the "Nazi aims" they personally identify with, as reprehensible as the rest of their ideology is.

I guess you also have to decide whether their denial is a genuinely held belief, or more so that they can outwardly claim a clear conscience about mass murder and that all they want is a homeland for the master race, as well as separate home lands for the lesser races of course. I think a handful of people might genuinely believe the holocaust never happened, but for the most part IMO the deniers don't believe their own bullshit and they are just using it for propaganda and rhetoric. I'll start believing them about their genuinely held denial if and when they pass independently conducted polygraph tests. Until then, I don't believe their denialism.

[The Anti-Targ]

19 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

What's sad is how the attack is barely news.

I'm on virtually the other side of the world, and it's being covered here. Not sure where you are. The most recent update, on a NZ News Website, was 4 minutes ago.

[Gertrude]

50 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

What's sad is how the attack is barely news.

It's being covered, just not 'can't escape it' coverage. I think that it's not that it's not news, it's just not surprising news.

[Bonnot OG]

http://www.whiterosesociety.org/WRS_pamphets_second.html
 

"It is impossible to engage in intellectual discourse with National Socialism because it is not an intellectually defensible program." - The White Rose (resistance group in Nazi Germany led by a group of students and a professor at the University of Munich)

[Altherion]

55 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

It's being covered, just not 'can't escape it' coverage. I think that it's not that it's not news, it's just not surprising news.

I'm currently in NYC (in fact, I walked a few blocks from where the attack happened earlier in the afternoon) and at least here there is "can't escape it" coverage. I guess it's not as interesting for people elsewhere in the country.

@Rippounet

Quote

Hardly matters: the socio-economic consequences of segregation are still here. In fact, you pretty much have forms of economic segregation throughout the US. If anything, it's far more insidious since the absence of de jure segregation allows people to blame the victims for their own situation. That's why historical perspective matters: it explains the current socio-economic structure. Without it you'd directly fall into racism.

It matters a great deal to the people who grew up with affirmative action and aren't old enough to remember Jim Crow (which, at this point in time, is already the majority). The things you are talking about are abstract, difficult to quantify and debatable whereas minorities getting an edge a-la ThinkerX's anecdote is clear cut and obvious.

Quote

But the entire point of affirmative action is that it doesn't necessarily have to be about absolute terms. You could have most whites being under the poverty threshold and affirmative action would still be relevant if members of minorities were still significantly poorer on average than white people.
How well off the majority of the population is isn't that relevant for programs that were always aimed at giving the same opportunities to members of minorities as white people.

But it is relevant to how long they're willing to let you conduct your social engineering. Right now, the majority is merely grumbling -- their most defiant act so far has been to elect Trump to the Presidency and this isn't much. However, a substantial number of the people these programs discriminate against are already quite angry and they're becoming angrier every year.

Quote

We're adopting different perspectives on this, but I've already addressed all this earlier in a different post. Basically minorities are not to blame for the current situation. Nor are immigrants in fact. And it boggles my mind that the impoverishment of America could lead to racial resentment of all things.

I don't understand why this is surprising. As long as there is plenty for everyone, it is very important that the elites choose to play redistribution games -- while their lives are good and getting better, most people won't care. On the other hand, when resources are scarce, such redistribution takes on a significance disproportionate to its size because it gives people somebody to blame (and, conveniently, distracts and divides the population so that they're not likely to go after the people at the top who are responsible for the scarcity).

Quote

But I'm tempted to think this is the result of decades of racially-conscious policies while at the same time doing everything possible to suppress class consciousness.

Yes, that's basically it except that the "racially-conscious policies" are deliberately implemented with divide-and-conquer in mind.

[Darth Richard II]

1 hour ago, Gertrude said:

It's being covered, just not 'can't escape it' coverage. I think that it's not that it's not news, it's just not surprising news.

Yeah I overstated a bit there, its certainly news, but in my feeds its not dominating anything, its just today's awful thing, followed by WILL LUKE BE EVIL IN STAR WARS and OMG DID U SEE WHAT CELEB X WORE TODAY?  But I;ve barely seen it mentioned on  my twitter and it certainly didn't interrupt any programming.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Jeff Sessions Perjured His Elf

 https://www.salon.com/2017/10/31/jeff-sessions-may-be-in-big-trouble-after-george-papadopoulos-guilty-plea/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

 

The documents revealed that former adviser George Papadopoulos attended a "national security meeting in Washington D.C.," on March 31, 2016, along with Trump, Sessions and others. In that meeting, Papadopoulos "introduced himself," and explicitly stated "in sum and substance, that he had connections that could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and [Russian] President Putin."

Trump tweeted a picture of the meeting the day it occurred, and he, as well as Sessions, sat at opposite heads of the table. Papadopoulos is pictured to the left of Sessions in the middle of the table.

While both Trump and Sessions have repeatedly insisted there has been no collusion with the Russian government, Sessions has pledged this argument under oath. Sessions also led the foreign policy team of which Papadopoulos was part.

"I have never met with or had any conversation with any Russians or any foreign officials concerning any type of interference with any campaign or election in the United States," Sessions told the Senate Intelligence Committee in the opening statement of his second testimony on June 13. "Further, I have no knowledge of any such conversations by anyone connected to the Trump campaign."

 

/Again. I think this is strike 3 isn't it? Does that count for anything? Top lawman in the country, can't not lie under oath.

 

 

[Darzin]

Can the president be tried in a normal court? Or does he need to be impeached? If congress refused to impeach Trump could he be tried for his crimes like a normal criminal? What about the attorney general can Jeff Sessions just be arrested for the above?

 

Also I wonder if the right's fixation on whataboutism and Hillary Clinton might backfire in 2020? The fact that they are still going on about her a year after she lost is just nuts, but I wonder if their fixation will blind them to other threats. I know in 2020 the right wing will scream the candidate is the TEH WORST!!!! and TEH MOST LIBERAL!! but if they have been using Hillary Clinton as a foil for four years it might be hard to make the new candidate seem worse than Hillary. Bengazi and the Emails had a lot of time to build momentum I doubt any new candidate will have quite so much swirling around them. Especially if the right keeps on about Bengazi the Emails and Uranium, and so far they show no signs of letting up.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Darzin said:

Can the president be tried in a normal court? Or does he need to be impeached? If congress refused to impeach Trump could he be tried for his crimes like a normal criminal? What about the attorney general can Jeff Sessions just be arrested for the above?

As I understand it, Mueller could have Sessions arrested for perjury, but the penalty it carries is relatively light, and maybe more importantly it opens the door for Trump to then name an AG that will allow him to fire Mueller. So I guess you could say it's complicated.

[lokisnow]

6 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Apparent terror attack in New York 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/oct/31/new-york-vehicle-manhattan-bike-path-attack-fears-live-updates

Just saw this headline,  it’s still very Halloween and dodgers on the west coast. If the perpetrator is Arab, Trumps approval rating will skyrocket and every mainstream media outlet will 100% forget about any mueller news while gushing about how wonderful trump is.

if the perp is Russian, boy wouldn’t that be ironic?

Unfortunately, in the latter case, the media is still too stupid to connect the dots to putin trying to help out trump with the indictments.

or maybe putin is trying to make trump look even worse but he isnt aware of just how stupid the us media is and how rah rah rah and trump supporting they will be?

seems like a suspiciously wag the dog kind of timing for an attack.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Not sure if this was posted up here or not, but this made me smile...

Puerto Rico Cancels Whitefish Energy Contract

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/29/us/whitefish-cancel-puerto-rico.html

 

/Puerto Rico is draining the swamp

[ThinkerX]

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Not sure if this was posted up here or not, but this made me smile...

Puerto Rico Cancels Whitefish Energy Contract

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/29/us/whitefish-cancel-puerto-rico.html

 

/Puerto Rico is draining the swamp

You missed the part about the FBI investigation:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/30/politics/whitefish-energy-holdings-contract-fbi/index.html

I wonder if this will ultimately cost the Energy Secretary his job.

[Darth Richard II]

20 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Just saw this headline,  it’s still very Halloween and dodgers on the west coast. If the perpetrator is Arab, Trumps approval rating will skyrocket and every mainstream media outlet will 100% forget about any mueller news while gushing about how wonderful trump is.

if the perp is Russian, boy wouldn’t that be ironic?

Unfortunately, in the latter case, the media is still too stupid to connect the dots to putin trying to help out trump with the indictments.

or maybe putin is trying to make trump look even worse but he isnt aware of just how stupid the us media is and how rah rah rah and trump supporting they will be?

seems like a suspiciously wag the dog kind of timing for an attack.

Russian Muslim, looks like. So, who the fuck knows.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

You missed the part about the FBI investigation:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/30/politics/whitefish-energy-holdings-contract-fbi/index.html

I wonder if this will ultimately cost the Energy Secretary his job.

One can hope, but I tend to doubt it.

[Maltaran]

3 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

Russian Muslim, looks like. So, who the fuck knows.

The BBC reports say he's Uzbek, not Russian.

[GAROVORKIN]

1 hour ago, Maltaran said:

The BBC reports say he's Uzbek, not Russian.

What they need to do is lock him up and weld the door shut .

[Rippounet]

7 hours ago, Altherion said:

The things you are talking about are abstract, difficult to quantify and debatable whereas minorities getting an edge a-la ThinkerX's anecdote is clear cut and obvious.

There's nothing abstract or debatable about economic segregation in the US. Here's a bit of research about it:

Gunnar Myrdal, 1944. An American Dilemma. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lee Rainwater, 1970. Behind Ghetto Walls: Black Family Life in a Federal Slum. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.
Harold M. Rose, 1971. The Black Ghetto: A Spatial Behavioral Perspective. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wayne J. Villemez, 1980. "Race, Class, and Neighborhood Differences in the Residential Return on Individual Resources." Social Forces 59(2), (December): 414-430.
Richard Price and Edwin Mills, 1985. "Race and Residence in Earnings Determination." Journal of Urban Economics 17: 1-18.
Douglas S. Massey, Gretchen A. Condran and Nancy Denton, 1985. "The Effects of Residential Segregation on Black Social and Economic Well-Being." Social Forces 66(1), (September): 29-56.
John E. Farley, 1985. "Disproportionate Black and Hispanic Unemployment in U.S. Metropolitan Areas." The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 46(2), (April): 129-150.
Jonathan S. Leonard, 1985. "The Interaction of Residential Segregation and Employment Discrimination." Journal of Urban Economics 21: 323-346.
Douglas S. Massey, 1985. "American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass." American Journal of Sociology 96(2), (September): 329-357.
Anthony P. Polednak, 1985. Black-White Differences in Infant Mortality in 38 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas." American Journal of Public Health 81(11), (November): 1480-1482.
Daniel N. Chambers, 1985. "The Racial Housing Price Differential and Racially Transitional Neighborhoods." Journal of Urban Economics 32: 214-232.
Florence Wagman Roisman and Hilary Botein, 1985. "Housing Mobility and Life Opportunities." Clearinghouse Review, (Special Issue): 335-351.
Anthony P. Polednak, 1985. "Poverty, Residential Segregation, and Black/White Mortality Ratios in Urban Areas." Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 4(4): 363-373.
Ruth D. Peterson and Lauren J. Krivo, 1985. "Racial Segregation and Black Urban Homicide." Social Forces 71: 1001-1026.
George C. Galster, 1985. "Polarization, Place and Race." North Carolina Law Review 71(5), (June): 1422-1462.
Paul A. Jargowsky, 1985. Poverty and Place: Ghettos, Barrios, and the American City. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
David M. Cutler and Edward Glaeser, 1985. "Are Ghettos Good or Bad?" Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(3): 827-872.
George C. Galster, 198__. "Housing Discrimination and Urban Poverty of African-Americans." Journal of Housing Research 2(2): 87-122.
George C. Galster, 1987. Residential Segregation and Interracial Economic Disparities: A Simultaneous-Equations Approach." Journal of Urban Economics 21: 22-44.
John R. Logan and Steven F. Messner, 1987. "Racial Residential Segregation and Suburban Violent Crime." Social Science Quarterly 68: 510-527.
Thomas A. LaViest, 1993. "Segregation, Poverty, and Empowerment: Health Consequences for African Americans." Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 71(1): 41-64.
Douglas S. Massey, Andrew B. Gross and Kumiko Shibuya, 1993. "Migration, Segregation, and the Geographic Concentration of Poverty." American Sociological Review 59(3), (June): 425-445.
Edward S. Shihadeh and Nicole Flynn, 1996. "Segregation and Crime: The Effect of Black Social Isolation on the Races of Black Urban Violence." Social Forces 74: 1325-1352.
Donald P. Green, Dara Z. Strolovitch and Janelle S. Wong, 1998. "Defended Neighborhoods, Integration and Racially Motivated Crime." American Journal of Sociology 104(2), (September): 372-403.
David R. Williams, 1998. "Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Health: The Added Effects of Racism and Discrimination." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 896: 173-188.
David T. Canon, 1998. Race, Redistricting, and Representation: The Unintended Consequences of Black Majority Districts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chiquita A. Collins and David R. Williams, 1998. "Segregation and Mortality: The Deadly Effects of Racism?" Sociological Forum 14(3): 495-523.
Douglas S. Massey and Mary J. Fischer, 1998. "How Segregation Concentrates Poverty." Ethnic and Racial Studies 23(4), (July): 670-691.
David R. Harris, 1999. 1999 "Property Values Drop When Blacks Move In, Because… Racial and Socioeconomic Determinants of Neighborhood Desirability." American Sociological Review 64, (June): 461-479.
P. Lobmayer and R. G. Wilkinson, 2001. "Inequality, Residential Segregation by Income and Mortality in US Cities." Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 56: 183-187.

On the other hand, what ThinkerX described was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2003.
That's almost fifteen years ago, right?

So I think what's "abstract, difficult to quantify and debatable " is "anti-white" discrimination. I'm not even sure why you believe in it that much. Doing a bit of google, I think I found the article you were referring to earlier. This one, yes?
http://www.npr.org/2017/10/24/559604836/majority-of-white-americans-think-theyre-discriminated-against
Because the funny thing about that poll is that although 55% of whites say they believe in anti-white discrimination, only 19% say they have personally experienced it. And taking the quote from the Ohio man, I'm really not sure how and why government (of all organizations) would discriminate against poor whites.
Seems to me that the problem here is exactly what I was talking about: that these people don't realize that others are even worse off than they are. All the above research puts their impressions in serious doubt.
Let's compare that to numbers for African-Americans:

Quote

Overall, African Americans report extensive experiences of discrimination, across a range of situations. In the context of institutional forms of discrimination, half or more of African Americans say they have personally been discriminated against because they are Black when interacting with police (50%), when applying to jobs (56%), and when it comes to being paid equally or considered for promotion (57%).
http://www.npr.org/assets/img/2017/10/23/discriminationpoll-african-americans.pdf

Let's bear in mind the difference between having a feeling about something, and actually experiencing it yourself.
 

7 hours ago, Altherion said:

Yes, that's basically it except that the "racially-conscious policies" are deliberately implemented with divide-and-conquer in mind.

That really wasn't the case. History shows that i) Democrats like Robert Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson truly believed that it was necessary to address racial inequality in the US and ii) the Civil Rights movement put tremendous pressure on institutions to do something about it.
There wasn't any divide-and-conquer policy. It was about redressing grievances for the victims and children of victims of what is essentially a crime against humanity.

You're flirting with the worst kind of historical revisionism here.