Trump protestors

[waitforufo]

 

Perhaps to help focus some resources on discovering if our president-elect is working with Russia illegally. Perhaps they're still trying to require his tax returns be made available, so Putin's influence on our elections can be determined. Perhaps they're wanting to see what will happen if Trump faces charges over his failed university. Shall I go on? You act as if Donald Trump is an average Republican, and it looks pretty funny on you.

"Perhaps" but you don't know? Why don't you know? Why haven't they been made public. Without stated goals a protest simply looks like a fruitless temper tantrum.

 

Don't you think the Democratic party running a red scare is a bit pathetic? Are the protesters hoping to restart the house committee on unamerican activities? Trump isn't required to make his tax returns public. What makes you think he is? Why do you think these protests will impact his failed university case? I don't see how they will. They at least legally should not. The election and his university case are completely unrelated.

 

Yes, please by all means go on. I'm glad you find me funny.

Edited November 14, 2016 by waitforufo

[Airbrush]

Now Trump's tax returns are a liability to the USA and the stock market. If "bad things" are found in Trump's tax returns, the entire nation will suffer because of it. Should Trump be impeached if his relations to Russia are extensive, criminal, and to Trump's financial benefit? Then we would have president Pence.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Airbrush

[iNow]

Without stated goals a protest simply looks like a fruitless temper tantrum.

Goals like, "keep government out of my Medicare?" That sort of fruitful, focused, well informed non-tantrum?

 

 

[Delta1212]

Well, it looks like Paul Ryan is angling to give them exactly what they asked for, so I guess those protests were successful after all.

[waitforufo]

Goals like, "keep government out of my Medicare?" That sort of fruitful, focused, well informed non-tantrum?

 

 

If Medicare and Medicaid aren't part of the government and socialized medicine, what are they?

[imatfaal]

If Medicare and Medicaid aren't part of the government and socialized medicine, what are they?

 

Pretty sure that is the point. From this side of the Atlantic it looks like an example of a right-leaning misinformed protest as a counterbalance

Your question on why...

1. To show powers that be that they are willing to continue protesting and will challenge decision made in the future - that they will not go back to quietude till midterms

2. To galvanize the Democrats as a political party so that the hair-pulling and garment-rending self-destructive grief is minimized and a strong, young leadership arises sooner rather than later

3. To be with other people who are also pissed off and hurt and thus ameliorate the pain

4. To keep the issues of this election (the real ones not the personality, the emails, the gaffes) at the forefront of the media's painfully short attention span

 

Loadsa reasons - I could carry on. I am a little peeved that this sort of community action and spirit was not shown so much before the polls - then we might have had a different result. And that is possibly another reason - guilt; I didn't do enough before the vote and now I regret it so I will protest now to salve my conscience.

 

Unless you are travelling in Europe - Go to bed!

[swansont]

Perhaps Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States has political significance here.

 

http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/article-ii-section-1

 

I think it does because the popular vote is meaningless to the outcome of presidential elections.

 

 

Which is completely beside the point.

Are the protesters hoping to restart the house committee on unamerican activities?

 

 

That would be Newt Gingrich, not the protesters

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/11/1596660/-Gingrich-proposed-bringing-back-House-Un-American-Activities-Committee

[Ten oz]

I still think the primary liberal vs conservative disagreement on social programs is not whether or not they should exist. It's a question of priorities. The liberal perspective is that everyone who needs help should receive it, even if it means some people who don't need help are able to take advantage of the system. The conservative perspective is that no one who doesn't need help should be able to take advantage of the system, even if it means some people who need help don't get it.

 

In reality, of course, no program is going to be able to help every single person who needs assistance and no program is ever going to be completely proof against gaming the system. Most people fall on a continuum of balancing these priorities holding one up higher than the other but not completely discounting the lesser (in their eyes) concern.

Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican. He was a populist who created anti trust laws and went after monopolies. Teddy Roosevelt also regulated Railroad rates, passed food and drug safety acts, and created the Forest Service. FDR, Democrat, created Social Security, FDIC, and pushed through the Fair Labor Standards Act. FDR was as much of a socialist as we have had and was seen as a hero. Eisenhower was a Republican who spent enormous amounts of money building our interstate highway system. Ike continued FDR's new deal and created the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and spoke out against the industrial complex.

 

Looking back in time the more respected Presidents from each parties were populists. Small gov't conservatives like Herbert Hoover were seen as failures. Gov't protection against monopolies, standards for industry, infrastructure spending, social safety nets, and etc were all very popular with Republicans and Democrats alike until the 1960's. Throughout all the previous mentioned social goods both parties also tolerated discrimination on multiple levels. The 19th admendment ensuring the right to vote regardless of gender didn't come until 1920, between 1929 and 1936 we had Mexican repatriation, the Chinese Exclusion Act wasn't repealed until the 1943, and Jim Crow laws didn't end until the Civil Rights Act in 1964. The social programs and infrastructure primarily helped and empowered white males.

 

As legal forms of discrimination went away so to did our bipartisan support for social programs. Politicians took to sexist and racist wedge issues to divide support. We started creating caricatures of promiscuous women who take advantage of their independence and minorities who were lazy welfare queens that abused social programs. Sadly many rather just see us all do without than have to share with those we deem unworthy. Fear of a single undeserving person receiving assistance has become reason enough for there to be no assistance at all. It is a dangerous and unhealthy approach for a society to have in my opinion. It is akin to a person who suffers from anorexia. They starve themselves to death because they have a mental disorder where by they believe they are/look too fat. Conservatives think the country is too lazy, too selfish, too promiscuous, too whatever and are attempting to starve it (us) to death!

Edited November 15, 2016 by Ten oz

[swansont]

Fear of a single undeserving person receiving assistance has become reason enough for there to be no assistance at all.

 

 

Fear of an undeserving person lower than you on the socioeconomic scale. When the rich get assistance, it's all good.

[Tim88]

Voter turnout was at a 20yr low. Only about 56% of eligible voter participated. The comparisons made to Obama's victories that some have made ignore the difference in context I think. Obama won the popular vote by several million votes in both elections and participation was up not down. In this election participation was down (some feel by design) and the winner lost the popular vote. A smaller minority of the eligible voting population decided this election than we have seen in a long time.

 

Yes, and that's perhaps a pity. Perhaps, because in retro-perspective my comment looks a bit more doom and gloom than I feel about it. In recent days after his election Trump sounds more reasonable, and perhaps that's what many anti-establishment voters gambled on. It may turn out not too bad, maybe even less bad than another Bush. For the world population the worst effect could be less reduction of global warming (which is still bad), as he ignores the scientific facts.

[Ten oz]

 

Yes, and that's perhaps a pity. Perhaps, because in retro-perspective my comment looks a bit more doom and gloom than I feel about it. In recent days after his election Trump sounds more reasonable, and perhaps that's what many anti-establishment voters gambled on. It may turn out not too bad, maybe even less bad than another Bush. For the world population the worst effect could be less reduction of global warming (which is still bad), as he ignores the scientific facts.

Trump softened on immigration before and then went a full 360 and finishing where he started. Trump has claimed to have a plan to defeat ISIS, would come up with a plan to defeat ISIS, and said he might accept our Generals plans to defeat ISIS all in one sentence. What Trump says is meaningless. He has been and is all over the map. In his recent 60 minutes interview refused to say for sure whether or not he'd seek putting Hillary Clinton is prison. It is terrifying that he would be so cavalier about something like that.

 

He has never been in gov't before so we have no history to use as a guide. A look at his business history is bleak. He's a con man who doesn't mind leaving others with the bill. Who he is surrounding himself with certainly isn't promising. People like Steve Bannon have no business being anywhere near the White House.So while I agree Trump is attempting to soften his tone it has yet to provide me any comfort.

[Phi for All]

Sadly many rather just see us all do without than have to share with those we deem unworthy. Fear of a single undeserving person receiving assistance has become reason enough for there to be no assistance at all. It is a dangerous and unhealthy approach for a society to have in my opinion.

Fear of an undeserving person lower than you on the socioeconomic scale. When the rich get assistance, it's all good.

 

I may be wrong, but this is what I see whenever I read posts from our members who claim their entire outlook is conservative. This is the fear that unravels all the good a society is capable of, imo. And it pisses me off even more because I think they've been manipulated to be this way, mostly by those who've found that if you have enough capitalism for yourself, everybody else can just go love themselves.

[swansont]

 

I may be wrong, but this is what I see whenever I read posts from our members who claim their entire outlook is conservative. This is the fear that unravels all the good a society is capable of, imo. And it pisses me off even more because I think they've been manipulated to be this way, mostly by those who've found that if you have enough capitalism for yourself, everybody else can just go love themselves.

 

 

Tied in with the "success = hard work" and lack thereof is laziness angle (ignoring that luck and outside assistance are big players). So anyone on the dole is just lazy, and probably scammers, to boot. Makes it easy to marginalize them.

 

The thing is, I knew people in grad school who got food stamps and (until the state changed their property tax rates) rent assistance, because a $7-8k a year stipend was just not enough to get by (and school plus being a TA/RA is like working two jobs already). Most of these people now have PhDs (and at least one has an MD) and have probably paid for that assistance many times over in taxes. The bulk of people who get assistance only get it temporarily, and a pretty wide swath of people will get such assistance at some time in their lives. Plus, most of the people on welfare are white, but it's not generally portrayed that way.

[CharonY]

 

I may be wrong, but this is what I see whenever I read posts from our members who claim their entire outlook is conservative. This is the fear that unravels all the good a society is capable of, imo. And it pisses me off even more because I think they've been manipulated to be this way, mostly by those who've found that if you have enough capitalism for yourself, everybody else can just go love themselves.

 

To be fair, that is not entirely a conservative vs liberal issue per se. Depending on where you are in the world disdain for the "undeserving" has often resulted in people to switch to more conservative voting (as we can see in large parts of Europe). As a consequence the left leaning parties (which are more to the left than the US in economic, though not necessarily in civic issues) tend to move to the right on this issue, if that makes any sense. Of course this thread is focused on US politics, but I would like to point out that this is an issue where the right can get votes from otherwise moderates.

[tar]

 

 

Fear of an undeserving person lower than you on the socioeconomic scale. When the rich get assistance, it's all good.

 

Ten Oz and SwansonT,

 

I grew up before the civil rights act. So I vaguely remember not understanding why the blacks had to sit in the back of the bus, and give up their seat to a white person. Seemed unfair and without reason to me. I understand there is institutional racism and real estate agents steer black clients away from "safe" white areas. I benefit from that, as I fear the drugs and crime that come along with poverty. Middle class blacks with jobs do not scare me, but affordable housing being built in my town brings drugs and crime. Selling drugs is a form of income, and blacks do come from the city to sell drugs to the kids here. We have a few blacks but not many in our schools, and the black young man that lives forty feet away never did a thing to scare me or make me feel uncomfortable. We attended parties at their house and we house sat for them, and the Cuban father fed our guinea pig when we traveled. We were neighbors, they borrowed stuff from us and loaned stuff and brought food, etc. to us. I did not fear them because both parents worked and they took care of themselves and needed nothing from me but companionship and friendship. However at a street fair a city black duded up with leather and chains with his dark skinned female companion was standing in the walkway and a woman walking by yelled "keep your drugs away from my children". Nothing further happened, but this woman obviously knew this guy and what he was up to. It is drugs and crime I do not want to see in my town.

 

Ten Oz, you say people don't want to help anybody in need because they might help an undeserving person, so they don't help anyone. I do not think you understand why I for instance would object to government housing, or welfare, or taking care of someone's children who has 4 children with three different women because they are interested in spreading their seed, and not taking responsibility for the upbringing of the resulting children. I can not tell people how to live, or patch up broken marriages or keep people from taking drugs, but having the government take responsibility for raising somebody's children, should be a rare occasion where a widow needs help, or someone is ill or crippled. It should not be par for the course spread across huge populations, like in West Virginia where the result of having disability programs, and welfare programs and no jobs, is a population that uses their government check to buy Meth or oxy.

So it is, for me, not that I don't want to help anybody, but that I do not want to foster dependency on government programs, and I will not see children suffer because of the irresponsibility of their parents, but I will take offense at them putting me in that situation, and yelling at me when the check does not come.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 15, 2016 by tar

[Delta1212]

On the other hand, do we just tell children who have a shitty parent or parents "Sorry kid, you're screwed. Should have picked a better family to be born into if you wanted a chance to succeed"

 

You don't take care of children for the people who have abandoned their responsibility to them. You do it for the children.

[swansont]

Ten Oz and SwansonT,

 

I grew up before the civil rights act. So I vaguely remember not understanding why the blacks had to sit in the back of the bus, and give up their seat to a white person. Seemed unfair and without reason to me. I understand there is institutional racism and real estate agents steer black clients away from "safe" white areas. I benefit from that, as I fear the drugs and crime that come along with poverty. Middle class blacks with jobs do not scare me, but affordable housing being built in my town brings drugs and crime. Selling drugs is a form of income, and blacks do come from the city to sell drugs to the kids here. We have a few blacks but not many in our schools, and the black young man that lives forty feet away never did a thing to scare me or make me feel uncomfortable. We attended parties at their house and we house sat for them, and the Cuban father fed our guinea pig when we traveled. We were neighbors, they borrowed stuff from us and loaned stuff and brought food, etc. to us. I did not fear them because both parents worked and they took care of themselves and needed nothing from me but companionship and friendship. However at a street fair a city black duded up with leather and chains with his dark skinned male companion was standing in the walkway and a woman walking by yelled "keep your drugs away from my children". Nothing further happened, but this woman obviously knew this guy and what he was up to. It is drugs and crime I do not want to see in my town.

The majority of drug dealers are white. Too bad that doesn't fit with your preconceived notions, but facts are like that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/30/white-people-are-more-likely-to-deal-drugs-but-black-people-are-more-likely-to-get-arrested-for-it/

 

That also points out the insidiousness of racism.

 

Ten Oz, you say people don't want to help anybody in need because they might help an undeserving person, so they don't help anyone. I do not think you understand why I for instance would object to government housing, or welfare, or taking care of someone's children who has 4 children with three different women because they are interested in spreading their seed, and not taking responsibility for the upbringing of the resulting children. I can not tell people how to live, or patch up broken marriages or keep people from taking drugs, but having the government take responsibility for raising somebody's children, should be a rare occasion where a widow needs help, or someone is ill or crippled. It should not be par for the course spread across huge populations, like in West Virginia where the result of having disability programs, and welfare programs and no jobs, is a population that uses their government check to buy Meth or oxy.

So it is, for me, not that I don't want to help anybody, but that I do not want to foster dependency on government programs, and I will not see children suffer because of the irresponsibility of their parents, but I will take offense at them putting me in that situation, and yelling at me when the check does not come.

 

Regards, TAR

This is the narrative I alluded to and I think Phi was also alluding to. It's not based in fact. You may have "learned" this, but "par for the course" and "government check to buy oxy and meth" just doesn't pan out when you bother to check facts. A couple of places decided they needed to drug-screen welfare recipients. You know what they found? Almost none of them had drugs in their system. The "dependency" issue I already addressed. For most people, assistance is short-lived.

 

Your "par for the course" is just a narrative you've been fed, and which you apparently feasted upon, to scare you into a certain mindset. Taking an outlier example and fraudulently presenting it as the typical situation, and claiming it's widespread.

[CharonY]

 

The majority of drug dealers are white. Too bad that doesn't fit with your preconceived notions, but facts are like that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/30/white-people-are-more-likely-to-deal-drugs-but-black-people-are-more-likely-to-get-arrested-for-it/

 

That also points out the insidiousness of racism.

 

 

 

And as mentioned elsewhere, this institutionalized racism leading to higher conviction rates is then taken as excuse to rationalize it. It is like a perpetuum mobile of racism, with the exception that this one actually works as intended.

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

Not for nothing, but the chart you linked shows one thing and the article says another.

 

The chart shows the difference between 2011 and 1980 and the article talks about the difference between 1980 and 2011.

 

It seems to me that a positive change between 2011 and 1980 would be a negative change between 1980 and 2011.

 

But anyway, I never said all drug dealers were black and was trying to make the point that the problems in our society are related to drugs and crime and dependency, not to race. You are making it be about race. That there are people killing each other in Chicago at an alarming rate, I am sure has more to do with drugs than with being of a particular race. If there is a correlation between the killing and the drugs I would not be surprised. Gangs do not have to be black or Hispanic or white, but all those populations are represented in our prisons. The common theme to be scared of, is the drugs and gangs and killings.

 

My stories are what I have experienced in my world. The data you show does not counter my experience. You cannot say I am inappropriately afraid of crime and gang killings in Chicago, when there are obviously crime and gang killings in Chicago.

 

Regards, TAR

[Phi for All]

For most people, assistance is short-lived.

 

If we made a proper investment in the first place, perhaps we could stop viewing it as "assistance". Giving someone aid seems to create an obligation for some. We just need to find the right analogy that will sound "logical" to a conservative:

 

If you want to win at BINGO, you have to invest in as many cards as you can. It's not any single card that you can now identify that will help you win, it's ALL the cards involved in the game together that give you the best chance of having a card that gives you BINGO. It's the same with children, investing in ALL their educations and well-beings gives us the best chance of producing greatness. Plus, this way you get far more cards that are almost BINGO.

[tar]

besides, data can be cherry picked and without reading the background white could be non-Hispanic whites, or Hispanic whites or whites other than Hispanic. And all the white drug dealers could be in West Virginia and all the Hispanic dealers could be in Paterson and all the black dealers could be from Newark, but it would not mean I should not be afraid of a black drug dealer selling drugs to the kids in my town

Phi,

 

I get the bingo thing, except there is also the consideration that you want the winning card to be yours.

 

That is I am primarily concerned with making the sacrifices to get my daughters educated. Then I worry about my relatives, then my neighbors, then the people in my state, then the country, then overseas.

 

I don't start with the kid in Texas.

 

Regards, TAR

specially if it is an illegal alien... just not the priority

Edited November 15, 2016 by tar

[Delta1212]

besides, data can be cherry picked and without reading the background white could be non-Hispanic whites, or Hispanic whites or whites other than Hispanic. And all the white drug dealers could be in West Virginia and all the Hispanic dealers could be in Paterson and all the black dealers could be from Newark, but it would not mean I should not be afraid of a black drug dealer selling drugs to the kids in my town

 

Phi,

 

I get the bingo thing, except there is also the consideration that you want the winning card to be yours.

 

That is I am primarily concerned with making the sacrifices to get my daughters educated. Then I worry about my relatives, then my neighbors, then the people in my state, then the country, then overseas.

 

I don't start with the kid in Texas.

 

Regards, TAR

I grew up 20 some minutes away from Paterson.

 

All of the drug dealers I knew of in high school were white kids.

[CharonY]

besides, data can be cherry picked and without reading the background white could be non-Hispanic whites, or Hispanic whites or whites other than Hispanic. And all the white drug dealers could be in West Virginia and all the Hispanic dealers could be in Paterson and all the black dealers could be from Newark, but it would not mean I should not be afraid of a black drug dealer selling drugs to the kids in my town

 

 

So you mean that you are alright with white drug dealers? Or do you mean you are already fine because you do not recognize them due to the skin colour?

[tar]

Delta1212,

 

I am sure a lot of the drugs in my school are sold by white kids to white kids but the influence, the source seems to be Paterson, and from my experience, and from what I have learned as a citizen member of Citizens Against Substance Abuse a lot of the drugs that come into the town are from drug dealers in Paterson that are not white.

The stories I hear are that young people can drive to Paterson and right off route 80 can buy heroin for 5 dollars a bag. Are these stories consistent with your memory? Are the dealers in Paterson mostly white, black or Hispanic?

 

Regards, TAR

CharonY,

 

No I am not alright with white drug dealers, but I blame the drugs in any case and would like to figure out ways for people to not be dependent. On drugs, on welfare, on anybody or anything. I like the idea of personal responsibility, and solving the problems of your local world. Think globally, act locally. Phi would like to solve the problems of the world and he blames it on my selfishness and fear and racism. And he is not finding the proper culprit.

 

Regards, TAR

[Phi for All]

Phi,

 

I get the bingo thing, except there is also the consideration that you want the winning card to be yours.

 

No, because I understand that my country isn't like a BINGO game. I understand that I don't have to be the wealthiest for it to be a pretty great life. I understand that I can't really be as happy as I can be if I know the selfish folks are dragging down others in order to win. I understand that if more people start out under even circumstances, and get the same investment in their potential, our society becomes one worth investing pride in as well.