U.S. Politics: Would You Like A Warranty With Your Magic Beans?

[butterbumps!]

16 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Anti-racism, like other crucial political concepts, such as liberty, is capable of a variety of definitions. Just as Isaiah Berlin divided liberty into positive and negative liberty, so we might divide anti-racism into two opposing forms.

One we can call conservative anti-racism. This is the more restrictive definition. Conservative anti-racism denies the claim that some races or ethnic groups are superior to others and that the superior groups have the right to treat individuals belonging to the inferior groups in a way they would acknowledge as immoral if the individuals were part of their own group.

Progressive anti-racism defines racism much more broadly, and affirms that any preference for one own’s race or ethnic group is deeply immoral. Clearly this differs from the first definition, because I can clearly prefer some individuals to others without behaving immorally towards the ones I do not prefer.

.........

Specifically then, progressive anti-racism differs from conservative anti-racism because it adheres to the claim that any attempt by certain majority ethnic groups to maintain their majority status, via immigration policy (or any other sort of policy) is racist. However, if and when the ethnic majority has become a minority the progressive will likely shift to claiming that the dominant ethnic group, dominant that is in virtue of economic or cultural strength, as opposed to raw demographic weight, still has no right to an ethnically self-interested immigration policy, while all the ethnic groups still defined as oppressed or disadvantaged do. In short progressive anti-racism ultimately bottoms out on the neo-marxist view that western nations are racist patriarchies, inherently oppressive, an analysis leavened no doubt by theories of intersectionality and all the rest of it. 

I think your post elides over the heart of what leads progressives to define racism that way.  As your analysis points out, it's not preference for one's ethnic group per se that progressives find racist.  You get close to the heart of the issue in the last paragraph, especially the bolded, but it still glosses over what progressives really take issue with.   

The problem is really about resource and opportunity hoarding amongst a dominant group, especially if it includes systemic oppression and disenfranchisement of other groups.  In theory, I think progressives would be ok with (economically and culturally) dominant groups advancing their self interests if it did not involve resource hoarding at the expense of and oppression of others.  I think it's generally conservatives who see the world in that sort of zero sum way, and I'm not sure progressives agree one group's success must by necessity come at the expense of another's.

Regarding some of the other points that I clipped, I don't really understand the idea of not wanting immigrants to come in order to preserve one's culture.   I guess I just don't understand how the presence of people practicing foreign customs (and often times, adopting customs of their new country too) eradicates or interferes with the ability of people to continue practicing their own customs.  

[Fragile Bird]

CNN is reporting that the AG of New York just sued the Trump Foundation and it’s directors (ie the kiddies) for seriously misusing charitable funds in violation of state and federal charity laws. It’s a civil suit.

We all heard the stories a long time ago, back to 2016, but now we hear of commingling funds, illegally using funds, repeated and willful self-dealing for the business and personal benefit of DJT, and political coordination with the campaign.

Among other things they are asking that the whole bunch be banned from involvement in a charity for ten years and the dissolution of the foundation.

It also raises the specter of future criminal charges because the charity’s funds were used for the campaign and were not reported under federal election laws.

eta: oh, Trump is also named, nod just the kids

[maarsen]

55 minutes ago, Vin said:

While certainly interesting ,the moment you say the word compulsory things usually turn bad . People just don't like it by nature . 

But out of curiosity what would be the punishment for not voting ? 

Being put in to run for office.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

56 minutes ago, Vin said:

While certainly interesting ,the moment you say the word compulsory things usually turn bad . People just don't like it by nature . 

But out of curiosity what would be the punishment for not voting ? 

20 hours of community service. Some people would pay a fine to not vote. Nobody would risk 20 hours of CS for not voting. You’re compelled to be a good citizen, either go do your civic duty and vote or go pick up trash on the side of a highway.

[maarsen]

42 minutes ago, Casablanca Birdie said:

CNN is reporting that the AG of New York just sued the Trump Foundation and it’s directors (ie the kiddies) for seriously misusing charitable funds in violation of state and federal charity laws. It’s a civil suit.

We all heard the stories a long time ago, back to 2016, but now we hear of commingling funds, illegally using funds, repeated and willful self-dealing for the business and personal benefit of DJT, and political coordination with the campaign.

Among other things they are asking that the whole bunch be banned from involvement in a charity for ten years and the dissolution of the foundation.

It also raises the specter of future criminal charges because the charity’s funds were used for the campaign and were not reported under federal election laws.

eta: oh, Trump is also named, nod just the kids

The horse apples don't  fall from the horse's ass.

Being state charges the horse's ass can't pardon either.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

42 minutes ago, Casablanca Birdie said:

CNN is reporting that the AG of New York just sued the Trump Foundation and it’s directors (ie the kiddies) for seriously misusing charitable funds in violation of state and federal charity laws. It’s a civil suit.

We all heard the stories a long time ago, back to 2016, but now we hear of commingling funds, illegally using funds, repeated and willful self-dealing for the business and personal benefit of DJT, and political coordination with the campaign.

Among other things they are asking that the whole bunch be banned from involvement in a charity for ten years and the dissolution of the foundation.

It also raises the specter of future criminal charges because the charity’s funds were used for the campaign and were not reported under federal election laws.

eta: oh, Trump is also named, nod just the kids

I take it it’s a civil suit because the president is involved and you can’t charge him in criminal court? Regardless, this is certainly laying the tracks for further charges, and I assume through discovery they’ll find other shady and illegal behavior.

[Vin]

21 minutes ago, maarsen said:

Being put in to run for office.

Lol

20 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

20 hours of community service. Some people would pay a fine to not vote. Nobody would risk 20 hours of CS for not voting. You’re compelled to be a good citizen, either go do your civic duty and vote or go pick up trash on the side of a highway.

Interesting. I disagree with compulsion on principle but the notion is still interesting to ponder  

[DanteGabriel]

I remember the persistent right wing outrage over Obama bowing to the Saudi King a few years ago. I won't hold my breath that those numbfucks will get upset over North Korean state media trolling us with footage of Cadet Bone Spurs saluting a North Korean general.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-salutes-north-korean-general

[IheartIheartTesla]

1 hour ago, Casablanca Birdie said:

It’s used in Canada, along with First Nations, not Indians, cuz, you know, just because some idiot European 600 years ago didn’t know where the hell he was does not make them Indians. The actual tribe name is also used. Inuit means ‘the people’ and it’s what they always called themselves.

It puzzles me that such racially charged names are still used in th....wait, what am I saying, oh, right.

Many of the Alaskan indigenous people are not Inuit, and as you mention, it is probably better to call them by their tribe name. However, 'Eskimo' is not as racially charged in the US as in Canada (and you might be better off using 'Eskimo' rather than Inuit in Alaska ). It is also complicated by the fact that some native Alaskans prefer the former term...

I know we had a similar discussion on the board a while back, and many of the Canadian First Nation folks on the board  were getting upset, that's why I have placed the former term in quotes.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Good god, I haven't posted in these threads for a while. Last I did, Trumps approval was hovering around 41, the D generic lead was around 8, and we didn't have a nuclear deal with North Korea.

Glad to see nothing has changed.

[Ormond]

17 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Many of the Alaskan indigenous people are not Inuit, and as you mention, it is probably better to call them by their tribe name. However, 'Eskimo' is not as racially charged in the US as in Canada (and you might be better off using 'Eskimo' rather than Inuit in Alaska ). It is also complicated by the fact that some native Alaskans prefer the former term...

I know we had a similar discussion on the board a while back, and many of the Canadian First Nation folks on the board  were getting upset, that's why I have placed the former term in quotes.

Yes, views on this are very different in Alaska than they are in Canada. 

The difference is that the word "Eskimo" is used to refer to Arctic peoples who have similar lifestyles but who belong to two different linguistic groups, the Inuit and the Yupik. All of the Arctic natives in Canada are Inuit, so it makes sense there for that term to be used. But in Alaska, the Yupik speaking people don't want to be called Inuit because they simply aren't part of that linguistic group, so the word "Eskimo" is still used there when referring to Arctic natives in general.

https://www.uaf.edu/anlc/resources/inuit-eskimo/+

[Gertrude]

2 hours ago, chiKanery et al. said:

And while we’re at it, can we please shorten the **** out of our election cycles. These long, expensive elections force EOs to constantly be fund raising rather than legislating and governing.  

Jesus Christ, this. I also want the "privilege" of being the first primary state to rotate. In fact, because the country is so damn large, I'd be in favor of breaking it up into regions that all vote on the same day so we don't have results trickling in over several months. Focus on a region to let the candidates do their everytown tours and not have to jet around hell and back, they vote, then move to the next one. Our current system is so cumbersome and wasteful. Iowa would not want to give up their place in line because of the money it brings in, but fuck that. It would save my sanity.

[Zorral]

16 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Members of Congress, Activists Block Street Near White House to Protest Trump Family Separation Policy

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/congressional-democrats-block-traffic-to-protest-trump-family-separation.html

 

Why hasn't NPR or the NY Times or the WaPo reported on this?

This AM the lead on the WaPo online edition was NYC suing the dumbster's 'charity' for malfeasance.  In seconds that changed as BREAKING NEWS! announced that the anticipated Justice Report including an FBI agent's text that stated Trump's election had to be stopped -- and this became the lead story, with the law suit demoted way down the screen.  Yet They insist the media is against him.

[Martell Spy]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/reporter-migrant-children-incarcerated-in-texas-facility.html

Reporters Tour Texas Facility Where Migrant Children Are Detained

Quote

One detail that drew a tremendous amount of attention on Twitter was a mural of Trump in the cafeteria, which features the quote, “Sometimes by losing a battle you find a new way to win the war.” (After some outlets suggested that the building was riddled with Trump murals, Soboroff clarified on Twitter that Trump is only in one — but it’s still creepy.)

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Vin said:

Lol

Interesting. I disagree with compulsion on principle but the notion is still interesting to ponder  

Why? I can understand if you were forced to pick a candidate, but that’s not what I’m advocating for. There should be some type of “none” option, and if that gets the most votes, all the candidates are tossed from the ballot and a new election would occur.  

[Bonnot OG]

12 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/reporter-migrant-children-incarcerated-in-texas-facility.html

Reporters Tour Texas Facility Where Migrant Children Are Detained

 

We can call it what it is, a concentration camp.

[Vin]

10 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Why? I can understand if you were forced to pick a candidate, but that’s not what I’m advocating for. There should be some type of “none” option, and if that gets the most votes, all the candidates are tossed from the ballot and a new election would occur.  

Well forcing someone to go out of their home and do something that they don't want to do, on their own time without them having done anything to hurt anyone under threat of punishment rubs me the wrong way . It might sound petty but I just don't like compulsion unless it's absolutely 100% necessary .

[Rippounet]

5 minutes ago, Vin said:

Well forcing someone to go out of their home and do something that they don't want to do, on their own time without them having done anything to hurt anyone under threat of punishment rubs me the wrong way . It might sound petty but I just don't like compulsion unless it's absolutely 100% necessary .

So it's not 100% necessary to use what little democracy we have to vote for the people who take important decisions for our and our children's future? Sure.
By that reasoning, democracy is not 100% necessary either. Might as well go back to having unelected monarchs.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Gertrude said:

Jesus Christ, this. I also want the "privilege" of being the first primary state to rotate. In fact, because the country is so damn large, I'd be in favor of breaking it up into regions that all vote on the same day so we don't have results trickling in over several months. Focus on a region to let the candidates do their everytown tours and not have to jet around hell and back, they vote, then move to the next one. Our current system is so cumbersome and wasteful. Iowa would not want to give up their place in line because of the money it brings in, but fuck that. It would save my sanity.

I wrote a paper about this in college, and I’ll give you the cliff notes thesis with updated data. The 2016 primaries and caucuses began on February 1^st and effectively ended on June 7^th (there was one after, but it didn’t matter). That is 127 days. My proposal will shorten that to either 60, 72 or 84 days depending on what is decided as the appropriate amount of time per region.  Split the country up into six regions: Northeast, Southeast, Upper Midwest, Lower Midwest, Northwest and Southwest regions, each consisting of eight states except the Western regions which will each be nine to include Hawaii and Alaska. Each region gets either a 10, 12 or 14 day period in which candidates can campaign in. After all the primaries and caucuses are held on the final day, the campaigns moved to next region, snaking across the country. This will be more concise and will save candidates a lot of money, allowing for campaigns to not have to raise as much money. And for underfunded candidates to have a better chance to compete. I believe this is a far more efficient and effective way to hold are primaries and caucuses.

[Rippounet]

3 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

The problem is really about resource and opportunity hoarding amongst a dominant group, especially if it includes systemic oppression and disenfranchisement of other groups.

Especially if you have some historical perspective and know that socio-economic inequalities will tend to perpetuate themselves.

It's what exchanges with Altherion taught me. You can see affirmative action as "reverse racism" IF you completely dismiss historical determinism, i.e. the fact that current inequalities have been inherited from the past.

I'll even be crazy and go one step further. The main reason neo-liberal economic politices are bullshit is that they allow families to hoard immense wealth over the course of generations. In theory there'd be no problem with some people being rich and others being poor IF such inequalities came from work income alone rather than inheritance.
A different way to put it is that it's perfectly acceptable for someone to be wealthier if they worked harder. If it's because of what their parents, grandparents, or ancestors did... Then what's the justification exactly? We constantly hear politicians say that we shouldn't resent successful people (Obama said just that once). But I don't resent successful people. I resent the children of successful people who will get better education, healthcare and a better life generally speaking, simply because they were born at the right time at the right place.

3 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

In theory, I think progressives would be ok with (economically and culturally) dominant groups advancing their self interests if it did not involve resource hoarding at the expense of and oppression of others.  I think it's generally conservatives who see the world in that sort of zero sum way, and I'm not sure progressives agree one group's success must by necessity come at the expense of another's.

Funnnily enough, I'd say the reverse.
It's conservatives who tend to think that one person's success doesn't prevent other people from succeeding. Except it totally does. There's only so much wealth and resources in the world, and actual growth is rather limited. When someone like Bezos becomes the richest man in the world he isn't just reaping the fruits of his labor, he's also taking money from other people. The 1% havent become immensely wealthy and powerful though success alone, because that success has meant taking wealth and power from other people.