US Politics VIII
- Thread starter dazzledbylight
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
oh you're right, now that i look closely i can see it's a canuckipedia link.
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
As in protectionist (Hamiltonian trade warrior/closed border types).
If I had to assume that border control meant racist, imagine what I'd think of the Mexican government, which demands a demographic quota in its population as official policy...
If I had to assume that border control meant racist, imagine what I'd think of the Mexican government, which demands a demographic quota in its population as official policy...
LuckyNumber7
Blue Crack Addict
Are demographic quotas racist? The US implements this for immigration. As do all other countries that have limited immigration slots. Those are indirect quotas. They’re designed to limit mass migration. They’re not just locally designed to stop influx of populations as economic control on a fair playing field internationally, but also globally designed to prevent systematic infiltration of other cultures. And not in a racist sense. I mean that much in the sense of how the US attempts to globally insert its businesses and general footprint in other countries. Stuff like international aid and development supports US workers abroad, benefits locals, and grows US interests in developing countries. You know, like, signing up for a credit card with an amazing signing bonus. In theory you’d want this deal to be a win-win.
What about literal quotas? Demographic quotas. Affirmative action and the sort. Are they racist? It’s a sticky subject, in my opinion. In theory yes, they are. In theory you’d want systemic racism to not exist. If it didn’t exist, affirmative action is racist. But systemic racism is real. If we don’t have leveled playing fields, minorities do get shat on. So there needs to be a happy medium of merit along with reparation of a broken system.
Luckily our system attempts at that. There are general lottery visas for anyone from any country. There are quotas for people from specific countries. And lastly, there are special visas that are both not-lottery and not demographic specific, that target highly qualified individuals of merit.
System might not be perfect, but I really think we all love to engage in ideological debate about a binary 0/1 system that doesn’t and can’t exist. Our current system is at least the right framework. We need to make it work so that in the future we can happily progress from it.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
I think limiting never Trumpers to the neocon faction of the right is incorrect.
But it is interesting you bring up Buchanan. I think Trump very much modeled his campaign on Buchanan. Along with Bannon, I think he saw the rise of the alt right and knew there was something there to tap into.
https://youtu.be/Sk-s8hrmpFE
Oh if it were only the border perhaps you'd gave an argument
Donald Trump has made me feel for
The entire GOP primary field
Lavar Ball
Kim Jung Un
And now Omarosa
Every week he sinks lower and lower than people I’d never want to associate with or take their side.
The POTUS just called a black woman a dog over Twitter.
Every damn day it’s more and more embarrassing
The entire GOP primary field
Lavar Ball
Kim Jung Un
And now Omarosa
Every week he sinks lower and lower than people I’d never want to associate with or take their side.
The POTUS just called a black woman a dog over Twitter.
Every damn day it’s more and more embarrassing
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
"Are demographic quotas racist? The US implements this for immigration. As do all other countries that have limited immigration slots. Those are indirect quotas. They’re designed to limit mass migration. They’re not just locally designed to stop influx of populations as economic control on a fair playing field internationally, but also globally designed to prevent systematic infiltration of other cultures. And not in a racist sense."
Well put, and I agree.
"Sticky"... meaning nuanced? I think it's cause for some optimism that it is nuanced. It's definitely not direct, as in the 1960s, when you would have that infamous Kodak moment of a cop dog biting at a black man without any foreseeable provocation. There's certainly not a White Supremacy Act of 2018 going on, but there is also no question that minorities inherit some level of disadvantage. They didn't inherit most of the wealth and opportunities, for starters.
As for immigration in particular, the courts are widely inefficient in renewing visas. There's some success in what ethnic enclaves can do both to simultaneously assimilate and preserve one's heritage. Yet there are parts of the US dramatically affected by the drug cartels, and have good reason to demand a secure border.
LuckyNumber7
Blue Crack Addict
To clear something up on my post, the “systemic infiltration” I refer to is referencing not only American globalization but also things such as Russian settlements of its people on neighboring lands. There’s a reason nobody put up a fight in Crimea. Everybody was ethnically Russian. There’s a reason everybody was ethnically Russian...
Or Northern Ireland. Perfect example. The British were in a bit of a pickle around the First World War and didn’t have resources to adequately deal with the Irish. Luckily, they’d put “their people” on the ground decades/centuries ago, so simple “referendum” helped them cut their losses.
Or Northern Ireland. Perfect example. The British were in a bit of a pickle around the First World War and didn’t have resources to adequately deal with the Irish. Luckily, they’d put “their people” on the ground decades/centuries ago, so simple “referendum” helped them cut their losses.
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
"I think limiting never Trumpers to the neocon faction of the right is incorrect."
Perhaps (and Kasich-brand center-right establishment types). Though the article I linked to shows that they've taken the most action against him - certainly at the level of electoral politics, recommending voting Democrat to voice frustration with an alleged refusal of the GOP to stand up to him in Congress.
"But it is interesting you bring up Buchanan. I think Trump very much modeled his campaign on Buchanan. Along with Bannon, I think he saw the rise of the alt right and knew there was something there to tap into."
It's been said that Trump doesn't have any core to operate from. I think we both disagree on that. He does echo Pat Buchanan on what he is least compromising on (borders, protectionism). Michael Savage has regularly patted himself on the back for his part in the playbook (whether Trump actually lent an ear to him, who knows).
If they saw the momentum of the alt-right types, I sure didn't. Luckily, I think that's dying down, as "Unite the Right 2" had a much weaker turnout.
Danny Boy
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
What kind of fucking country do we live in now that posting a picture of yourself with a fake diploma, as "proof" that you earned a degree which you actually didn't, doesn't immediately ruin your credibility and your political career?
And this apology:
"It was not my intent to deceive or mislead anyone. I made a mistake in saying that I completed my degree."
What the fuck is that? How the fuck is posting a picture of yourself with a fake diploma not intent to deceive?
Trump has ruined Truth in American politics. He's not the only culprit, but he's a huge part of it.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/14/politics/melissa-howard-miami-university-apology/index.html
And this apology:
"It was not my intent to deceive or mislead anyone. I made a mistake in saying that I completed my degree."
What the fuck is that? How the fuck is posting a picture of yourself with a fake diploma not intent to deceive?
Trump has ruined Truth in American politics. He's not the only culprit, but he's a huge part of it.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/14/politics/melissa-howard-miami-university-apology/index.html
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
All you had to do was read Breitbart every once in awhile to see it on the rise. As far as the decline, we'll see, I mean they don't feel as emboldened as they did a year ago, but Trump will have to give them voice again if he wants to win in 2020. He needed them in 2016, can he do without them in 2020?
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
The term seems to have evolved, as if to say, "white identitarian." I don't think it carried that baggage when Brietbart seemed to embrace it. Milo Yiannopolis once did (or at least didn't mind it), but by the time his book was published, he despised the said group.
We're talking about a small segment of the population that is despised, left and right. How one reaches Richard Spencer (pro-single payer, legalized abortion, etc) AND a more conventional conservative audience, who knows. I don't know how credibility works in AltRightLand. Especially from a guy who threw this gem around.
Again today proves what a shit job the media did during the campaign season with Trump
It’s been well known that Trump is a racist, that he’s on camera saying degrading things about minorities
Yet here we are almost two years into his term and now we are focused on the N word?
It won’t matter, if admitting to sexual assault with women doesn’t hurt him neither will this
It’s been well known that Trump is a racist, that he’s on camera saying degrading things about minorities
Yet here we are almost two years into his term and now we are focused on the N word?
It won’t matter, if admitting to sexual assault with women doesn’t hurt him neither will this
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
This is revisionist. Bannon wanted this audience, he knew the right wouldn’t survive without embracing them. Spencer is only one tiny sliver of that pie. And you’re kidding me, you don’t know how he reached them?
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Bannon drove the nationalistic/protectionist narrative, which resonated beyond what we call "the Alt-right." Bannon is now out of an official position, and has been for some time. Bush-era neocons now buzz in Trump's ear.
Again, the "alt-right" as currently defined is strictly identitarian, likely composed of a very small fraction of the population (I'd be very surprised if it exceeded 1 percent). He needed them? Even when it was sure to drive and perpetuate the "Never Trump" movement?
Jeb! ("Please clap") was the voice of the establishment. A dull boy who looked uncomfortable and sleep-inducing to watch. He would've lost for sure if he got the nomination. Trump had a way with staging political theater and appealing to widespread outrage, even if he has been inconsistent and off-cuff. A main part of Trump's appeal was his no-filter approch, even if it raised eyebrows.
For the right to survive, they just needed to do away with plastic men like Romney and McCain. Even if it meant getting a bloviating lunatic like Trump.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
I think the term is very vague, yes, but nationalism is the one overreaching theme. Unfortunately white identity most often comes to play, be it a hard or soft racism.
I think anyone that believes we can reverse Reagan’s gears and somehow back out of a global economy, anyone who uses the term ‘globalist’ on a daily basis, anyone who blames deep state, anyone who considers them self as part of Q is also part of alt-right. You don’t have to wave a confederate flag or throw a nazi salute. Yes, Trump needed them.
Bluer White
New Yorker
Peter Strzok has a GoFundMe page going, if you're feeling charitable.
Sorry that’s also not part of the “I got mine, fuck you” attitude being propagated by that poster.
The fucker's entire campaign and appeal was based around the idea that America was a better place when there weren't so many brown people running around.
You don't have to be a Nazi to be a racist - and we've got a plenty in this country.
Spin it however you want - but this is why Trump won.
You don't have to be a Nazi to be a racist - and we've got a plenty in this country.
Spin it however you want - but this is why Trump won.
You pay taxes because you're forced to, if that makes you feel charitable, so be it. I think taxes are outrageous, and you make way more money than i do.
It STILL doesn't explain why some people would feel like money should be taken from you, and "redistributed" to anyone. That's theft, and it's no way to teach anyone a strong work ethic, I'm sorry.
You think there aren't that many people abusing the welfare system, believe me, in my line of work, and in neighborhoods I've lived in, and statistics show, there are PLENTY. People have tried to teach me how to "work the system" and have more money than if I'm working. With all due respect, if you're making the kind of money that you say, you probably don't run into as many of these folks as I do.
Again, I am FAR from rich, as I said before probably considered "low middle class". But I still don't feel that I am owed anything from anybody. I'm not on here saying "you make six figures", you should pay higher taxes and let the government take care of it.
I can't understand how you guys who think this way giving our bloated, nearly bankrupt federal government MORE of our money is somehow "compassionate or noble".
Real compassion is shown by what you CHOOSE to do with your time and money. Anitram, I think you should take home MORE of your money, and then you can CHOOSE to give to those less fortunate, or to organizations that you believe in.
I want the same for me, and for anyone, regardless of income. There are many rich liberals who could give away as much money as they want, and not have to use the government as a "forced go-between".
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Is it national call a woman a dog day? #BeBest
Look, the irony of it is that I do think that my tax rate is too high, not because I am opposed to a social safety net but because I believe the bureaucracy is bloated, the public sector here is unrealistic in the long term (almost all job growth is in the public sector which is unsustainable and terrible for our economy in the long run, they need to get rid of defined benefit pensions because those are enormous liabilities imposed on society and plain irresponsible). Our highest marginal rate keeps getting higher and far left politicians run on "well you earn that much you can afford to pay a bit more." To what end? You can only squeeze the top 1, 2, 3% so much before they take their money elsewhere. Also bad for society.
What bothers me is this notion that paying taxes is "theft" when clearly it is not, and when you come on here and complain that "most of us" (I would guess you're talking to a lot of coastal elites here who really are paying quite a bit in tax) likely pay little in taxes so we are effectively taking from you and giving to ourselves. Well it's a matter of perspective, because I can see you the same way. And you can say that you'd like me and you to keep more $ but we cannot provide infrastructure, public education, military and so many other things. And for that and for society to function you rely on high income earners.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
NONE of this addresses your “taxes are theft” post.
NONE of this addresses the fact that you benefit from what Antriam and I pay in taxes.
Are we aware people work the system? Absolutely. Both poor and the uber rich, I would like to see reform on both ends.
Do Antriam and I both think the government is bloated? Yes, we’ve both spoken about it, and if you engaged more than you assume you’d have figured that out by now.
Now let me ask you something; you do believe there are some that just can’t, right? Be it life, disabilities, they’re a child?
I believe what I said is that many who are "Pro-Socialism" pay little in taxes, or get a tax return so their "skin in the game" is minimal. Of course, not all.
I agree that there should be a safety net for those who truly can't work, are disabled, elderly, and many of us, myself included, have had temporary bumps where we needed a helping hand. IMO, and I know it sounds extreme, is that the government would not have to provide that safety net, but that charitable organizations (many of whom do great work), could shoulder that load.
Not to get to "deep in the weeds", but I've seen real need, and I volunteer frequently and see real need all around me, so it does anger me when people who are fully capable of working hard and making their own way, do not.
In essence, I think the Federal Government should be WAY smaller, and states should have more control (though I'm originally from Illinois, and they're as bad as the Fed!!)
You sound like you know business so I'm sure you know that wealth divided cannot multiply. We will never be able to "redistribute wealth" into prosperity. It's never worked and it never will.
And I want to be able to tell my children that they can be anything they want to be, and if they work hard they can be successful, and not have to be "punished" for being better at making money than someone else. That's ridiculous. I have worked hard for all I have which isn't much, I give to charity willingly, and wish taxes were lower so I could give more.
I just wonder if many, not saying you, if they weren't FORCED to give through taxes, would still give if they had that money in their pockets. Like I always say, it's easy to spend other people's money, which goes back to the start of this Socialism/Capitalism discussion.
But at the same time you think that charities could provide a social safety net? Do you not see how those two views are entirely incompatible? What happens to society if people don't give? We live in anarchy?
The other thing is that while it is a nice, and even romantic, view that your children have all the same opportunities and can be anything they want to be, you don't sound stupid so you must be aware of the limits of meritocracy. Your children are better off than kids below them on the socio-economic scale, BUT they will have a very hard time competing with children of the wealthy. The ones who went to the best private schools, who had tutors, who played elite sports, who learned multiple languages, whose parents were connected enough to get them the best jobs, who attended places like Harvard on the basis of legacy, etc. It's a self-perpetuating cycle.
I was born dirt poor, I was a war time refugee arriving in the west with nothing but the clothes on my back at the age of 12, after being separated from my parents during the war and taking care of myself and my 9 year old brother in foster care. We lived a hard life and that will never leave the impressions I have had of people who owed us nothing but gave us everything. To the extent that I can be of help now to those who need it because I am in a lucrative profession and because in truth I married a man who plainly makes a ton of $, then so be it. I do feel a great debt to the society which took me in when it didn't need to.
I guess that's the interesting part, and you nailed it.
SO MANY people talk about helping others, that we "are the party of compassion", etc. etc. But even you do not trust that enough people would give of their own resources to make up what the "forced taxes/government safety net" does.
So who is really compassionate? Those that give willingly, out of the love of their heart for others.
I just wish people would get real about these discussions, and not hide behind empty virtue signaling about "free healthcare, free education, socialism, tax the rich". Those phrases are empty when you think.....would enough people give to take care of those in need? That's my whole point.
And I know it sounded romantic about my kids, but I also told them them will have to bust their ass, and sometimes life's not fair anyway.! But if you don't give the effort, you have no chance to achieve.
Good conversation, sorry I tend to ramble
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
I appreciate you actually acknowledging a need for a safety net and ditching the garbage “taxes are theft”.
I appreciate your charity and the fact that you do as much as you can, I truly do.
But charity will never be able to help the systematic poor or unhealthy. Period.
Charity doesn’t have the capabilities to consistently provide, charity will always ebb and flow according to their donations and need.
Charity is limiting not only due to fluctuations of money, but also due to lack of systems.
I have so much more, but have to run, I look forward to your responses.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
If it makes you feel better, truly rich people hire people to help them avoid paying taxes altogether.
mama cass
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2004
- Messages
- 6,293
- Status
