All Hail God-Emperor Trump

[Prosak]

Your insistance that I am somehow wrong Becouse I use words you do not like is what's wrong with discourse these days. If you let yourself get hung up on the use of a single word you do not like, intellectual arogance wins. You can't just dissmiss someone's argument as nothing more then verbiage. Even a wheat farmer with a 2nd grade schooling, Who can't articulate his points and says boy at the end of every sentence can have insight or knowledge in their perspective.

: I find the way you have conducted yourself highly inapropriate and unbefitting of your status here in this site. Especially in a board that should show respect for another's opinion. I had never done anything, said anything to suggest I think all democrats are wrong. I Don't even think I'm somehow one hundred percent right, I understand there may be weaknesses I'm my opinion. Weaknesses I may or may not be aware of in any way. That is showing intellectual humility. I in fact never even suggested everyone with one opinion is wrong. Heck, I even said most news networks are lying to us, not all. If me being conservative makes you believe I automatically think all people who disagree with me is wrong then your just assuming and guilty of the same thing your acussing me on, under no basis I might add. As I have done nothing to warrant this kind of aggressive response. And I will reiterate, shockingly enough, from a person who runs this site. Who am I to go to? People have been kicked off the boards for less.

Any way sorry I said leftist. Is democrats fine? I need to know so I don't get the word police on My back, they give big tickets. ((edit; that was just a joke by the way. Lol))

[Eikichi]

Rather, I don't think it was a word meant to even remotely be hateful. So there is no coded speech here with me and Ethnic is not a bigoted word, it is just another word within the English language. A cold word, like a cold scientist is cold, but just a word. Why let it bother you right?

I can understand most of your reasoning on this one, but that reasoning is inherently flawed. Nigger was just a word, falsely believed that it just stood for ignorant people in general. There's no thing as just a word, words carry connotations, feelings, and emotional history. The words Freedom, Liberty, Equality, Love have much more worth to them than just cold words. It's the same reason why their synonym's have the same definition but don't carry the same wait or meaning. A word is just as expressive as any individual person.

so I understand that what you believe to be just another cold word, is that.. a cold word. But your own logic is at play here. People who choose to see certain words as insults, will see them as insults. So using words that could be insinuated as insults in a divisive thread would only lead people to the immediate connotation that you are using them as insults. "Liberal and leftist" are accurate words to describe democrats, but they are also widely used as insults by the conservative party or used in a demeaning way. So while it wasn't your intention to insult, it occurred because of the weight those words carried.

I also feel you might be over insinuating the aggressiveness of Vekseif response to you. But you're also falling into your own trapping. just as someone shouldn't get lost in the verbiage of someones message no one should also let the aggressiveness of someone demeanor lesson the impact of their words.

That sort of language turns this country on itself. As long as you insist on using it, you are going to wonder why 'Leftists' don't listen to you. Your valid points get lost in the rest of your verbiage and outright fabrications.

Ignoring any aggression in that statement, you have to notice the argument is valid. It's the reason why you don't insult a colleague before stating why their wrong, because the rest of your words get lost and people get hung up on the insult. Just as we get hung up on someone's attitude.

Now to be more on topic, I feel have to mention that the idea there was some secret racist underbelly that turned the election in Trumps favor is ridiculous. Or the idea that Trump won the vote because he was more convincing. The primary reasons Trump won lie in the same things that both both the far-right and the far-left. A distrust of the government and mainstream media, that coupled with Trumps false promises and demeanor led him to get more of the votes in areas that are typically democratic. Distrust of the government and media isn't a conservative idea, it's in both our parties. My personal opinion on the matter is that a vast amount of typical democratic votes in certain states voted republican this year because Trump made promises that he either doesn't intend to keep, or he intends to keep and therefore intends to destroy the last eight years of progress on climate change.

[AmberStarfire]

I'll tell you why I think he won. Bear in mind, I'm not American, don't know a whole lot about American politics and most of what I know of Trump has been read from news articles.

Strength.

I'm not saying it's accurate or that it's backed by his political approaches, but even with what seems to have been attempts by his party to weaken Hillary Clinton in people's minds, she doesn't project it as much as he does. I think that's why they took that approach, because they knew they could use it to their advantage.

Some people supporting him are no doubt racist, but clearly not all. People are warier than they used to be because of the threat of terrorism, and so some of those who voted possibly voted based on whether they felt a leader could combat that in the necessary ways. Hillary seems more of a voice of reason to me, more diplomatic, possibly more intelligent, but more restrained. Not as forceful.

I would've voted for Hillary, but I can see why some people voted as they did. A lot of people were also thinking of themselves and their day to day circumstances, and some probably saw greater hope in the betterment of things with him than her.

That is how I read it from over here, but based on what little I know of American politics.

[Eikichi]

I'll tell you why I think he won. Bear in mind, I'm not American, don't know a whole lot about American politics and most of what I know of Trump has been read from news articles.

Strength.

I can see your argument for it, and it's well thought out. My argument is to the opposite though. I truly believe that fear was a much greater factor. Fear of the Clintons, fear of four more years of Obama, fear of war with Russia, of more government corruption.

Your argument definitely made sense. But I think it's more about how you perceive them. An example would be is that I did see Hillary as forceful. I saw her as Strong on Russia and strong on retaining our standing in the world. I saw Trump was weak on Russia, weak on China, willing to give in, and a liar. But again that's my own biased view.

I know someone in the UK who hated the Brexit movement. Spoke out about it, but when it came to voting she decided to vote to leave. Not because she agreed, but because as a small business leaving would give her the most benefits for her business. It taught us both one thing, people are inherently selfish. Even when it goes against what they believe in.

[Blythe]

I'll tell you why I think he won. Bear in mind, I'm not American, don't know a whole lot about American politics and most of what I know of Trump has been read from news articles.

Strength.

I can see your argument for it, and it's well thought out. My argument is to the opposite though. I truly believe that fear was a much greater factor. Fear of the Clintons, fear of four more years of Obama, fear of war with Russia, of more government corruption.

Why not both? I think these are complimentary reasons that go hand-in-hand, not contradictory. Fear can lead to individuals seeking out politicians they believe exhibit strength, after all.

[fireflights]

It makes me, for the first time in my life, ashamed to be an American.

And I doubt we'll see an election 2020.

We will, and you know why we will? Because of the fact that he'd need a reason to call martial law or he would have to get them to allow him to change the constitution which will never happen. So don't stress over that one.

[Eikichi]

We will, and you know why we will? Because of the fact that he'd need a reason to call martial law or he would have to get them to allow him to change the constitution which will never happen. So don't stress over that one.

Not to be the devil's advocate. But when I read that I figured he was referring to the idea that whatever war we get in leads to no election. Though I find the idea that any modern country would resort to nukes as idiotic. Not until one country either develops the technology to neutralize them, or control enemy nukes.

[Blythe]

Any way sorry I said leftist. Is democrats fine? I need to know so I don't get the word police on My back, they give big tickets. ((edit; that was just a joke by the way. Lol))

(Jokes are a little dicey to make in a serious topic, by the way. I don't think you mean to, but it comes off as incredibly dismissive)

I think you might be missing the point Vekseid's making.

When he refers to tribalist rhetoric, he's referring to a type of rhetoric/stance that divides us up into generalized groups, with your loyalty being only to 'your' group. That sort of rhetoric doesn't help honest dialogue and debate; it encourages people to look at groups as homogeneous monoliths rather than approaching individuals on the basis of their own opinions. It stagnates debate and closes off minds to viewpoints not one's own. Not every Democrat is the same, nor every liberal. Just as not every conservative is the same, nor every Republican. I say this as a man who identifies under the blanket term of 'liberal' who does not always agree with other self-identified liberals. There's nothing wrong with you being conservative, but how you present arguments from that perspective are important. Pick any two conservatives off the street, and you might get two very different opinions on issues. Tribalist rhetoric is a pretty hefty problem in politics. I'm not sure you're meaning to, but you're falling into some wording that's reminiscent of that mindset.

If I'm reading him right (and Vekseid can correct me if I'm wrong, and I hope he does, because I don't want to misrepresent him), Vekseid is trying to impress upon you the importance of how you word something & the accuracy of the information you want to impart, because words and facts matter.

The reason he brought up the Southern Strategy is because, unfortunately, there is coded language is US politics that encourages the spread and appeal of bigoted viewpoints. I live in the American South. The Southern Strategy is very real and has had a palpable effect here. The word 'ethnic' when used in political debate where I live often has a very negative racist connotation without explicitly engaging in more common slurs.

It's easy to dismiss things under the joking blanket of 'word police,' but language is how we convey meaning. The words we choose and how we choose to present a side of an argument will influence whether or not people are receptive to that argument. It's genuine direction on presenting yourself better so the good points you want to make don't get lost.

And people want to see those good points you have. Personally, I do not care if you are conservative, liberal, independent, etc. I think labels like that are often...not helpful as anything other than a vague idea of someone's priorities. Personally, I care about what you actually think, and I find I enjoy debate more when I just get someone's opinion directly without knowing their political affiliation at all.

[Vekseid]

Your insistance that I am somehow wrong Becouse I use words you do not like is what's wrong with discourse these days. If you let yourself get hung up on the use of a single word you do not like, intellectual arogance wins. You can't just dissmiss someone's argument as nothing more then verbiage. Even a wheat farmer with a 2nd grade schooling, Who can't articulate his points and says boy at the end of every sentence can have insight or knowledge in their perspective.

You touched a live wire. When someone posts conspiracy theories (e.g. your claims about Hillary) and dog whistles ('ethnics', 'Leftists') in their first post in a thread, then the logical question becomes "Is this person actually here for a discussion?"

If you are here to genuinely discuss, I apologize. However, please understand that some of the places you are getting your information from are genuinely toxic. Things are getting to the point where one large group of people is not perceiving the same reality as another large group of people, and the last time that ended well was never.

: I find the way you have conducted yourself highly inapropriate and unbefitting of your status here in this site. Especially in a board that should show respect for another's opinion. I had never done anything, said anything to suggest I think all democrats are wrong. I Don't even think I'm somehow one hundred percent right, I understand there may be weaknesses I'm my opinion. Weaknesses I may or may not be aware of in any way. That is showing intellectual humility. I in fact never even suggested everyone with one opinion is wrong. Heck, I even said most news networks are lying to us, not all. If me being conservative makes you believe I automatically think all people who disagree with me is wrong then your just assuming and guilty of the same thing your acussing me on, under no basis I might add. As I have done nothing to warrant this kind of aggressive response. And I will reiterate, shockingly enough, from a person who runs this site. Who am I to go to? People have been kicked off the boards for less.

Any way sorry I said leftist. Is democrats fine? I need to know so I don't get the word police on My back, they give big tickets. ((edit; that was just a joke by the way. Lol))

Should I use 'conservative' forums as a role model instead?

Unless you do something that directly attacks other members here (e.g. equating homosexuals with pedophiles, making death threats, calling trans*people less than human), your access to the forums proper won't be impacted. The most vitriolic right-wing member we've had is only banned because he asked for it, then proceeded to evade said ban.

As for what to call people, I do hope you read Blythe's post. The measure is not so much in the word chosen but rather the meaning tied to it. When applying such a label, can your readers be confident that you regard such people as human beings equal in status to yourself?

[Silk]

No one doubts that there is more to the story behind those statistics I laid out. The point, as I stated before, is that the reasons are structural and systemic. And the stratification is indeed huge, even among white men (just how many billionaires are there, BTW?). But, again, no one is disputing this (nor is anyone disputing that it is in fact quite bad, no matter your race or sex).

This is all a red herring in any case, because what is being argued here is the fact that Trump, a billionaire (who made his fortune by scamming everyone, no less), ran his campaign on platform that was openly racist, sexist, etc., and also openly lied to his voter base, just to get himself elected.

Then take that issue with Trump, not every white person out there who did or didn't vote for him. Also an politician lying, le gasp oh no say it aint so! This must've been the first ever instance of a politician lying to the populace to get an edge!

And people voted for this guy anyway, despite the fact that he most certainly isn't going to make life better for anyone (including his own voter base). If anything, he will make it worse. Particularly if you are a member of one of the groups that he has disparaged.

I still fail to see how that can't be attributed to Clinton as well.

Airport security is not even that effective to begin with, so I fail to see how targeting specific ethnic or religious groups (i.e. racial profiling) can possibly be justified on any grounds.

Again, you are failing to see the structural issues at play here (i.e. why are ethnic minorities more likely to be targeted by law enforcement, etc. in the first place?)

Not denying that there may be structural issues, much like there is structural issues in the uk about how men rape more than women (Because to rape in UK law requires that you penetrate which over inflates the statistic and makes it come off as some kind of one sided pandemic, issues with police checks is a similar demon. Yet it apparently only matters when a minority isn't the benefactor.

Oh really?

First off, meritocracy is a myth. Secondly, there are no "racial quotas". There is Affirmative Action to be sure, but its effectiveness is often disputed, in both the schools and the workplace.

Besides the above example I had of where a white person was not kept on his long standing job and the excuse given was "we want to culturally diversify the staff"

If we are going to use anecdotes, I will just simply point out a counter example and state that at my own job, it is still overwhelmingly white and male, especially if you go higher up the corporate ladder, despite several years of promoting "diversity". And they still hire white males on a regular basis.

In cases like these, statistical data is paramount. I would hope that someone who is studying Forensic Psychology, of all fields, would appreciate the importance of that...

I also take sources to be of importance, in which case the Huffington post isn't much better than a left-wing daily mail. But I can come back and break down each of those later if you like. Because there is quite a few loaded things in there for example let's go with this one.



First off it states "who ever have used drugs" since it doesn't have a recent use that could be accounting for an 80 year old white dude who smoked weed once in high school for all I know. Also we could also make an assumption that the reason white people are more open for it is because they get checked less, while black people who do use it more and continue to do so won't exactly say to someone "Yeah I do weed, why wanna buy some?" As well as making a general assumption that the people who claim they've done drugs have ACTUALLY done those drugs. How many random teens and young adults lie about their feats to big themselves up in front of their mates. until the closer specifications of that criteria are shown, I can't take them for what they are because it's taking a statistic while omitting some very important exclusion criteria. "Saying white people do more drugs than blacks but blacks get punished for it more", is no different than "black people are more likely to lie about taking drugs, compared to the amount of them that are arrested for it" in terms of assumptions made of the data. Ultimately, its easy to make statistics fit your narrative with some casual tweaking and interpretation.

So your conclusion is that it is wrong for ethnic and sexual minorities to demand equal rights, equal pay, equal standing in society, safe neighborhoods, equal access to education and healthcare, the right to not be harassed by law enforcement, and above all to be treated with respect like everyone else? Oh noes! 

What I don't understand is why you seem to think that extending civil liberties to historically disadvantaged groups will necessarily mean that whites will lose out, when this is just simply not the case. Martin Luther King Jr certainly didn't think so: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm

Oh I'm all for equal rights, equal pay already has laws based on it so if pay isn't equal then it's illegal. Equal standing in society? Earned as much as it is given. Safe neighbourhoods? That's an issue of crime itself, crime that is disproportionate between races and ultimately I don't know of any laws that actively discriminate against an non-illegal group (except for men not being allowed to deliver personal care to females). Equal access to education and healthcare. Again absolutely, but again something that has more pot holes and concerns more than just simply "give them more funding" not be harassed by law enforcement, yet not doing much to ease the stigma if crime per capita are anything to go by. Equal respect goes with equal standing, it's something that is earned and worked towards, when there is a genuine injustice that's one thing, but from what I can tell from media that trickles over this way, situations of injustice against minorities by state becomes MASSIVELY public and more so than any majority injustice.

I have no issue with the extension of civil liberties to disadvantaged groups, up until the point they start getting more civil liberties than others. I thought it was EQUALITY we was fighting for here. Do minoirties have civil liberty issues, sure, but that doesn't mean that in the fight to get those civil liberties that we should overstep the mark, and forget that everyone's civil liberties matter.

Civil liberties, in summary, is not a zero sum game.

the state of being subject only to laws established for the good of the community, especially with regard to freedom of action and speech.

Being subject only to the laws of the land as is written and those laws being equal? Looks pretty zero sum outcome to me, but even if it's not that doesn't in turn mean it should stop being striven for.

[Oniya]

I might be misinterpreting your statement, but a 'zero-sum game' is a mathematical representation of a situation in which each participant's gain or loss of utility is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the utility of the other participants.  In other words, if group {X} gains something, then group {Not X} loses exactly that amount.  Taking a random civil liberty, giving women the right to vote did not take away the right to vote from any one.

[Silk]

I might be misinterpreting your statement, but a 'zero-sum game' is a mathematical representation of a situation in which each participant's gain or loss of utility is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the utility of the other participants.  In other words, if group {X} gains something, then group {Not X} loses exactly that amount.  Taking a random civil liberty, giving women the right to vote did not take away the right to vote from any one.

Then you have instances such as. There is 10 jobs available. But civil liberties and diversity initiatives are pushing so at least 5 of those people have to be female, 2 of those need to be a racial minority.  Leading to a situation of potentially 10 female racial minorities, or 8 non racial minority females, 2 racial minority males, but you could never have more than 5 non racial minority males. Leading to both non racial minority females, racial minority males, and non racial minority males all having different overall caps.

My point being is that there are instances where zero sum can be applied when dealing with civil liberties, as there is in several situations, a finite resource to be contested.

[CopperLily]

I might be misinterpreting your statement, but a 'zero-sum game' is a mathematical representation of a situation in which each participant's gain or loss of utility is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the utility of the other participants.  In other words, if group {X} gains something, then group {Not X} loses exactly that amount.  Taking a random civil liberty, giving women the right to vote did not take away the right to vote from any one.

This. Zero-Sum has a specific mathematical meaning, and civil rights absolutely aren't a zero-sum game.

[Cassandra LeMay]

I have no issue with the extension of civil liberties to disadvantaged groups, up until the point they start getting more civil liberties than others. I thought it was EQUALITY we was fighting for here. Do minoirties have civil liberty issues, sure, but that doesn't mean that in the fight to get those civil liberties that we should overstep the mark, and forget that everyone's civil liberties matter.

This runs counter to my understanding of "civil liberties". These are the very basic rights that are (at least in most Western countries) guaranteed by a states constitution - to everyone. They are not extended to disadvantaged groups nowadays; they do not have to fight to get them, because they already have them; disadvantaged groups don't want more civil liberties than others. The key point is not getting civil liberties - it is enforcing the application and protection of those existing rights and liberties for those who suffer from a lack of equal practice of those rights.

I am not a big fan of workplace quotas myself, but unless minorities are treated the same as everyone else by society, their rights need to be enforced somehow. Not to give them more rights than everyone else, not to make them "more equal than others", but to make certain that the rights they share with everyone else are at least applied by society, even if some people may have a problem respecting those rights.

[CopperLily]

I have no issue with the extension of civil liberties to disadvantaged groups, up until the point they start getting more civil liberties than others.

This has not happened. This is nowhere near happening. Worrying about this is like worrying about what happens if everybody but you wins the Powerball.

Then you have instances such as. There is 10 jobs available. But civil liberties and diversity initiatives are pushing so at least 5 of those people have to be female, 2 of those need to be a racial minority.  Leading to a situation of potentially 10 female racial minorities, or 8 non racial minority females, 2 racial minority males, but you could never have more than 5 non racial minority males. Leading to both non racial minority females, racial minority males, and non racial minority males all having different overall caps.

My point being is that there are instances where zero sum can be applied when dealing with civil liberties, as there is in several situations, a finite resource to be contested.

That is not a civil liberty. There is no inherent right to have a job.

Beyond that, very rarely are the quotas nearly as defined as you are suggesting - otherwise, they'd be much easier to prosecute than they are. They tend to be much more vaguely defined, like "Given two equal candidates, you must give preference to X" (incidentally, X often also includes veterans) or "If there are no minorities in your interviewed candidates, you must also interview the most highly qualified minority applicant."

[HannibalBarca]

If someone takes away my advantage in whatever activity I'm engaged in, it is going to make it harder for me to succeed in that activity.  That seems to be the important part many people fail to realize.  If I end up having a harder time getting a job as a white man because systemic prejudices were removed in the job pool, that isn't because someone is being unfair to me--it's because my advantage was taken away and I was dropped back to an even playing field with every minority who is trying out for it, too.

If times are hard already when I'm dropped down to an even playing field, well...times were even harder for the minorities.  If a minority is chosen over me at my next job interview, well...that's a possibility.  My chances of being chosen are smaller now, but that isn't because I've been dropped below the minority on opportunity--it's because the chances have been put on a more even setting.  And in reality, the conditions are still not even, because of systemic problems that carry over for generations, and will affect our society for years to come.

It isn't a bad thing if my difficulty setting on a game I'm playing with friends is switched from 'easy mode' to 'normal mode' like everyone else.

[CopperLily]

It isn't a bad thing if my difficulty setting on a game I'm playing with friends is switched from 'easy mode' to 'normal mode' like everyone else.

The perfect analogy. This isn't reverse discrimination, or taking your civil rights away. This is re-balancing, recognizing there was one particularly optimum character build.

[Silk]

The perfect analogy. This isn't reverse discrimination, or taking your civil rights away. This is re-balancing, recognizing there was one particularly optimum character build.

That's nice for those who had it on easy mode, they already have enough of a level advantage to cater to that but its not something everyone got, yet everyone is being told they had it, but even then setting it up to just have "easy normal hard" won't work as an analogy because it's assuming one group has it all easier or all harder than another setting. E.g.

Women have an easier time when it comes to crimes in general to men(Less conviction, less time in prison, more so than the black/white difference) does that mean women have easy mode due to that? Or at least easier to men?

How about suicide rates? Because of the level of fatalities to males, compared to females, does that mean Women are on a easier mode?

Or let's go with university? Minorities get scholarship foundations like UNFC, Black Excel, or university specific scholarships like the Diversity Trustee Scholarship. A poor working class white family doesn't get access to these sorts of things and will have to prove themselves above the cuff to access the pool of generic scholarships, and only middle class+ white families tend to be able to afford the fees and loans. Does that mean black university students have a easy mode compared to white working class students?

[Suiko]

I don't think anyone has life on easy mode. I'd say it's more 'hard' and 'harder'.

In my mind there's no such thing as positive discrimination - I'd hate to get a job because I filled some quota, it's insulting. The best person should get the position, that's it.

I wonder how it would be if we removed names/gender/nationalities from job applications...

[Silk]

I don't think anyone has life on easy mode. I'd say it's more 'hard' and 'harder'.

In my mind there's no such thing as positive discrimination - I'd hate to get a job because I filled some quota, it's insulting. The best person should get the position, that's it.

I wonder how it would be if we removed names/gender/nationalities from job applications...

Very little would probably change as it all gets revealed come the interview. But I'm much in agreement on the positive discrimination, I'd hate to get the job just so my employer get's the right to virtue signal, I want them to hire me because I'm the best candidate for the role.

[Suiko]

Very little would probably change as it all gets revealed come the interview. But I'm much in agreement on the positive discrimination, I'd hate to get the job just so my employer get's the right to virtue signal, I want them to hire me because I'm the best candidate for the role.

Oh, yeah. Somehow I completely forgot about interviews ^^; Good point, would still be interesting to see if the trends changed as to who was offered an interview though.

And yes on the second point. Definitely.

[CopperLily]

That's nice for those who had it on easy mode, they already have enough of a level advantage to cater to that but its not something everyone got, yet everyone is being told they had it, but even then setting it up to just have "easy normal hard" won't work as an analogy because it's assuming one group has it all easier or all harder than another setting. E.g.

Women have an easier time when it comes to crimes in general to men(Less conviction, less time in prison, more so than the black/white difference) does that mean women have easy mode due to that? Or at least easier to men?

How about suicide rates? Because of the level of fatalities to males, compared to females, does that mean Women are on a easier mode?

Or let's go with university? Minorities get scholarship foundations like UNFC, Black Excel, or university specific scholarships like the Diversity Trustee Scholarship. A poor working class white family doesn't get access to these sorts of things and will have to prove themselves above the cuff to access the pool of generic scholarships, and only middle class+ white families tend to be able to afford the fees and loans. Does that mean black university students have a easy mode compared to white working class students?

It is indeed a spectrum, but first of all:

1. People are already working on all of these things.
2. They are calls for more work, not less. We should be doing things to address differential suicide rates, and to help working class white students go to college without taking on an undue burden of loans.

But none of them are solved by *not doing anything*.

When I said "A Build" you assumed I meant "White Men".

The actually build I was thinking of was "Affluent Straight White Men" - you could add religion there and other things but I didn't. Several of those categories apply to other people as well. For example, CopperLily is an Affluent (Passably) Straight white Woman. While I have some distinct disadvantages, I recognize that I also have pretty immense privilege. If abortion is outlawed, as an example, a trip to Canada for me is a trivial expense and a couple sick days.

[Verasaille]

The worst thing we all do is to make generalizations. You cannot fault the businesses who are forced by law to hire minorities. Neither can you blame government for stepping in to attempt to even the playing field. They do this because of the unfair practices that were common. This is the way society works. It's not pretty and it's not fair to all. But it is impossible to be fair in a 'dog eat dog' world.

Sure the thought of being hired because you are competent and suited for the job is wonderful. But keep in mind you are not the only one looking for a job. It is just as hard on the single woman looking for work as it is the single man. The economic situation is what drives people to do things they would not normally do.

Let's step away from the discussion of race and class for a moment.

This country is on the brink of some disasterous economic situations. We cannot keep sending money to other countries and keep our own citizens safe. The trade imbalance will drain us if it is not balanced. We spend billions of dollars helping other parts of the world. The manufacturing is now being almost totally done in other countries. The American businesses who do this are making huge profits, while the jobless people in this country are adding up. Homeless people are in every major city.

How often do any of the other wealthy nations help the USA? Every world disaster the USA steps up and offers help in the way of emergency aid. How many countries offered help to the victims of Katrina or the disaster of Mt. St. Helens? How many offered aid when the earthquakes struck California or Alaska? How much aid did we get on 9/11 when the Twin Towers fell? I am talking over the course of many years.

[HannibalBarca]

To make some things clear--the U.S. spends less than one percent of its GDP on foreign aid.  The average person polled thought it was around 26%.  Bad assumptions or bad data on their part, but only 1 in 20 Americans knew the truth.  That's 95% of us in the dark.  Facts are important in order to focus on what is important.

Jobs being moved oversees are completely rational from the point of view of a capitalistic society.  A truly capitalistic society, after all, is most interested in the freedom of the individual, regardless of the effect on the group as a whole.  There has to be a balance of some sort between social obligations and personal freedoms.  That is where people begin to have serious differences.  The purest form of capitalism is feudalism, where workers are serfs, and those with the money have all the power, i.e., royalty.  Absolute mob rule doesn't work, either, especially if the average person in the country can't name two nations that border the Pacific Ocean :/  Thomas Jefferson wanted this country to be made up of educated farmers, able to make important decisions for the nation.  We ended up with an electoral college that is supposed to be better educated than the average citizen, but they still chose the idiot-in-chief.

Soon after the destruction of Hurricane Katrina was made clear, countries from around the world gave a staggering amount of foreign aid to the U.S. In total, over 90 countries offered the U.S. $854 million in cash and oil (to be sold for cash).

Most people are surprised at the amount of assistance other nations have given the U.S.  After all, this country wouldn't exist if the French hadn't spent the equivalent of $3 billion dollars during the American Revolution...assistance that was rewarded by the new U.S. making trade deals with the English instead of the French after the war :/

Our country is not in good straits, but we have more than enough ability, resources, and manpower in our country to turn things around.  What we don't seem to have--reflected in the pathetic showing at the voting booth, like Brexit--is the motivation to make things better.  At least, too many people seem content to sit on their ass and do nothing.  Well, a hard lesson is a better teacher...but it's unfortunate that so many people who didn't do anything to cause the current problems will suffer from them.

[CopperLily]

To make some things clear--the U.S. spends less than one percent of its GDP on foreign aid.  The average person polled thought it was around 26%.  Bad assumptions or bad data on their part, but only 1 in 20 Americans knew the truth.  That's 95% of us in the dark.  Facts are important in order to focus on what is important.

This reminds me of similar discussions of NASA's budget. When polled, most people believed it was several percentage points of the U.S. GDP, and should be cut.

When they asked what it should be cut to? It ended up being double what NASA's budget currently was.