Politics

Come here to talk about topics that are not related to development, or even Kansas City.
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12485
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Politics

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

DColeKC wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 6:15 pm They do oppose socialism and CRT, thankfully.
Curious, what part or parts of socialism do you no like?
Do you like fire departments?
What about public libraries?
What about public hospitals?
What about public education?
What about public utilities?
What about public parks?
And what comes to mind after natural disasters - FEMA?
Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid?
And there are a whole slew of programs like local improvement districts, public housing, that are what some call socialist in nature but really have nothing to do with "Socialism".
Link2
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:04 pm

Re: Politics

Post by Link2 »

aknowledgeableperson wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 6:34 pm
DColeKC wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 6:15 pm They do oppose socialism and CRT, thankfully.
Curious, what part or parts of socialism do you no like?
Do you like fire departments?
What about public libraries?
What about public hospitals?
What about public education?
What about public utilities?
What about public parks?
And what comes to mind after natural disasters - FEMA?
Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid?
And there are a whole slew of programs like local improvement districts, public housing, that are what some call socialist in nature but really have nothing to do with "Socialism".
+1
mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 11138
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: Politics

Post by mean »

Fear mongering isn't fear mongering if it's true. He's already denied that election deniers are election deniers, I'm not sure at that point engagement is worth the effort.
User avatar
DColeKC
Ambassador
Posts: 2513
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

phuqueue wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 3:43 pm
DColeKC wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 8:43 am
phuqueue wrote: Thu Nov 10, 2022 9:26 pm Man you're really sticking to your guns even after this post aged like fine milk


With all of the other things Dems had to work against -- a midterm election (party in power typically loses dozens of seats), the low popularity of the Dem president (unpopular presidents typically lose more dozens of seats than popular ones, go figure), inflation running at the highest level in decades, successful gerrymandering in various red states and unsuccessful gerrymandering in places like New York (New York's map might be the single biggest reason the GOP is still likely to take the House), popular perception of a crime wave (largely false, but that doesn't matter as long as people believe it), and on and on -- we are supposed to believe that, actually, the only reason they didn't blow the GOP out is that people are tired of "wokeism." Very interesting, very persuasive.
Maybe you missed it but it’s more likely you ignored it. I said the republicans messed this up. With all the disadvantages the democrats face and the fact we are not in a good spot at all, democrats held far more seats than predicted.

I frankly could care less if what I say is persuasive or not. If I wanted to sway votes I’d not do it on a development forum that 10 people interact on.

Listen, I know you’re woke and firmly in the liberal elite category so I don’t expect you to admit that wokeism is declining. Thankfully there are articles all over the place from liberal leaning media that discuss this.

The biggest reasons the GOP didn’t have this red wave they wanted were bad candidates, poor messaging and Trump. While they may have gained back some control this election was still not a victory for the GOP.
You say lots of things, and they aren't necessarily internally consistent. You did say all that other stuff, but you also said: "The fact Democrats don't have complete and utter control goes to show millions of Americans are sick of them and their woke policies," so I'm responding to this postmortem you are offering in which, although your forecast was completely wrong, your reasoning was nonetheless somehow completely sound. I just don't really see any strong evidence that anybody not mainlining Murdoch-owned media actually cares at all about "woke policies." Granted, a very large number of people are mainlining Murdoch-owned media, so I don't mean to imply that it's a negligible population, but very few of those people were ever going to entertain voting for Democrats in the first place, so they aren't really worth discussing in this particular conversation. It's easy to blame Trump or bad candidates or poor messaging or whatever else, but what exactly do you think was bad about the candidates? What do you think Trump did to blow the election? How do you characterize the GOP's message? Cuz I'm not really seeing how those questions are answered in a way that also squares with "but also, everyone is thinking about 'wokeism' as much as DCole is and they hate it just as much as he does."
DColeKC wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 12:38 pm
Highlander wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 12:25 pm

True. It's like saying because Jewish people were prosperous in Germany prior to 1935, there was no anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism was rife in Germany long before Hitler took power. He just tapped into that emotion.

Those that think American blacks are the lucky ones are forgetting that Africa may have progressed on an entirely different trajectory had it not been for European colonization and exploitation and slavery.
I didn't say Black Americans are the lucky ones, but it's undeniable that in comparison to other countries in this world, they are the best off in this country. I'm not sure what the point of playing the "what if" game, especially going back hundreds of years. Had it not been for African blacks enlisting their own into slavery, maybe slavery wouldn't have ever happened? Oh wait, all races at some point enslaved their own people but we seem to forget that too.
This is a faulty comparison. Even accepting, for the sake of argument, that black people are better off in America than in any other country, the measure of racism in America would still be how they compare to other racial groups within America, now how they compare to their own racial group in other countries. But that comparison would definitely not support your argument, which is presumably why you went with this irrelevant cross-country comparison instead.
I'm the first to admit I'm not entirely consistent with what I say, I tend to shoot from the hip. I do appreciate your responses and the fact you take the time to lay this out. I'm terrible at expressing my opinion thoroughly or maybe I'm just flat out bad expressing my opinion in this type of forum.

It seems like some people take my comments to an extreme place. That might be my fault or just the world we live in.

There's plenty of examples to be found on non-Murdoch owned media about the decline of PC culture or wokeness. Just a reminder, I didn't invent the word woke, I'm just referencing the term as it's been out there and used by all media for years. It boils down to the far left being the loudest voice which makes many people feel that it is in fact the official voice of the left as a whole. Using the transgender stuff as an example. Most of the country and the majority of democrats don't support minors transitioning. The far left claims your transphobic if you take this stance despite the fact that the majority of people in this country still want protection from discrimination for Transgender people. It's all or nothing with them. Get in line or get called out so to speak.

"Wokeism Has Peaked"
Wokeism will remain an influential global movement, but in the U.S. at least, it has already begun to decline.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... nfluential

Why ‘wokeness’ is the biggest threat to Democrats in the 2022 election (Older article)
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/12/politics ... index.html

“Despite endless hopeful invocations of ‘but polls show that people like our positions,’ the truth is that the Democratic Party has been pulled far enough left that even lots of non-crazy people find us just plain scary – something that Fox News takes vigorous advantage of. From an electoral point of view, the story here is consistent: Democrats have stoked the culture wars by getting more extreme on social issues and Republicans have used this to successfully cleave away a segment of both the non-college white vote and, more recently, the non-college nonwhite vote."

The GOP's message was weak, combine that with the fact that less than half of Republicans support Trump who thought his weight would swing votes for bad candidates and well, here we are. I think I said this, but the GOP needs to throw it all away and start fresh with what message and policies they want to stand for.

My comment about black people in this country vs other countries may be irrelevant. That was more a point about this country in general. Despite all it's issues, it's still a great country. I'm convinced the racial issues will never go away. Does anyone have a good road map to fix these issues? Are we supposed to subsidize being black? Ideas like helping black people buying homes or reparations in the form of education don't exactly seem like the answer. Seriously, any ideas? Because stopping people from being racist isn't possible, as gross as they are.
User avatar
DColeKC
Ambassador
Posts: 2513
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

mean wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 7:23 pm Fear mongering isn't fear mongering if it's true. He's already denied that election deniers are election deniers, I'm not sure at that point engagement is worth the effort.
No, I said people who think elections were "stolen" or some big conspiracy are idiots. Those who simply want fair and transparent elections or question irregularities are simply expressing their right.
User avatar
DColeKC
Ambassador
Posts: 2513
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

aknowledgeableperson wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 6:34 pm
DColeKC wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 6:15 pm They do oppose socialism and CRT, thankfully.
Curious, what part or parts of socialism do you no like?
Do you like fire departments?
What about public libraries?
What about public hospitals?
What about public education?
What about public utilities?
What about public parks?
And what comes to mind after natural disasters - FEMA?
Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid?
And there are a whole slew of programs like local improvement districts, public housing, that are what some call socialist in nature but really have nothing to do with "Socialism".
This old argument. I'm not talking about social programs which are clearly needed in a capitalist society. I'm talking about a form of government which the far-left and self described democratic socialist support.
User avatar
Chris Stritzel
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1549
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:27 pm

Re: Politics

Post by Chris Stritzel »

As a Republican, that's not buried in the lies fed by Donald Trump, Tuesday night went about what I expected it to. I figured no monumental gains for either party that warrants a "wave". My assumptions were justified. It seems likely right now that the Senate will either be 51-49 Democrat or 50-50 again.

I also want to say that this loss by Republicans, because that's what it was, is entirely justified. They've lost their way and all are competing to be like Trump. The idea of being a free thinking conservative doesn't exist if you're a candidate anymore. It's all needing to kiss ass of the Trump-wing of the party. The unfortunate thing about that wing is that it's the minority of the party despite the way things seem and are made out to be. As I said, I'm a Republican, just not a Trump Republican.

I have my criticisms of Democrats. I don't like all of them and I don't agree with all of them. Fine. So what. But I want both parties to actually see and acknowledge the issues facing this country right now instead of diving into culture wars that are on the minds of few. Nobody likes inflation. Nobody likes high energy prices. Nobody likes to see their cities and towns fester in crimes preventable through a multitude of corridors. Nobody likes to see their roads, bridges, sidewalks, and rail infrastructure crumbling. Nobody likes divisiveness. Why are the two parties incapable of realizing this? Why must they appeal to the fringe voters instead of the majority?

Tuesday night is the third consecutive election that Trumpism lost. If this was a sports team, and a team that was heavily favored to win the championship, the ownership of the team should now be discussing "firing" the management staff. In this case, that would mean pushing Trump to the fringe and ignoring him. With Trump announcing his third presidential bid next week, it proves this is all about him and always has been. Not about his party and especially not about the country. A majority of the electorate rejected him twice, what makes him think it won't happen a third time? And if he cared about the party, he's wait until after the Georgia runoff election (which I fully expect Raphael Warnock to win either way).

People are not confident in Republican's ability to govern considering they're so focused on culture wars and have nominated celebrity politician and outsiders with no experience time and time again. While it's good to get outsiders involved, putting them up against professionals who know the game is not show you get those people involved in the world of politics.

I will admit that I was entirely turned off by Eric Schmitt and voted for Trudy Busch Valentine. Like Hawley, I feel that he is an opportunist cashing in on kissing Trump's ass while cashing in on his lawsuits during the pandemic.

It's my personal opinion that if Republicans renominate Donald Trump in 2024 that the party deserves to lose the election and subsequent elections until they can learn that Americans aren't all into Trumpism. Some might like conservative policies and wanting to get the industrial sector moving in America again after decades of those jobs going oversees, but no one wants the brashness that comes with Trumpism. I know I don't, and I know the Independent neighbor down the street doesn't.

To wrap this up, I also want to take a shot at Joe Biden. Like Trump, the man is old. A majority of the electorate in this nation is not in the same generation as Trump or Biden. Both need to step aside and let younger and more energetic candidates that are more inline with today's issues step in and take over. We need a President who can be a positive voice and also be up for the job. We need someone who's strong, but compassionate. Who that might be, I don't know.
Fountains
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2022 8:36 am

Re: Politics

Post by Fountains »

It's very hard for the incumbent president to lose unless he's a complete moron (Trump) even then the election basically came down to 44,000 votes in a few states. Nobody will beat Biden if inflation drops/unemployment remains where it is.

Let's say it doesnt- Trump still has no chance but if someone like DeSantis beats him and doesn't go along with some of the crazy bullshit like Jan 6th or the election is stolen that will make him look more attractive to independents. Kemp did pretty well with this. If DeSantis is able to carry Latinos in other states like he did FL he could easily win NV & AZ. I think he would win GA as well plus you can put FL & OH into the R column. This makes him a very formidable candidate again assuming things like inflation or unemployment are in flux.
Fountains
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2022 8:36 am

Re: Politics

Post by Fountains »

I thought it was interesting how overall younger voters helped carry Dems in the midterms yet something like only 27% of people under 27 voted. Which tells me Abortion really really screwed the R's and I'm wondering how do they get some of the young vote to turn out for them in 24'?
User avatar
DColeKC
Ambassador
Posts: 2513
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

Fountains wrote: Sat Nov 12, 2022 12:34 am I thought it was interesting how overall younger voters helped carry Dems in the midterms yet something like only 27% of people under 27 voted. Which tells me Abortion really really screwed the R's and I'm wondering how do they get some of the young vote to turn out for them in 24'?
They need young candidates who will fight the older “rhino” republicans. I personally can’t stand AOC or any of the squad members but they’re powerful and get a ton of attention. Meanwhile Mitch McConnell is 100 going on 200 and won’t go away.

I’ve never met a Republican under 40 who is 100% pro-life or anti-immigration. The Republican Party doesn’t represent my generation worth a crap and they still cater to the old heads. Not a smart play long term.
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12485
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Politics

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

DColeKC wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 7:55 pm
aknowledgeableperson wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 6:34 pm
DColeKC wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 6:15 pm They do oppose socialism and CRT, thankfully.
Curious, what part or parts of socialism do you no like?
Do you like fire departments?
What about public libraries?
What about public hospitals?
What about public education?
What about public utilities?
What about public parks?
And what comes to mind after natural disasters - FEMA?
Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid?
And there are a whole slew of programs like local improvement districts, public housing, that are what some call socialist in nature but really have nothing to do with "Socialism".
This old argument. I'm not talking about social programs which are clearly needed in a capitalist society. I'm talking about a form of government which the far-left and self described democratic socialist support.
Then why use the term "socialism"? When this country was formed its founders were quite far-left for their time.
Tell me what is it about Democratic Socialism that turns you off?
For me in the past I likely voted for more Republicans than Democrats. What started my turn to non-Republican started with the rise of the Tea Party, denialism and McConnell's statement that his job was to make Obama a one term president. Yes that is the unwritten goal for the opposing party but I can't remember any politician saying it out loud. The next step was in 2012 when Romney went to Trump Tower begging for Trump's support and choose to run against his record as governor. One could say that in the past I was a moderate but I am leaning more to the left than before. Of course considering how far to the right the Republican Party has become over the past 12 years I just might be considered a member of the far-left to that party's members.
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2686
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Politics

Post by phuqueue »

DColeKC wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 7:44 pm There's plenty of examples to be found on non-Murdoch owned media about the decline of PC culture or wokeness. Just a reminder, I didn't invent the word woke, I'm just referencing the term as it's been out there and used by all media for years. It boils down to the far left being the loudest voice which makes many people feel that it is in fact the official voice of the left as a whole. Using the transgender stuff as an example. Most of the country and the majority of democrats don't support minors transitioning. The far left claims your transphobic if you take this stance despite the fact that the majority of people in this country still want protection from discrimination for Transgender people. It's all or nothing with them. Get in line or get called out so to speak.

"Wokeism Has Peaked"
Wokeism will remain an influential global movement, but in the U.S. at least, it has already begun to decline.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... nfluential

Why ‘wokeness’ is the biggest threat to Democrats in the 2022 election (Older article)
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/12/politics ... index.html

“Despite endless hopeful invocations of ‘but polls show that people like our positions,’ the truth is that the Democratic Party has been pulled far enough left that even lots of non-crazy people find us just plain scary – something that Fox News takes vigorous advantage of. From an electoral point of view, the story here is consistent: Democrats have stoked the culture wars by getting more extreme on social issues and Republicans have used this to successfully cleave away a segment of both the non-college white vote and, more recently, the non-college nonwhite vote."
My point isn't that nobody is talking about "wokeism," it's that most people don't actually care about it. I don't find it surprising that noted dumbasses Chris Cillizza (who wrote that CNN article) and Kevin Drum (who he was quoting in that excerpt that you also quoted) uncritically accept that Fox News is just right about all of this, but regardless of what anybody wrote months ago, we are still left with the inescapable reality of an actual election that just occurred a few days ago. It is difficult to reconcile the results of the election and the overall political environment in which it took place with the idea that people are broadly sick of "wokeism" (especially if, like Cillizza, you define "woke" as basically any left-of-center policy that has been endorsed by any Democrat). It seems either that "wokeism" wasn't front of mind for many voters, or (less likely) that voters who are thinking about "wokeism" as a political issue are not associating it with Democrats, or (by far least plausible of all) "wokeism" is actually popular with voters. But the idea both that "wokeism" matters to voters and that they are fed up with it doesn't really fit the facts.
My comment about black people in this country vs other countries may be irrelevant. That was more a point about this country in general. Despite all it's issues, it's still a great country. I'm convinced the racial issues will never go away. Does anyone have a good road map to fix these issues? Are we supposed to subsidize being black? Ideas like helping black people buying homes or reparations in the form of education don't exactly seem like the answer. Seriously, any ideas? Because stopping people from being racist isn't possible, as gross as they are.
Reparations are not meant to "subsidize being black," they are compensation for what was taken from black people. I don't know whether reparations will "solve" racism, but they are owed in any case.
User avatar
DColeKC
Ambassador
Posts: 2513
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

^ or maybe people vote by party down the ballot more now than ever before.

On reparations - we’ve tried it as a country before and it doesn’t do anything besides make people on both sides feel warm and fuzzy. So sure, if we want to dedicate several billion to this and check that box, go ahead. Won’t fix anything. That’s my issue with the idea.
Fountains
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2022 8:36 am

Re: Politics

Post by Fountains »

DColeKC wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 8:58 am ^ or maybe people vote by party down the ballot more now than ever before.

On reparations - we’ve tried it as a country before and it doesn’t do anything besides make people on both sides feel warm and fuzzy. So sure, if we want to dedicate several billion to this and check that box, go ahead. Won’t fix anything. That’s my issue with the idea.
Yeah writing a blank check would be a disaster
User avatar
DColeKC
Ambassador
Posts: 2513
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

aknowledgeableperson wrote: Sat Nov 12, 2022 3:13 pm
DColeKC wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 7:55 pm
aknowledgeableperson wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 6:34 pm

Curious, what part or parts of socialism do you no like?
Do you like fire departments?
What about public libraries?
What about public hospitals?
What about public education?
What about public utilities?
What about public parks?
And what comes to mind after natural disasters - FEMA?
Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid?
And there are a whole slew of programs like local improvement districts, public housing, that are what some call socialist in nature but really have nothing to do with "Socialism".
This old argument. I'm not talking about social programs which are clearly needed in a capitalist society. I'm talking about a form of government which the far-left and self described democratic socialist support.
Then why use the term "socialism"? When this country was formed its founders were quite far-left for their time.
Tell me what is it about Democratic Socialism that turns you off?
For me in the past I likely voted for more Republicans than Democrats. What started my turn to non-Republican started with the rise of the Tea Party, denialism and McConnell's statement that his job was to make Obama a one term president. Yes that is the unwritten goal for the opposing party but I can't remember any politician saying it out loud. The next step was in 2012 when Romney went to Trump Tower begging for Trump's support and choose to run against his record as governor. One could say that in the past I was a moderate but I am leaning more to the left than before. Of course considering how far to the right the Republican Party has become over the past 12 years I just might be considered a member of the far-left to that party's members.
I used the word socialism because there’s a large group on the far-left who want to take more from companies and individuals to put towards more social programs. There’s a line and if you go too far with taxing and social programs, negative consequences start to happen. Democratic socialist long term goal is to replace capitalism with socialism and they’re committed to this long term goal. Take power from corporations and give it to the people sounds great in theory.

I find myself leaning right but very turned off by several far-right ideas.
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2686
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Politics

Post by phuqueue »

DColeKC wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 8:58 am ^ or maybe people vote by party down the ballot more now than ever before.
Yeah, of course they do, and that's the real story of not only this election cycle but the past several -- the electorate is intensely polarized, so a large majority of voters are already in the bank for either party, and only a few are genuinely waffling or persuadable, and in the past three cycles, those few have broken for Democrats each time. This is not consistent with anti-woke triumphalism.
On reparations - we’ve tried it as a country before and it doesn’t do anything besides make people on both sides feel warm and fuzzy. So sure, if we want to dedicate several billion to this and check that box, go ahead. Won’t fix anything. That’s my issue with the idea.
Man I know you guys are big on "alternative facts" or whatever, but this is a pretty ludicrous take. The closest we "as a country" have come to attempting reparations was the promise of "forty acres and a mule," which we famously reneged on. Scattered efforts by a few municipalities or private organizations don't amount to "we as a country did something and it didn't work."
Fountains wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 1:50 pm
DColeKC wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 8:58 am ^ or maybe people vote by party down the ballot more now than ever before.

On reparations - we’ve tried it as a country before and it doesn’t do anything besides make people on both sides feel warm and fuzzy. So sure, if we want to dedicate several billion to this and check that box, go ahead. Won’t fix anything. That’s my issue with the idea.
Yeah writing a blank check would be a disaster
It doesn't necessarily need to be a "blank check," there are many ways that reparations could be provided, and I wouldn't presume to know what the best or most effective way to do it would be, which would depend in the first place on specifying what the actual goals of reparations even are. That being said, I don't personally have a problem with cash reparations. The economic liberals (or "libertarian" capitalists, if you prefer) on the right will argue that the wealthy have a right to do whatever they want with their wealth (even, say, set $44 billion on fire). "Taxation is theft," "the government doesn't know how to spend my money as effectively as I myself do," etc. Yet, when it comes to poor people of color, we simply can't get enough oversight -- simply giving them money "would be a disaster" (and we apply this thinking not just as a reason not to pay reparations but also in guiding all of our spending on social programs). Framed this way, it seems straightforwardly racist: the wealthy (who are overwhelmingly white) can be trusted with money and poor black people cannot. In reality, it's more complicated than that, because, after all, the wealthy "earned" their money and the poor black people would need to be "given" money from someone else, and this is what supposedly distinguishes these two questions. But if you believe that "theft" -- the concept that someone can wrongfully take from you what is rightfully yours, but that it remains rightfully yours and you are entitled to get it back -- exists at all, then there is no actual distinction here (I realize characterizing slavery as simple "theft" grossly understates both the nature and magnitude of the crime, but I think it is a helpful frame for discussing reparations specifically). Whether we ever actually pay the reparations or not doesn't change the fact that they already rightfully belong to the people who were enslaved. Of course, none of those people are around anymore, nor are the people who directly enslaved them, so that fact is also supposed to free us from our obligation to pay reparations now. But we don't see this standard applied in other contexts -- for instance, eighty years later, we continue to see art and valuables looted by (now-dead) Nazis returned to the descendants of their (also now-dead) rightful owners. Or to analogize to the law, receiving stolen property from the person who stole it doesn't entitle you to ownership of it just because you weren't the one who stole it. So there is no particular reason that the descendants of slaves aren't be entitled to compensation for the crimes that were committed against their ancestors. And if we start from that position, then I don't see why we should be more concerned with how the recipients of reparations use their money than we are with how Elon Musk uses his (actually, we should be less concerned about them and more concerned about dumbass Elon, but that's a separate tangent from the reparations discussion). I don't know whether cash reparations would be a "disaster" or not, but that only bears on whether cash is the right way to pay reparations (though I don't think it's the place of white people to determine what the "right way" is), not whether they should be paid at all.
User avatar
DColeKC
Ambassador
Posts: 2513
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

phuqueue wrote: Mon Nov 14, 2022 11:13 am
DColeKC wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 8:58 am ^ or maybe people vote by party down the ballot more now than ever before.
Yeah, of course they do, and that's the real story of not only this election cycle but the past several -- the electorate is intensely polarized, so a large majority of voters are already in the bank for either party, and only a few are genuinely waffling or persuadable, and in the past three cycles, those few have broken for Democrats each time. This is not consistent with anti-woke triumphalism.
On reparations - we’ve tried it as a country before and it doesn’t do anything besides make people on both sides feel warm and fuzzy. So sure, if we want to dedicate several billion to this and check that box, go ahead. Won’t fix anything. That’s my issue with the idea.
Man I know you guys are big on "alternative facts" or whatever, but this is a pretty ludicrous take. The closest we "as a country" have come to attempting reparations was the promise of "forty acres and a mule," which we famously reneged on. Scattered efforts by a few municipalities or private organizations don't amount to "we as a country did something and it didn't work."
Fountains wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 1:50 pm
DColeKC wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 8:58 am ^ or maybe people vote by party down the ballot more now than ever before.

On reparations - we’ve tried it as a country before and it doesn’t do anything besides make people on both sides feel warm and fuzzy. So sure, if we want to dedicate several billion to this and check that box, go ahead. Won’t fix anything. That’s my issue with the idea.
Yeah writing a blank check would be a disaster
It doesn't necessarily need to be a "blank check," there are many ways that reparations could be provided, and I wouldn't presume to know what the best or most effective way to do it would be, which would depend in the first place on specifying what the actual goals of reparations even are. That being said, I don't personally have a problem with cash reparations. The economic liberals (or "libertarian" capitalists, if you prefer) on the right will argue that the wealthy have a right to do whatever they want with their wealth (even, say, set $44 billion on fire). "Taxation is theft," "the government doesn't know how to spend my money as effectively as I myself do," etc. Yet, when it comes to poor people of color, we simply can't get enough oversight -- simply giving them money "would be a disaster" (and we apply this thinking not just as a reason not to pay reparations but also in guiding all of our spending on social programs). Framed this way, it seems straightforwardly racist: the wealthy (who are overwhelmingly white) can be trusted with money and poor black people cannot. In reality, it's more complicated than that, because, after all, the wealthy "earned" their money and the poor black people would need to be "given" money from someone else, and this is what supposedly distinguishes these two questions. But if you believe that "theft" -- the concept that someone can wrongfully take from you what is rightfully yours, but that it remains rightfully yours and you are entitled to get it back -- exists at all, then there is no actual distinction here (I realize characterizing slavery as simple "theft" grossly understates both the nature and magnitude of the crime, but I think it is a helpful frame for discussing reparations specifically). Whether we ever actually pay the reparations or not doesn't change the fact that they already rightfully belong to the people who were enslaved. Of course, none of those people are around anymore, nor are the people who directly enslaved them, so that fact is also supposed to free us from our obligation to pay reparations now. But we don't see this standard applied in other contexts -- for instance, eighty years later, we continue to see art and valuables looted by (now-dead) Nazis returned to the descendants of their (also now-dead) rightful owners. Or to analogize to the law, receiving stolen property from the person who stole it doesn't entitle you to ownership of it just because you weren't the one who stole it. So there is no particular reason that the descendants of slaves aren't be entitled to compensation for the crimes that were committed against their ancestors. And if we start from that position, then I don't see why we should be more concerned with how the recipients of reparations use their money than we are with how Elon Musk uses his (actually, we should be less concerned about them and more concerned about dumbass Elon, but that's a separate tangent from the reparations discussion). I don't know whether cash reparations would be a "disaster" or not, but that only bears on whether cash is the right way to pay reparations (though I don't think it's the place of white people to determine what the "right way" is), not whether they should be paid at all.

Here are some "alternative" facts for you. Examples of past reparations.
Japanese-Americans interned during WWII.
Native Americans compensated via the Indian Claims Commission.
Victims of Chicago police violence.
Victims of the 1923 massacre in Rosewood FL.
Victims of forced sterilizations as part of the Eugenics program.



As for the handing out cash and your argument about rich vs poor ability to manage that money. They say if you can't manage a dollar you can't manage a million. We've already put programs in place like affirmative action and in some cities better access to loans. I think these ideas are honorable but I'm not convinced anything besides some internal actions will ever fix these issues.

Reminds of when Ice Cube went on Bill Maher to call him out for dropping the "N" word. He told Bill Maher that nothing has changed with the police since NWA came out with "Fuck the Police". He says not all cops are bad but we have to call out the bad ones. One could say the same applies to the bad apples within the black community who negatively impact the entire black community. Yet there's a culture of not saying anything and not trying to fix this from within. Just how cops for years protected each other and probably still do. If the police department don't fix themselves from within, no amount of outside rules, regulations or programs will fix the issue. It's easy to say this about police departments but you say this to black people and you're in trouble.

One idea I fully support is getting black people into more small business ownership and they should receive priority on all legal marijuana licensing.

I want to see racism and racial relations fixed, I'm just skeptical about that being a realistic possibility. If that makes me a bad person, fine.
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2686
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Politics

Post by phuqueue »

My bad, I thought that you were saying the country had already tried to provide reparations specifically to descendants of slaves, when in reality just a small handful of smaller jurisdictions and private institutions have attempted anything. But as for your specific examples:

Japanese-Americans interned during WWII.
In what way would you say this "didn't do anything"? Japanese Americans themselves made specific demands and they got a lot (not all) of what they wanted. As a group, Japanese Americans have a lower poverty rate, higher educational attainment, etc than Americans in general. I'm not saying that's because of the reparations (which were paid out only to a small number of the total population of Japanese Americans, and probably after Japanese Americans as a group were already doing ok), but I don't know what your criteria are for reparations "working" or how those criteria apply to this case. What do you think these reparations were meant to do that they didn't?

Native Americans compensated via the Indian Claims Commission.
This is probably the best analogue, but even so, the scale and structure -- and even the purpose -- of the program are pretty different from what you would probably see with a slavery/Jim Crow/etc reparations program. The ICC was conceived basically as a forum for tribes and other groups to press discrete claims against the government, as a reward for their contributions during WW2. It was not conceived as a broad program of reparations intended to achieve some particular goal, like closing the racial wealth gap between white Americans and indigenous groups, to pick one potential goal that has been suggested for a slavery reparations program. And it wasn't even the kind of "reparations" that many people wanted. They wanted their land back, but the ICC paid out monetary compensation. And all in all, it didn't actually pay out that much monetary compensation -- about $800 million, which is pretty cheap in exchange for taking a whole continent and genociding 90+% of the indigenous inhabitants. If the US tried to pay slavery reparations through a program modeled on the ICC, I agree that it probably wouldn't work very well.

Victims of Chicago police violence.
Victims of the 1923 massacre in Rosewood FL.
Seems a stretch to call either of these something that we tried "as a country." These were both small programs targeted at small groups in specific localities (the Rosewood one only paid out to like ten people). The Chicago one only started a few years ago. Not really sure how you can look at either of these and conclude that a broad national reparations program couldn't possibly do anything for anyone.

Victims of forced sterilizations as part of the Eugenics program.
Here's another one that is highly targeted and has only gotten underway in recent years, so also a weird one from which to try to draw conclusions about what a national reparations program could accomplish.
As for the handing out cash and your argument about rich vs poor ability to manage that money. They say if you can't manage a dollar you can't manage a million. We've already put programs in place like affirmative action and in some cities better access to loans. I think these ideas are honorable but I'm not convinced anything besides some internal actions will ever fix these issues.
Hard to manage a dollar if you've never had one in the first place. The idea that black people don't have any money because they don't know how to manage it is, well, you're gonna hate hearing this, but...racist. And even if it were true that black people can't be trusted with a cash payout because of, well, whatever surely not racist reason you can think of, that would only speak to the form that reparations should take, not whether they should be paid at all.
Reminds of when Ice Cube went on Bill Maher to call him out for dropping the "N" word. He told Bill Maher that nothing has changed with the police since NWA came out with "Fuck the Police". He says not all cops are bad but we have to call out the bad ones. One could say the same applies to the bad apples within the black community who negatively impact the entire black community. Yet there's a culture of not saying anything and not trying to fix this from within. Just how cops for years protected each other and probably still do. If the police department don't fix themselves from within, no amount of outside rules, regulations or programs will fix the issue. It's easy to say this about police departments but you say this to black people and you're in trouble.

One idea I fully support is getting black people into more small business ownership and they should receive priority on all legal marijuana licensing.

I want to see racism and racial relations fixed, I'm just skeptical about that being a realistic possibility. If that makes me a bad person, fine.
I don't know whether you are a "bad person." I don't think that is a very helpful frame. I think you said some pretty problematic things in that first paragraph of the above quote, and I don't really have the energy to explain what is wrong with it if you don't already understand cuz it isn't anything we haven't already discussed before anyway.
User avatar
DColeKC
Ambassador
Posts: 2513
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

This topic is way too far over my head. I understand American has a race problem and I understand implying that the black community has things to work on can be perceived as a racist comment. Of course I don't intend it to be that way but it's no different than me saying white people have a lot of things to fix within their culture as well. What if the answer is everything? America still has things to fix as a country, white people still have things to fix (including breeding more racist) and minorities have cultural issues to address that only they can address. I do know one race telling a different race they need to fix something will result in positive change 0% of the time.

My money management comment was applicable to all people. It's why you see poor people strike it rich and end up poor again. This isn't unique to any one race. I was getting at handing over large chunks of money and hoping it helps or simply to check the box won't help. Well, maybe it will help a very slight amount but not to the level I believe the majority of this country wants to see.

Negative side of me wonders if this country will still be dealing with the same ole thing in 100 years.
User avatar
TheLastGentleman
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2516
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:27 pm

Re: Politics

Post by TheLastGentleman »

DColeKC wrote: Mon Nov 14, 2022 7:18 pm This topic is way too far over my head.
That’s been evident for a while
Post Reply