Ten oz

Kamala Harris proposed a plan to increase teacher pay. While I think teachers should be paid more I oppose the plan. Teachers are not federal employees and their salaries are not derived from federal income taxes. They are local employees and their their salaries are primarily derived from property tax dollars. Local teacher pay isn't a problem for the President to solve with federal money in my opinion.

Total National debt in the U.S. is about $22 trillion () China has purchased U.S. bonds totally about $1.2 trillion, Link. So while it is true that China owns trillions in U.S. debt the amount is actually small relative to the total amount of debt U.S. owes. Also China purchases those bonds as investments from themselves. They are loans from China to the U.S.. China's annual GDP is nearly $13 trillion. They could take a single $1.2 trillion loss in U.S. bonds without too much pain. That much changes hands per year in trade between the nations. However such a loss would hurt the U.S. Dollar.

You are 100% correct. Sadly the media broadly is ignoring that. Far as I can tell Trump is receiving a full victory lap. Even news source I generally consider pretty good are running headlines with word like exonerated in them. It is shocking to me.We have all seen Trump's administration outline lie about things in the past. We have seen them come out is official statements and say things that we all know are untrue. It has happened so much many of the lies have already been forgotten. Lies about crowd size, lies about whether certain cabinet members are staying or going, lies about phone conversations with world leaders, lies about how Kushner got his clearance, and etc. Trump has even said things on camera and later claimed to have said something else despite it being on camera for us all to see. Trump stood in front of a room full of reports with a table full of stacked blank printer paper and proclaimed it was evidence he had signed over control of his businesses. The list goes on and on. It astonishes me that given this administration track record with the truth the media is so free running Barr's words absent of heavy skepticism or context. Moreover the Mueller investigation has already led to more criminal indictments than every Congressional probe and investigation into Obama and Hillary Clinton combined. Members of Trump campaign were proven to have committed felonies during the campaign and lied to congress and FBI about it. Lots of nasty stuff has already come out. Trump Jr publicly lied about the Trump tower meeting, Trump lied about Daniels, Trump lied about his Moscow real estate deal, and there are numerous questions regarding contacts with wikileaks and other payments to social media firms who circulated Russian propaganda. Yet Trump is taking a victory lap. What a crazy world. Mueller never even got to interview Trump.

I said "often". It wasn't an absolute statement encompassing all. Many nations lost a lot. It doesn't impact my point however. I wasn't claiming war is good or useful. Rather I was pointing out that it is something nations how often entered into for gain. That is a motivation not present currently between the U.S. and China. There is nothing to superficially gain and much to lose.

Most eras. It is essentially how the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Chile, and etc, etc came to exist for example. Right but not merely England of course. Most people in Japan trace their ancestry to Korea. The native population, Ainu, was forcibly displaced.

The U.S. needs goods produced in China. Without them consumer prices would be several times higher and our own production would be stifled. China needs the U.S. purchasing their goods for similar reasons. Without the U.S. China's production would collapse, wages would fall, and etc. War between China and the U.S. wouldn't merely create recessions in each nation's economy it would create long depression which would fundamentally change how each economy operates. Technology sector in particular would possibly be set back decades. In previous eras war was often a means of economic growth. Nations were able to security resources, labor, land, or the needed leverage to influence others was won via war. It is hard for me to imagine a way war between the U.S. and China could improve either's position above the current quid que pro in place. Both sides can only lose. Between the U.S. and China the total population is 1.8 billion people. The U.S. is the wealthiest nation the world has ever seen and China the fastest developing the world has ever seen. Each controls armament capable of literally rendering the whole planet uninhabitable (to Humans). The situation is unique and has no historical comparison in my opinion. I suspect there will be increased tension in the coming decades. Power is seldom yielded quietly and China does threaten the the position of global power and influence the U.S. has held since the end WW2. I suppose there may be racial tension as well. The modern world hasn't dealt with a non-European global super power. I think outside of terrorism most clashes will be cyber and economic based where the nation chip at each other's edges careful not to go further than able without violence. That is how I see the next 15-20yrs anyway.

Right. Whether or not Trump specifically colluded isn't where this conversation started. It started during the campaign when numerous people including Clinton herself pointed out Russia was interfering and Trump denied, denied, denied. It is now undeniable Russia interfered, undeniable Trump was made aware of the interference throughout, and as you point out Trump has done nothing about it but obfuscate the issue.

Right. We have seen this time and time again. Trump's team gets out in front of a story claiming victory and then over the course of weeks as more information is learn the narrative evolves. We have not seen the report, the media has not seen the report, and Congress has not seen the report. What we've seen is a statement written by Trump's new Attorney General. Not for nothing when it was about Hillary Clinton's emails the Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Directory James Comey, and Clinton herself all testified publicly before a GOP-led Congress. In Barr's letter he outlined that Russian intelligence did work to influence the election and Mueller had not founding evidence that members of Trump campaign knowingly coordinated with those Russian efforts. This leaves the door open that Trumps campaign did coordinate with Russia but do so unwittingly. Ultimately we all need to wait to see the report. I think Trump and his defenders have done a excellent job moving the goal posts on this whole thing. During the campaign and for a year plus after they argued maybe it was China or some fat guy or whatever. They argued Trump won and Democrats are just sore losers. Now they are conceding Russia influenced in Trump's favor but are celebrating that there is no proof Trump's team knowingly helped.

I am not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate? If you read my whole post I am saying it is worth looking at property which was promised to but never given to African Americans and property forcibly taken from Natives.

Starting in 1938 with the Property Registry the Germany govt passed many laws that disenfranchised Jewish people and stole their wealth. Many atrocities have happened under than banner of law. Property is one of the top manner in which wealth is created and moved down through generations. The combined value of all the real estate in the U.S. is $30 trillion. Massive amounts of land were given to White families for free. Families literally were able to just stake land claims. Something Natives, African Americans, and Chinese weren't able to do. Whites in the South didn't only own slave but also stole vast amounts of land from Native. The Indian Removal Act forced Natives out of the South leading to the Trail of Tears and gave White Southerners ownership of the property. Segregation may have only existed in the South but mortgage discrimination was nation wide. Blacks, even those who could afford to it, were prevented from buying homes is a variety neighbors with better prospects for equity growth and education. As mentioned in an earlier post the current President was proven guilty in a court of law of discriminating against African Americans in his real estate dealings. The problem continues to this day. African Americans have been and continue to be denied a fair opportunity to compete for a slice of that $30 trillion in real estate. During the Civil War African Americans had been promised land and in some cases given land but post Reconstruction that was mostly all reversed. White families are more likely to receive an inheritance than black families and among those who receive an inheritance white families receive a much bigger inheritance. Property is the most easily traced source of wealth I can think of. We have seen arguments in this thread that reparation is akin to revenge or that is unduly punishes people for something they neither participated in or benefited from. Going back and looking at where sources of wealth came from and how those sources do directly still benefit people today and are still impacting wealth inequality today might (maybe, still just exploring the idea) be a healthy step. Identifying ill gotten and/or maintained land (taken via native removal or promised to Slave pre Reconstruction) seems more practical to me than a standardized from of payment/benefit based purely on race. In many cases, perhaps most cases, the slaves promised that land or the Natives removed from lands can be identified.

Yes, a lot of people will see it that way. No argument there. My objection was to you citing average Americans. Trump lost the popular vote. His supporters are no more average Americans than those who opposed him are. Your use of average Americans was redundant at best and had some undisclosed loaded meaning at worst. Well done, lol. You asserted that people would want to discuss certain things and brought those things in. Also I don't feel saying you dumped a turd is the same thing as name calling. I am not calling you a turd. Anyway you challenged me to elaborate on my comments from page one and I gave you 3 posts from page 2 where I did. Did you find the answers you asked for or do you need further clarification?

The below quote is also from the second page This gave me thought. What if assets could be traced back through a family and it be shown how they benefited from Slavery and or Segregation. Should those assets be taken away? For example post Slavery families kept their plantations. I'd imagine some of that real estate remains in the hands of descendants to this day and continues to be a source of wealth. Would the govt striping individuals of such assets be a good idea? This is not a rebuttal of any kind to your post. It is literally just a thought which popped into my head. I am not advocating for it much as just exploring it. Might be a sobering slap in the face for many you argue they never owned slaves and haven't benefited directly from slavery. Losing valuable antiques, property, homes, and etc which have enriched heirs for generations might be quite the slap in the face. I disagree. I don't think their is any sort of anti white movement afoot in U.S. media or popular culture. Whites regularly are able to win political elections, star in movies, manage successful social media accounts, host news programs, record successful pop music, and etc. 70% of the population of the U.S. is White. So unless you believe a significant amount of Whites in the U.S. are self hating the majority of the U.S. is not anti White. I didn't say it was in general. I am trying to address the specific scenario you are referencing. I am not capable of imagining every possible scenario which may exist.

Both of the below quotes are from page two and expand on the very thing you are claiming I haven't expanded on. Yes, turd is word I used. You stated a list of issues saying "some people" would like to discuss them while adding "not me, I'll be keeping my distance". You brought those items up for discussion while claiming you wouldn't be discussing them. I consider that a turd. Just say what you have to say. Posting about what others might say, the average American sees (you used that turd as well), and so is all unnecessary. Just speak for for yourself and spit it out already.

You feel this is happening in the U.S.? If the question is related to the Oscars than my answer is no. I don't think anyone should win an Oscar based on race. I recommend you review the link the OP for more context. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/

So then we agree that Black Panther's Oscar nominations had nothing to do race. As for Dave Chappelle lamenting about various audiences not liking his jokes isn't that the nature of his industry? In my opinion It is Chappelle's job to entertain the audience and not the audiences job to laugh at jokes they don't find funny. Dave Chappelle makes millions and has a large base of fans. It would be inaccurate to imply Chappelle is being silenced or isn't free to speak his mind. Not every audience likes him. That's no big deal. No celebrities I am aware of are Universally loved. A comic telling Catholic Priest pedophile jokes in Vatican City will get less laughs than if they told the said jokes in New York City. Entertainers need to know their audience.

Black Panther wasn't nominated for Best Cinematography. It was nominated for Musical Score, Costume Design, Production Design, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, and Best Picture. It won Oscar's for Musical Score, Costume Design, and Production Design. Art is subjective but I think it is fair to say Black Panther did have music, sound, and design which was expertly utilized. I assume (and you can correct me if I am wrong) that you are implying Black Panther got extra consideration because it was Directed by and starred black people. Yet the Director wasn't nominated for anything and neither were any of the actors from the movie. The Musical Score Oscar went to Ludwig Göransson who is a White Male. The Production Design Oscar went to Jay Robert Hart and Hannah Beachler. Jay Robert Hart is a White Male. Whom here have I called racist?

That is fair. I am responding to the use I most often see where PC culture is more specific. I don't think I am. Black on black crime, PC culture, and etc are often brought into conversations about racial inequality. The negative implications associated with them are often built off of stereotypes and act as a sort of whataboutism argument turning blame or responsibility on the disenfranchised group itself. Challenging those misnomers doesn't derail the discussion. They are part of the inequality. I think it is fairly obvious in koti's post about Black Panther. Lots of movies that various people don't think were good have won Oscar's. Why is Black Panther is singled out?

Can you provide a concrete explain of Academics uniting to prevent specific discussion from taking place?

What doesn't that apply to though? Some people conform to any number of fake things. Children write letters to Santa Claus but that doesn't make Santa real. Political correctness as an ideology pushed by academia suppressing freedom of thought or speech doesn't exist.

There is a lot of questions swirling. At present time it is unclear whether there are any sealed indictments or whether Mueller's investigation finished on its own or the new AG forced the issue. Given what we already know from the Manafort and Cohen indictments it is obvious that at a minimum investigators believe Trump Jr. lied to Congress. Then of course Southern District of New York can continue with their own indictments and operate outside the purview of Barr. It will be interesting to see what gets made public, how long it takes, what Congressional investigations follow, and etc.

I agree but am adding that political correctness as an actual thing doesn't exist. It is just a type of MacGuffin used by those seeking to make themselves the victim. It is often easier to claim ones ideas aren't being considered than it is to validate those ideas.

Right. When crack cocaine was an issue in specific black communities the answer was to increase prison sentences. No that opioids are an issue in specific white communities Politicians want to increase funding for rehabilitation. For blacks drugs have been treated as a criminal justice issue and for whites a healthcare issue. The notion of politically correctness as a new problem sweeping media and Universities has been around for decades. It is neither something new nor sweeping in scale. Below is President George H.W. Bush complaining about the new growing problem of political correctness stifling free speech back in 1991 nearly 30yrs ago. Of course in the decades since the internet and social media has only empowered free speech to levels never before seen. In my opinion political correctness is merely a catch all excuse one uses when an opinion or ideas of theirs is out of touch with the majority of reasonable people.

90% of black people who are murdered are murdered by black people and 85% of white people who are murdered are murdered by white people. Black on black crime as a label promotes inaccurate stereotypes. It is statistically accurate to say in cases where black people are victims of crimes (theft, violence, etc) the perpetrators of those crimes are black. It is equally as statistically accurate to say the same thing about Whites yet it is never said. White on white crime as a label doesn't exist like black on black crime does. Crime is worst throughout the U.S. in impoverished communities. White on White crime, Asian on Asian crime, Black on Black crime, and etc are all worst in impoverished communities.

Do you have a citation to support your assertion about what "the average American" perspective is? Exit poll from 2016 showed 49% of the public believed blacks are treated unfairly by the criminal justice system to 42% of that felt they were treated fairly, Link.A poll from this past summers shows the 3/4 of Americans support criminal justice reform. Strange that you'd compliment CharonY for demonstrating how to have a conversation but then not pay CharonY the respect of a direct response free from sniping at other posters. Would go differently from what? It is you have asserted how the conservation might go not I. I also don't understand what you mean "by this point in time". Marcus Garvey, Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers, Andrew Goodman, and etc, etc were murdered in the 60's for discussing Civil Rights. It isn't as though other times in history has embraced equality discussion easily.

The tax cuts are clearly negatively impacting the annual deficits. As executed the tax cuts have failed to achieve they stated objective. Increases in GDP spurred by business growth from the tax cuts were suppose to pay for the tax cuts and increase jobs.