‘Best interest’ is in the eye of the beholder. You and I have wildly different views of what is in our best interests. Am I wrong in saying that you believe Russia’s meddling was in both of our best interests? Of course you wouldn’t bitch about that. But if we did our damndest to get rid of Netanyahu in Israel, you might not feel the same.

My question was to understand if there is any situation where the US has "meddled" (your terminology) or tried to influence (my terminology) in a foreign government or opposition leader that you believe was justified.

I took your original comment as pretty much we shouldn't get involved in any other country's business. I think you have confirmed that in this response.

You are right that the US has "meddled/influenced" in other countries and has not turned out well. Where you and I disagree is there are other countries where we have "meddled/influenced" that has turned out positive for the US.

Here are some examples I'm thinking of that turned out more positive for the US than negative

1) Israel - since I guess its founding till now
2) Germany - couple decades (?) after WW2
3) Japan - couple decades (?) after WW2
4) South Korea - couple decades (?) after Korean War
5) Philippines
6) Kuwait
7) Bosnia
8) Taiwan

If the US does not try to meddle/influence to try achieve our goals/preferred government, the alternative is just to let things play out for good or bad to the US?

Struggled to put this here or in the Fallout 76 thread ...

I was playing FO76 early evening and saw a CAMP build that had MAGA in neon lights. I can see more political "ads" in FO76 we get closer to November.

I will borrow a line I like from Dan Carlin. I want America to live up to its marketing materials in terms of promoting our ideology across the world.
Most of your examples above do not meet that criteria. Israel is an apartheid state. South Korea had a pretty brutal dictatorship under Park and didn’t really have free elections until 1997. Ferdinand Marcos was hardly a beacon of American values in the Philippines. Kuwait is nobody’s example of a beacon of democracy (though better than most other Arab countries). Taiwan was under martial law from 1949-1987. Bosnia is a failed state.

I wouldn’t disagree that in terms of economic relationships, the countries on your list had positive results. But in terms of exporting the values we are supposedly promoting, your examples fall short. I am admittedly taking a more idealistic approach as I believe our long term interests are served by promoting those values rather than short term economic/geopolitical interests.

No no, in this case I was strictly saying I can't get legitimately mad at Russia for acting in their own best interest, nor the Syrians, nor the Iraqis, nor anybody else, since we've historically done the same thing.

That doesn't mean that I'm not inclined to punish them when their best interest & our best interest come into conflict ... just that them doing so intrinsically so to speak doesn't rile me. They're just doing the same thing(s) we've done for most of our existence.

I'm not bothered by the concept of them doing it any more than I'm bothered by the concept of us doing it.

That's what nations do.

Makes sense. As an aside, your second paragraph reminded me of the line Trump used about John Bolton that if he had listened to him we would be on World War 6 by now. I thought if you had your druthers we would be on World War 10. But after further reflection, I’m not sure there would be much left to fight over after your World War 3.

Whew. Cause when I posted my original comment, so help me I thought I was agreeing with / echoing/ reinforcing what you'd said in the post I replied to.

Yep, I get that now. The ‘best interest’ line made me jump into areas where we likely wouldn’t find you reinforcing anything I’d say. :)

Pretty sure that MAGA is the most common clan tag in MW.

It also takes over (part of) the narrative. Trump's speech was riddled with lies and inconsistencies, but few people read the fact checkers the next day. Pelosi did an immediate fact check ;).

Also the Republicans have hated Pelosi for a long time anyways, so she's fine taking their vitriol.

Simpletons and members of Cult 45 are the only ones that would think he made a great, fact saturated speech last night and Nancy ripping that thing up was a great way of saying that his speech was nothing more than a liner for the bottom of a bird cage.

I do think its too idealistic in wanting countries that we have meddled/influenced to match up with our marketing materials. If that is the criteria, then I concede I can't think of one (maybe Canada but I don't think we meddled/influenced too much there).

To me, it's sufficient that those countries have turned out well, generally friendly to the US, and have benefited much from our meddling/influencing.

Your other counter that each one of these have had some issues from our meddling/influencing is true but honestly what countries haven't had some "darkness" in their past. Judged by current day "how is it going" it has worked out pretty well.

Bottom line - I get your point about not meddling. But do disagree as I think the US needs to meddle/influence selectively to try sway a country/government to our side e.g. not just in our republic/democratic ideals, but also as a strategic economic, military partner and for humanitarian reasons (Somalia, Bosnia).

But yeah, we don't have fantastic track record. Some good success IMO but also some failures.

Assume MW is Modern Warfare? Haven't played it.

I chuckled when I saw the MAGA neon sign. I thought maybe "Feel the Bern" for my CAMP build but I'm not that big on Bernie. Had to look up Biden's which I think is "No Malarkey". Also considered MATH from Yang.

Just didn't think any of them matched up to semi-worldwide recognition of MAGA.

It was entirely without class, and a petty bitch move for a Speaker of the House.

Granted, Trump has no class either, but it'd be nice for maybe one person in DC to take a high road. (Wishful thinking, I know)

Completely disagree. It's things like ripping up his speech, are the things that need to be done. I would love to see more acts of defiance against the criminal that currently occupies the White House and his criminal organization that is protecting him.

The Dems have tried taking the high road, they've tried doing the right thing, they've tried doing things 'by the book' and it hasn't worked. So if she rips up that festering speech of his, I'm more than 100% ok with that. I would have been more in favor if all of the Democrats from the House and Senate didn't even show up for it, but, I'll take some ripped up paper for now. The thing is, playing nice and trying to compromise, does not work in the current time line we are in.

It seems like the Republicans do politics and crimes, and the Democrats do symbolism and zinger tweets in response. I don't think those are effective acts of defiance.

I can't decide whether it was stupid or genius. It has dominated the media rather than any moments from the speech. In that sense, she basically did what Trump does with his tweets.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are some dems that like some of that crime too and if they get caught, nail them to the wall just as hard as the republicans. However, zingers and symbolism is pretty much all they've got at the moment since they've tried just about everything else. I honestly don't know what else they can do to hold the criminal in the white house and his protectors accountable. Unfortunately, our laws and Constitution don't appear to be robust enough to handle the situation we are currently in to let the democrats hold him and his conspirators accountable.

This is me, too. I probably lean more towards the former, but *shrug* it's gone viral and dominated the news, like you say.

I do disagree with much that you said but do agree with the 2 quotes. I think it was great.

Republicans do plenty of symbolism as well (probably even more so than the Democrats). It's just that the Republicans are better at putting their symbolism to work, while Democrats find the desire to apologize for their symbolism too much.

People on the right just seem to get mad when Democrats don't apologize for their symbolism… you know like Republicans don't.

I have a serious case of trumtigue and at this point, any act of defiance against him will get complete support from me (unless it is violence).

Well...


This is exactly why nothing is coming from this. You, like many others now, feel the need to insult literally everyone who doesn't share your viewpoint and that's the message we get from the top down of each party in DC. It is one side vs the other - anything else be damned. There's no room for a moderate person anymore and quotes like yours prove that. It's the "if you don't agree with me you're a simpleton, cult member, idiot, racist, communist, snowflake, insert your insult here" mentality.

That's why one side is dumbfounded he's not getting removed and the other side thinks the entire thing has been a sham from the start and anyone who tries to walk anywhere in-between gets lambasted as a traitor against their party.

What Pelosi did last night shouldn't be surprising in the least - did you watch the speech? She behaved like a spoiled child all night. Pelosi didn't even stand up for the little girl who was getting the opportunity to go to another school. She can hate Trump all she wants but what did that girl ever do or the other guests (outside of Rush obv). This is the state of things now - all that matters is the slight appearance that you are aligned with the enemy and you must be a terrible human being.

I applaud the Democrats who did stand up and applaud for either those guests or the things in the speech which were factual. The decline in drug overdose deaths, the removal of unspeakably evil men from this planet, the low unemployment rates for everyone especially women and minorities - those are things that if you cheer for and support you are a simpleton and a cult member? It just proves that there's no room to be someone who can take each thing and look at it as good or bad - the choice is all or none so nobody should have been surprised at any of this from start to finish.

It is all the same partisan BS.

The folks saying she lacks class, etc. are the same folks who think Trump's daily twitter tantrums are awesome.

Is this the biggest rip up since Sinéad O'Connor ripped up the Pope?

@Gary

This has been the problem with politics for as long as I have tried to pay attention. People have been calling the other side names for as long as I can remember.

I think Trump made it worse. He threw out the book on political appropriateness. He says and does whatever he wants.

Elected officials are only worried about 1 thing. Getting elected and maintaining their power. They will do whatever it takes to do that.

They don't give a shit about you and me unless we have the potential to vote for them.

Trump is the first President in US History to have a senator from his own party vote to convict him in an impeachment proceeding.

Good for you Romney. A little "too little, too late" but still better than nothing.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-ne...rial-02-05-20/

I didn't even know The Onion still existed.

Had to check to make sure that was a post from The Onion, RM :)


As for Romney, CPAC the political "converntion" for Conservatives had already made a point of "uninviting" Romney, so I guess they knew he was going to do this. Maybe he can rally his old presidential base and Mormons to not vote for Trump in 2020.

And vice versa

Buzz is that the White House had no idea the Romney vote was coming.

The Dems won't do this because they suck at politics, but they should immediately replace the phrase "impeachment" with "bipartisan impeachment" whenever they use it.

It's a little thing, but it is costless.

I agree Albion-make sure they get the "bipartisan impeachment" into every conversation/campaign ad they can

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/05/u...ict-trump.html


This made me laugh.

Remember when the Republican Party nominated that man for the Presidency. Seems like an eon ago.

Somewhere, John McCain is tipping his cap to Romney.

I don't know what to tell you man. Stuff like this is what happens when frustrations boil over. The repubs and their supporters give the appearance of this just being a game of owning the libs and the rest of us (including most of the rest of the world) are pretty much thrown our arms up because it is so obvious that he is empirically and objectively a criminal. Why would anyone even support that or go, "Now hold on a minute, he did this thing that was good". Yup and a broken clock is right twice a day. Lots of bad people have done good things, that doesn't excuse them and should not give anyone pause and reconsider whether or not they are a bad person. Because regardless of their good deeds, they are still an extremely bad person (like trump). Hell, Kasich would have made a way better president than trump and with a lot less criminal activity I bet too.

I can say this though, I never felt this way with Bush or his supporters, even when he wasn't the best of orators. Lots of eye rolling though, sure. I did not approve of a lot of things he and his administration did, but, never once felt like I was having to deal with Cartman from South Park or an honest to goodness bonafide criminal.

Yea, Pelosi didn't stand up for the girl. You know what? The impeached president obstructed justice, abused the position of his office, things that are way more in the realm of 'bad things', than Pelosi not standing up. But, nope, lets whine about 'Nasty Nancy' instead. To complain about what she did, really looks more like tone trolling than anything else when compared to trump's malfeasances.

It's not that you (the ubiquitous you) are not welcome, supporting the vile criminal that is trump is what's not welcome, when it is blatantly obvious he is a vile criminal. I don't know what else to tell you man in that regard. What I can tell you, I'm going to continue to be as disrespectful and defiant as I possibly can towards trump until trump is out of office and can do no further damage.

I'll give RM the benefit of the doubt that he was aware this is an Onion piece.

Yes

I like how Rand Paul went from "big government is bad to we need to protect big government at all costs" in a couple years.

I think it's best we call a spade a spade.

Trump has done many terrible and tasteless things.

Pelosi's behavior with respect to the guests is also reprehensible.

Her speech tearing moment I'm much more ambivalent about. I don't really care about showing respect to this President. He shows little respect for the office himself, why should anyone else? But it's also pretty grandstandy, one part fake ploy, other part well done politicizing in a social media world.

I think it's fair to criticize both for their behaviors. I would love to hear how one (either side) justifies supporting one while ripping the other (pun intended).

HEY!

This is me, except for the last paragraph. I'm a little stronger on Pelosi's tearing up the speech. It's not about respect for the President, but respect for your own office and his. It's not respect for Trump, but the institutions you're trying to uphold.

Pelosi is a moron who does these little stunts for attention. It's dumb and doesn't help her or her party.


I'm not sure why people think there needs to be some decorum and respect shown. He has said he doesn't believe her or her party are real Americans. He has relentlessly targeted them to make their lives worse. He's a white supremacist running child concentration camps at the border.



If you're really upset about her tearing up a piece of paper, you're just virtue signaling.

Think we've more or less concluded those institutions are a joke and don't deserve much respect.

Agreed on all this. I think she could have made a greater statement by refusing to attend, and certainly would have preferred that, but whatever.

I'll drop my two cents since I happened to drop in. As I mentioned before, I voted Libertarian in the last election. I'll probably do the same in this election. Despite the fact that Trump's policies have helped me and my family financially along with my business, I simply can't stomach voting for him just because he's a schmuck and/or possibly mentally ill.

With that said, if he gets reelected, the finger should be pointed directly at Pelosi and the idiots in the Democratic part of the House who thought that it would be a good idea to have her serve as their leader. Her goofy attempts at grandstanding, her uncomfortable moments on camera, and her stumbles in interviews have not served them well at all. If you're going to take the road of fighting fire with fire when attacking a political figure like Trump, you better bring a pitbull that can match him blow for blow. Instead, they have a poodle who looks like she couldn't even find her water bowl without someone pointing directly at the bowl.

I predicted that Trump has far more support that people know about in the last election and I was right. If anything, I think that silent support is only emboldened in the upcoming election by the repeated gaffes of Pelosi and Democratic leadership.

But your quote wasn't being disrespectful to Trump - it was to anyone who doesn't agree with you. You can say whatever you want about him, Pelosi, or anyone else up on the hill and it doesn't bother me. I sure don't think he or anyone else up there is some kind of walking saint. I'm simply saying that when you or anyone else labels everyone in the country a simpleton or a cult member because they don't agree with you you're forcing people into one of two groups. It's the whole basket of deplorables thing. They're either with you or against you and there's no middle ground and I'm saying that's why this went absolutely nowhere. You can't say the choices are either be on my side and support things you don't believe in or be labeled as the scum of the earth because you support some of the things on the other side and be shocked when you don't get any movement on that.

If you want people to not support Trump then you have to have someone they can support and have to give them room to do that. You can't call them simpletons and cult members because some of the things they support are also things Trump supports and pushes forward. Until that happens nothing is going to change. Who ever is going to join "your side" if "your side" constantly calls them names or will turn on you the minute you disagree with something on their side? Call Trump whatever you want but why is your neighbor a simpleton or cult member if he likes some of the things that Trump has done?

Do you somehow think Romney is now a hero because of his meaningless vote? The next time he votes in lockstep with Trump and the Rs is he still going to be the one decent guy in the R party or does his status get revoked back to simpleton and cult member because that's exactly what is going to happen. Romney is (now/again) a traitor to the GOP and will be jeered by the left the next time a vote comes around for anything. It's not like if RGB dies and Romney supports whoever Trump picks that Schumer is all of a sudden going to say "ok well Romney is on board so I guess this person is ok". No, if Trump gets another pick for the SC that person will go through everything the last two did and probably more. Do you think that if the senate had voted to convict Trump that the left would be satisfied and suddenly start working with Pence to push forward some awesome bi-partisan agenda?

That's why I brought up Pelosi not standing for the little girl - just because you might hate Trump or think he's an asshole doesn't mean that everyone who is somehow associated with him or supports some of his policies is. That's how deep the hatred runs - that she and others couldn't even be happy that some little girl with a single mother is getting an opportunity in life to better her situation. If its shitty behavior when Trump does it then its shitty behavior when Pelosi or anyone else does it too. If you think Trump is a criminal that's fine - I'm sure if you did some digging you would find a whole lot of criminals sitting up on that hill. What is not fine and what needs to change is to have the decency to let each person be judged on their own beliefs and actions as opposed to being lumped into one of two huge groups that if we were honest none of us would agree completely with.

I specifically stated I find Trump to also be without class. I agree with a fair amount of his stances, yet I cannot stand the man, and I cannot stand how he conducts himself as President.

None of that excuses Pelosi acting in equally poor taste. Neither acts with the anywhere near the level of dignity and tact that those in their position should be held to.

Probably on-subject: Iowa Republican Voters React To Trump's State Of The Union Address : NPR

"Until that happens nothing is going to change." Nothing is going to change if you don't confront people on their beliefs. Either way, they're going to believe what they're going to believe. They just want to be more comfortable and not get flak for it. And for you to "Get over it." Get over it = leave me alone, I'm not changing my mind.

(While still calling the other side "nuts.")

This argument is one of the more absurd arguments I've seen and it's not solely you. I've continuously seen similar over the past 4 years. What it boils down to is Trump can be an ass, grandstand, have uncomfortable moments in front of the camera, and stumble in interviews and it's 100% ok. However, if Pelosi or any other dem does it at a much smaller level then it's why Trump is going to win. It's hypocritical nonsense.

Here's the reality of the paper tearing thing and most of the other things that set off right wing voters. If Pelosi wasn't a woman a sizable portion of the people that are most offended by what she did wouldn't have a problem with it. That's the truth. If Pelosi had been caught on camera making an ass of herself during the national anthem like Trump was it would be the end of world for roughly 40% of the country. The right has shown time and time again they'll get offended by anything their team isn't doing at that exact second.

The next election is likely going to come down to whether or not Trump can hold onto the independents he won with in 2016. Not some silent and emboldened Trump voters that are voting for Trump no matter what anyone says or does. Those voters are looking for any reason to vote republican so they can justify their vote for a racist, rapist, piece of shit and blame the other side for doing so.

Or if Obama wasn't black. White men wanting to play by one set of rules while inflicting another set on others. "Boys will be boys" and all that nonsense.

It doesn't matter who the leader is. The early 2000s GOP made Tom Daschle into Vladimir Lenin. If it wasn't Pelosi it would just be someone else getting the same treatment.

Pelosi sucks because outside of some social issues, she's fine with Republican policies. Deep down she supports tax cuts for the rich, cutting regulations, and basically being Wall Street's bitch. Same can be said for most of the Democratic leadership.


That's why Democrats suck at winning anything. It's why there is such a fight in the party against anyone who actually wants to change the system in the slightest. A group of wealthy liberals who enjoy the benefits of the current system and grift off each other. And Pelosi is the post child for that. People who want to act like they oppose the system but deep down don't really give a shit because it benefits themselves.

Had to look up who was running. Vermin and Behrman could get my votes.

This might be a bucket list item for me, become a Libertarian Presidential candidate just to be able to say I was a Presidential candidate once (and have an excuse to come up with a personalized logo and t-shirt).

2020 Presidential Candidates | Libertarian Party.

He has more support than I thought. We've seen the mask come off a lot of racists over the past couple years and how scared certain demographics have become.

Still, he lose the popular vote by a considerable sum. He'll likely lose it again in 2020. The Senators who voted to convict him today represent 18 million more Americans than the ones who didn't.

Trump's success is largely due to our archaic undemocratic form of government. In any other advanced nation he would have lost. His victory has more to do with where some imaginary lines are drawn and less to do with a popular surge among the people.

Agree. We elected some great progressive new blood in 2018. We already know Trump has a large base that isn't going anywhere no matter what he does. Any reasonable person who doesn't have hate in their hearts has ditched Trump. So its about turnout, and mostly that's about convincing young people that there's a reason to vote. Pelosi and the others you're referencing stifles this, rather than encourage it.

Not sure if I actually posted it, or if it was one of the many political posts I typed and then deleted. The voters of this country are sick of the status quo. That is a reason you have rabid support for Bernie and Yang on the left, they are outsiders, or perceived outsiders in the case of Bernie. Trump was nominated by the GOP for the same reason. The GOP kept on winning elections and doing nothing, so the party turned to a complete outsider. Many of the insiders in Washington are scared because if Trump is remotely successful, many other insiders may lose their jobs.

Another item, as someone before mentioned, you cannot expect people that you belittle to come around to your way of thinking. The best way to earn votes is to solve problem or work to solve problems. To not be happy because someone achieved what should be a mutual goal of Congress, improving people’s lives and celebrating service to the country, should be commended by both sides.

Also, racists, bigots, supremacists of both races, are going to support a candidate. Just because other people support the same candidate does not make those people racist, bigoted, a supremacist or anything else. It merely means they have the same preferences or POTUS.

The electorate, in general, want someone who is going to improve things not only for themselves, but for the US as a whole. I want people of all races to make more money. I want people of all races to have more opportunities.

The difference between all of us is we disagree on how best to accomplish these things. Many people today believe they should be able to do whatever they want and whatever the consequences of those actions are, they should be able to solve it by taking a pill or let someone else bail them out. I am the opposite, just because I can do something does not mean I should. Whatever the results of my actions are, they are the consequences I need to live with.

There is no comparison to the power and influence of white nationalists in the Trump admin and black separatists. Stephen Miller is one of the most influential advisers in the White House and there are numerous other salted throughout the executive branch.

Plenty of people voted for Trump hoping he was different than he is, but that excuse doesn't work anymore. He is who he is, and a vote for Trump is, at best, a vote that's willing to overlook white nationalism.

If all of these people are gravitating toward your party you have to start to ask yourself why. They're not supporting the GOP because of their stance on healthcare or taxes.

At some point you have to work to take your party back or you're just enabling the racists and bigots. Whether these people like it or not, if you're willing to look the other way on the 10% of policy and/or beliefs that are racist to get the other 90% then you deserve to be lumped in with them.

Someone should ask Susan Collins if she's still mad about the heads on pikes story. I'm sure she's changed her mid now that she's seeing what Mitt's going through.

I don't think any reasonable democrat has any expectation of a single person who still today supports trump switching sides. That's a pointless endeavor.

Also, voting for the same candidate that the KKK endorsed is problematic, but not the problem any of us are talking about. Continuing to support the man in the face of his racism, sexism, all around bigotry and open hatred for so many people... bringing in advisors and cabinet members with open white supremacist agendas and pushing them from a policy perspective... THAT's the problem.

You can claim not to be racist, but supporting trump today is to support institutionalized racism. You may not be a white supremacist, but supporting Trump today means making a choice that white supremacism is okay as long as it gets you whatever it is you want out of Trump's presidency. At this point you really just have to own that.

Also, you say you want equality for all races but you continue to consistently aggressively push the argument that anyone can pull themselves up by their boostraps and anyone who doesn't is lazy or has no ambition or just wants handouts. Even without support for trump, this view tells me enough about who you are as a person to know that reasonable conversation is pointless.

My dude. I don't know how else to explain it. If you support someone who is racist, who is a rapist (he raped his first ex wife), who is a criminal, regardless of the good things that they may have done, it's extremely bad optics to continue to support that person, especially when they are in the highest office in the land. The things trump has done and continues to do, isn't a bug, it's a feature. These aren't one off gaffs. It's decades of this garbage long before he got elected. If you don't want to be called deplorable, don't do deplorable things and don't support deplorable people. It's really that simple. If you are offended that I called people simpletons who still support him after DECADES of evidence that he is a shit person ("I don't want black people counting my money"), that's not my problem.

If you are truly not that kind of person, but are a person that is of the mindset of, 'Yup, trump is garbage, but, there are some things he's gotten right. I don't support him though.", then why would you be offended by someone calling his supporters simpletons or deplorable if that's not you. I admit, there are some things I feel he has gotten right, not because it was well thought out, but, more because the law of averages that he is going to do something, eventually, that I agree with. The thing is, he is so bad, that in the long term, it is better to cut him off now and start to clean up the mess than to let him continue to fester and fleece us. This isn't a matter of, oh I just don't agree with him, it's the mountain of evidence that says there's no logical reason to support him.

I really don't know how else to explain what I'm trying to say other than here's an example: Rush and his cancer. I don't wish that on anybody, even Rush. Will the world have lost anything once he is gone? Yes, they will have lost a vile disgusting dirt bag. But that would have happened regardless of when or how he died. Notice, I didn't say ANYTHING about his political leanings. Also notice, that when I'm talking about trump, I'm not talking about his party affiliation (I don't really think he is a republican, just an opportunist). If Obama did the same crap that trump has been pulling, I would feel the exact same way about him as I do about trump. I owe my allegiance to no party. This isn't a team sport, it's about holding elected officials accountable for their actions instead of rewarding them for their criminal behavior and if the messaging regarding how bad trump is comes across as crass or not PC, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Having said all that, I'd rather have a beer with you and joke about the stupid things that this president or that president did, because, believe it or not, I'm willing to bet there's probably more we have in common than what we don't.

Thread by @michaelharriot: One of the most popular misconceptions about black history is that over time, America has gradually become less racist and more tolerant. Th…

Saw this on twitter - this is put together of a long thread of tweets.

Redlining is one of the more interesting and more recent points brought up there, pointing to intentional strategies by banks to refuse loans to african americans.

Stealing some stuff from wikipedia:

"Some redlined maps were also created by private organizations, such as J.M. Brewer's 1934 map of Philadelphia. Private organizations created maps designed to meet the requirements of the Federal Housing Administration's underwriting manual. The lenders had to consider FHA standards if they wanted to receive FHA insurance for their loans. FHA appraisal manuals instructed banks to steer clear of areas with "inharmonious racial groups", and recommended that municipalities enact racially restrictive zoning ordinances."

banks should steer clear of areas with "inharmonious racial groups".

In Atlanta in the 1980s, investigative reporting showed that banks in the area would lend money to lower income whites but not middle or upper income blacks.

In 2015, HUD found that a bank in the Chicago and Milwaukee area "purposely rejected mortage applications from black and latino applicants". That's 5 years ago. That was a $200 million settlement.

Also in 2015 a bank in New York was found to simply be erasing black neighborhoods from mortgage lending apps, the bank had 1100 mortgage applications, 4 from african americans.

Also in 2015 a bank in the NY/NJ/PA area was found by a DOJ investigation to intentionally reject mortgage applications from blacks, and was purposly avoiding building any branches in communities that were mostly black.


This is one tiny part of institutionalized racism in America. So the next time you want to make an argument that anyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and that anyone who can't is lazy or just unwiling to work, maybe think for like two seconds about something like this, or maybe even take up the time to learn more on your own. Most of us are privileged white folks here. There's a LOT to learn.

Portland has a long history of redlining, using major state & city construction projects like hospitals and even arenas to essentially eradicate (the very few) traditionally black neighborhoods.

Is there institutional racism/discrimination (I'm adding discrimination because I don't think everything is "racism") in America? Yes

Is it getting better? Yes

Will racism/discrimination ever be eliminated? No but we can see with each generation, skin color becomes less and less of a barrier

We all have different perspectives and experiences that make us believe what we believe. There's a Pew survey that clearly shows that white and blacks think differently on state of racism/discrimination.

Here's an immigrant's perspective.

There is a good number of people in the world that want to immigrate to the US (by a wide margin over any other country) because they see her as the "land of opportunity", warts and all.

Much of the racism/discrimination you see in the US now (e.g. not saying back during slavery days) is nothing compared to the discrimination many of these immigrant-wannabees encounter in their own country. And for those that are not second class citizens in their own country, the dream of US providing opportunities to do better for them or their children is the draw.

So yeah, from the perspective of an immigrant myself -- I do believe the US offers opportunities for "the bell curve middle" to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. More specifically, the US offers "more & better" opportunities than where those immigrant wanna-bees currently live.

Where you see racism/discrimination in many places keeping down minorities, I see progress being made and those minorities should (1) get a college or vocational training (2) avoid making detrimental mistakes e.g. dropping out of school, drugs, single parent etc. (3) shrug the racism/discrimination off, bypass the blockers, go work somewhere else or find another company, and (4) believe you can help your children do better, and they will have more opportunities with less racism/discrimination



Note that I've used the phrase "the bell curve middle". I understand there are some extreme situations where things are beyond one's control or it's just too late. A poor black single-parent kid, living in the projects, growing up in a negative environment, lack of support or role model ... is in a bad situation.

I don't even tolerate whataboutism justifications from people I love and respect.

Edward64 qualifies on neither count.

Just some minor editing.

Many of the Trump supporters I see both in this thread and otherwise are really the embodiment of white privilege. They don't view themselves as supporting racism and sexism because, frankly, they are in a position in their lives where it doesn't affect them. They can afford to ignore those issues of racial and sexual orientation discrimination because either A) they secretly (or not secretly) support such discrimination or B) the discrimination has such a minimal impact on their lives as to be inconsequential. But the people that care about those issues or to whom they are consequential are literally seeing their rights eroded before their very eyes and can't believe that people can be so flip about others losing their rights in this country.

And that's really the biggest problem. We have a huge number of people who are basically motivated 100% by self-interest. And have been brought to view the "other", whoever that other is, as the enemy. "Gotta stop them from getting what I've got, because they're going to take it from me." Or "why should we give them what I had to work so hard for". It's pretty hard to keep up a functioning society with such a prevalent attitude. Government is supposed to work for people, but instead what it's done while people are here squabbling amongst themselves is consolidate power and wealth in the hands of the very few while we have very few people actually interested in serving the people instead of their own interests. And I include Pelosi in that number.

I would second the person above who said that the "liberal elite" is far too comfortable because they are far removed from actual problems of actual people.

It's all sickening, and it's rough to feel this powerless, but here we are.

Dude, just stop.

Edits.

lol at Fox and Friends being outraged that Mitt invoked his faith when talking about his vote.

You guys laid the track, don't be pissed when the train enters the station.

I would agree - I much rather would laugh at him for congratulating Kansas on their football team's accomplishments - my only point in this is that I don't like it when we demonize the vast majority of people in this country that don't deserve it. Some do - but I just can't bring myself to hate someone because they don't have someone who does represent their particular views in full or even if they are making a choice that is best for themselves and their family. If you're drowning in student debt and think that Bernie is going to wipe it out for you and that's why you vote for him or maybe you didn't have a job and now you do under Trump so you want him and his economic policies to stay...I mean, I dunno, I don't think that makes you a bad person. If their choice is Trump vs someone with the same economic policies but without the rest of the baggage then I say ok, they must really support how Trump behaves - but if they choose Trump because they are afraid Bernie will tank the entire economy and put them out of work and their family in jeopardy....

In many ways it kind of seems like Trump is the Rs Clinton. Look at Clinton's history in regards to women, race, abuses of power, his ties to Epstein etc... but while he was the President so many people swore up and down he was the best President ever. His approval was over 50% for his presidency, the economy did great, he had something in his personality that attracts people and makes him like teflon and the Rs couldn't stand him and wanted to take him down. I don't think it makes all the people who supported him, voted to re-elect him etc terrible people or racists or anything else.

If you can show me one candidate that really is the moral compass and beacon we all should follow that would change things but you don't have to do much digging to find moral outrages with any of the serious candidates. I mean the D party is supposed to be all about inclusion, opportunity for everyone, equality in rights and finances, right? Yet the most serious contenders for the nomination are old, white millionaires. Shouldn't these be the people the left is rallying against or are they better than Trump just because (at least two of the three probably) won't say something in public that will sound horribly offensive (even if they might in private).

Anyhow time to get off the soapbox and get back to work - anyhow I just think if the population in general could at least have civility towards each other over their differences maybe we could set the example to be followed in DC and get some real change but as long as they've got everyone divided into two camps hating each other that only empowers both sides to keep on the status quo of doing things that only enrich themselves and maintain their power (while sometimes having a positive effect on some of the rest of us). The more we fight amongst ourselves the easier it is for them to keep power.

Yes, absolutely. I believe that most of this forum are made up of middle class privileged white folks. I also believe that many statements I see from people when arguing about healthcare, education, student loans, and all around opportunities and the "american dream" are myopic and are based from a personal perspective - which is completely understandable. But these views often times feel like they are closed off from other perspectives.

Its clear how I feel about institutionalized racism and the equality of overall, population based opportunity and access to "the american dream" across different races. I understand others feel differently to varying degrees, I understand that there are going to be lots of minorities who see it differently from their individual perspective. Its a very complicated thing, and I am no expert, despite my passionate belief in my own view.

The main takeaway and the main point I would argue to many republicans and honestly to a large number of moderate democrats, is to listen. Our minds are too closed. These perspectives on race are out there. They differ from most of our own upbringings. When I see someone dismiss the impact of policy on the lower class, or arguments that everyone can "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" I think its sometimes a problem of applying one's personal experience to everyone.

Not everyone is going to change their opinions, but I think its critical for folks to listen to the stories, facts and figures, experiences of the underrepresented and historically oppressed with an open, non-dismissive mind. Its not going to turn many into a Sanders voter, that's not the goal. But in many people I believe there is a fundamental lack of understanding and empathy. Some of it is malicious, but a lot of it isn't. The starting point is simply to care, and to seek out voices that aren't heard, are marginalized, are dismissed so we can talk about our own personal tax situation regarding healthcare or whatever. Just go listen to other people's experiences with oppression, with the barriers that exist for some that maybe I didn't have.

No expectations there, but maybe something happens. Maybe not with voting outcome, but maybe with a softening of the way we view our own fellow citizens, and that'd be a big start.


** Not saying this to you specifically Edward, just, in general, there are so many discussions here that ignore this critical perspective as though it didn't exist.

FTFY.

This is fucking outrageous given that the same Treasury Dept. is ignoring subpoenas from Democratic House committees.

OK I had to reply to one more - THIS x 100. This is how change starts. Not by insulting each other or demonizing people who don't agree with you. Not by demanding what you want and dehumanizing people who would be impacted so you can have your way. In most cases there is a common ground - if we the people acted that way then DC would have to act that way.

Yep, he sure learned his lesson, Sen. Collins, and will definitely be more contrite in the future. :rolleyes:

Donald Trump Thinks ‘Maybe People Should Pay’ For His Impeachment, White House Press Secretary Says

Yes, we can agree on this. HOWEVER, the leader of our country is openly embracing far right and alt-right methodologies (hi Stephen Miller). IMHO, this is the biggest threat to what you and Radii are hoping for. People on that fringe of society are clearly more emboldened to speak and spout their bullshit in a mainstream environment now more than ever before. And that attracts more weak-minded individuals. Was the cause Trump? Unfortunately no. But he isn't doing anything but empowering these close-minded individuals. Hell, he's called half the country "enemies of the people", "deranged", "losers" - the list goes on and on. I dont see people on the streets doing this and I am in a red state.

This is the exact kind of thing people are talking about:

Donald Trump And Donald Trump Jr. Go After ‘P*ssy’ Mitt Romney For Voting To Impeach

At the risk of a de-rail and getting shouted down (by others, not you) this is where you and I fundamentally disagree.

I dont want the government to work for the people. I dont think its the role of the government to provide for the people. I believe that's the role of the community. I believe government should protect against foreign nations and largely stay the hell out of our business otherwise.

Unfortunately for me, neither party supports that.

It has to provide for the common good. It always has, from the smallest form of it. Hell, even on Survivor, a form of common good government is formed. It's part of the natural order of citizenry. If the only role of government is to protect, then you should very much be in favor of required military service for everyone, as that would be expected in that type of service. But you're essentially leaving everything else, from roads, safe food, water, and education up to the individual. Frankly, if that's the case, your civilization won't last and will get passed up eventually.

That's literally what government is. A community/civilization getting together and saying "we need to figure this shit out."

This does not make every one associated a racist or bigot. If we agree on low taxes, for example, how does that make me a bigot or racist?

Who said anything about supporting Trump? Am I on the right side of the aisle? Yes, but I am leaning towards voting Libertarian as I have 3 out of the last 4 presidential elections.

It seems to me, the funny thing about Libertarians, is that they only have the opportunity to hold those viewpoints, because all the other shit that they would have needed, was already provided in some way, by government. Maybe not recently, which is why it's easy to overlook, but overall, if you're looking for real life examples of Libertarians at work, look to the mountains of Eastern KY and West VA. Because they are the full definition. You've got weak income, weak education, weak oversight. People are by and large left alone, and they are on their own. Yet, in the grand scheme of society, they are certainly not leading the pack. Forgive me, but I really don't want to live in a country where that's the grand design.

Based upon what you quoted, that is a massive leap. If anyone is the best at anything, in today's day and age, they are going to get ahead.

Also, before you insinuate that I don't care for others, I will gladly put up my record of volunteering up against anyone, or helping others in need when I see it. The fact that I do not want to get the government involved at the drop of a hat does not mean I do not care for others. I feel help is best offered at the lowest level.

Do I feel that we all need to take responsibility for ourselves as adults? Yes. I am not sure how that means I do not need to help others. I just don't believe the best way of doing that is through the government.

All those Ivy League students are the absolute best at school, huh?

About that...
The Role of Luck in Life Success Is Far Greater Than We Realized - Scientific American Blog Network

Well I'll be.

The country is being run by a bunch of failsons. The lost of wealthiest Americans is littered with heirs and people who were given access to resources most Americans don't have.

Like it is fine if you're a libertarian but drop the meritocracy nonsense.

Absolutely nobody is born "best at anything"

Fascinating read.

There were some comments that questioned their methodology and approach. I did try searching more on their research as I would like to see if its been peer reviewed but was not able to find something in the first couple pages.

(In the meantime, I'll continue making my own opportunities/luck)


EDIT: I've always thought attractiveness plays a role in success. Its not guaranteed but a good looking guy/gal will get more breaks and opportunities in life.

It does. Natural intelligence does as well. Many factors that are out of the control of the individual play significant roles in success. "Hard work" is like really the only factor that you can control, and yet there are plenty of people working hard at 2-3 jobs are still still living at or below the poverty level.

Don't deny there is luck at all. Many examples of that in my past for sure. I have to add "choices" with "hard work" are the 2 factors one can control, not control perfectly of course.

Many in the US (and world) are unlucky to be born in an environment that sets them at a disadvantage.

WaPo is reporting that Trump charges the Secret Service up to 650 a night and 17,000 a month for lodging when they're at Trump properties.

Everything's a con.

dola

And our anti-socialism Attorney General yesterday suggested that the U.S. buy Ericcson or Nokia so that we can compete with Huawei for 5G.

I wrote a piece a few years ago that touches on that. Here's the particular section that applies:









Whole piece is here: Privilege Ain’t Just A White Male Thing (Part 1 of 2) – Uncomfortable Places