2016 Election -- Part II

Bill Clinton is now age 69. Make what you will of that number.

Quote: ams288

Trump isn't going to be President, so this is all irrelevant..

Pretty bold statement at this point in the cycle.
If six months ago you had assured us neither Hillary nor Donald would be elected POTUS I would have considered you wise beyond your years. I would have been wrong, of course. No, not about your wisdom, I speak not to your wisdom now. I speak about the opinion that six months ago I could not place a bet on either of these candidates becoming POTUS without someone giving me verrrrrry long odds, life changing odds on a mere $100 bet. I was wrong in my assessment. I humbly suggest you might want to reconsider your assessment of the current situation, maybe tone down your prediction somewhat. Just a suggestion, just from 2F. I don't even know if you read my posts.

If whosoever is watching over all of us doesn't just simply pull the plug before then, we are in for a wild ride.

Quote: MathExtremist

Hillary Clinton never had an affair while Donald Trump has admitted to several. Yet you accept Trump's philandery while chastizing that of Clinton's husband.

How do you know Hillary Clinton never had an affair?

Haven't you seen all of that stuff about Chelsea Clinton's paternity and Bill Clinton's sterility?

delete

Quote: MathExtremist

You were, presumably, thrilled when the articles of impeachment were filed against Bill Clinton. Those include the phrase "has brought disrepute on the Presidency." Trump's actions -- gleefully admitted -- would certainly bring disrepute on the Presidency. How can you justify overlooking that?

Presuming is most likely a relief for those wedded to the unyielding firmness of mathematics. But by the same token, it does not permit the use of leaps of the imagination to mix apples and nectarines or grapefruits in rational discourse. Has Trump been found guilty and fined for perjury? Has he suffered the businessman's equivalent of disbarment? Hillary Clinton actually participated in drawing up articles of impeachment for a president who did not approach such transgressions.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Presuming is most likely a relief for those wedded to the unyielding firmness of mathematics. But by the same token, it does not permit the use of leaps of the imagination to mix apples and nectarines or grapefruits in rational discourse. Has Trump been found guilty and fined for perjury? Has he suffered the businessman's equivalent of disbarment? Hillary Clinton actually participated in drawing up articles of impeachment for a president who did not approach such transgressions.

The articles of impeachment against Bush were based on lies he permitted to be told to congress and the UN. They also had to deal with authorizing the use of illegal torture techniques. So lets forget Bush's lying for now you are saying that authorizing illegal torture techniques is a lesser transgression then lying about an affair? Is that really what you want to claim?

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

I speak about the opinion that six months ago I could not place a bet on either of these candidates becoming POTUS without someone giving me verrrrrry long odds, life changing odds on a mere $100 bet.

That's not accurate. Hillary was close to even money to be POTUS for quite a while. She has long been a significant favorite to be the Dem nominee, which obviously means short odds for the general.

Quote: Twirdman

The articles of impeachment against Bush were based on lies he permitted to be told to congress and the UN. They also had to deal with authorizing the use of illegal torture techniques. So lets forget Bush's lying for now you are saying that authorizing illegal torture techniques is a lesser transgression then lying about an affair? Is that really what you want to claim?

It seems that one cannot be too obvious and detailed with historic references. The Hillary Clinton reference was to her work with House Judiciary Committee chaired by Peter W. Rodino Jr. of New Jersey. It happened to involve one Richard M. Nixon, and not either Bush. And anyone can call the authorized waterboarding illegal torture techniques, even when it has been used with American troops. Yet no legal or other action, Congressional or otherwise, has advanced much beyond Dennis Kucinich's grumpiness.

Quote: MrGoldenSun

That's not accurate. Hillary was close to even money to be POTUS for quite a while. She has long been a significant favorite to be the Dem nominee, which obviously means short odds for the general.

Mr Sun, obviously I wasn't clear. Happens all the time ;-) I meant I wouldn't have made either bet UNLESS there were life changing odds offered. Such was my faith in either of these candidates.

I may regret not taking the bet on Trump, the odds were pretty good then (very long).
But I always thought Hillary would lose, still do, so the odds would have had to be 'life changing', and they never were decent ;-)

Quote: SanchoPanza

It seems that one cannot be too obvious and detailed with historic references. The Hillary Clinton reference was to her work with House Judiciary Committee chaired by Peter W. Rodino Jr. of New Jersey. It happened to involve one Richard M. Nixon, and not either Bush. And anyone can call the authorized waterboarding illegal torture techniques, even when it has been used with American troops. Yet no legal or other action, Congressional or otherwise, has advanced much beyond Dennis Kucinich's grumpiness.

Wait so your claiming Nixon illegally acquiring information about political opponents and attempting to personally use the IRS to punish his enemies is worse than a lying about a blow job? Lying about a blowjob is frankly a pathetic scandal to be charged with given things we've let presidents get away with. Reagan got to remain in office with no negative effect after Iran-Contra for Christ sake and somehow a blowjob is the end of the world.

Also waterboarding has been found illegal. In fact it has been found illegal repeatedly both by international courts and US courts. http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1356870 there is US generals finding waterboarding illegal during the Vietnam war era. A person was also sentenced to 10 years for waterboarding someone during the Spanish American War in 1901. The UN and by extension international criminal court have also been clear in stating that torture is illegal and waterboarding is torture. Now you are right that George W Bush will never be charged with it, but to try and pretend that waterboarding is not illegal is just ridiculous.

Quote: SanchoPanza

. And anyone can call the authorized waterboarding illegal torture techniques, even when it has been used with American troops.

Sure we once radiated US troops with Atomic bomb blasts as well. Not sure that is such a great defense \

AS also:

Quote:

That government scientists conducted human experiments at Edgewood is not in question. "The program involved testing of nerve agents, nerve agent antidotes, psychochemicals, and irritants," according to a 1994 General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) report (PDF). At least 7,800 US servicemen served "as laboratory rats or guinea pigs" at Edgewood, alleges Erspamer's complaint, filed in January in a federal district court in California. The Department of Veterans Affairs has reported that military scientists tested hundreds of chemical and biological substances on them, including VX, tabun, soman, sarin, cyanide, LSD, PCP, and World War I-era blister agents like phosgene and mustard. The full scope of the tests, however, may never be known. As a CIA official explained to the GAO, referring to the agency's infamous MKULTRA mind-control experiments, "The names of those involved in the tests are not available because names were not recorded or the records were subsequently destroyed." Besides, said the official, some of the tests involving LSD and other psychochemical drugs "were administered to an undetermined number of people without their knowledge."

http://www.alternet.org/story/140206/government_experiments_on_u.s._soldiers%3A_shocking_claims_come_to_light_in_new_court_case

Trump was the only candidate to speak against sending our troops to war. He says what everyone is too scared or unwilling to talk about.

Quote: jjjoooggg

Trump was the only candidate to speak against sending our troops to war. He says what everyone is too scared or unwilling to talk about.

You forgot about his plan to "Cut off the head of ISIS -- and take their oil!" That's straight from his campaign commercial a few months ago. That along with "building a wall along the Mexican border, and make Mexico pay for it", among other ridiculous things. When my son showed it to me, I told him it was either an obvious hoax or satire and kind of chided him for being so easily taken in. Then he showed me that the same commercial was on Trump's website.

But anyway, yeah, how do you suppose he intends to "cut the head off ISIS—and take their oil" without committing any troops to that effort? But I suppose Trump supporters are like Trump himself -- they just ignore illogical inconsistencies like that.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

You forgot about his plan to "Cut off the head of ISIS -- and take their oil!" That's straight from his campaign commercial a few months ago. That along with "building a wall along the Mexican border, and make Mexico pay for it", among other ridiculous things. When my son showed it to me, I told him it was either an obvious hoax or satire and kind of chided him for being so easily taken in. Then he showed me that the same commercial was on Trump's website.

But anyway, yeah, how do you suppose he intends to "cut the head off ISIS—and take their oil" without committing any troops to that effort? But I suppose Trump supporters are like Trump himself -- they just ignore illogical inconsistencies like that.

Trump was against going into Iraq. He complained that we got nothing from that war. He is now dealing with ISIS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8wJc7vHcTs

One way is for USA to stop supporting ISIS with 1 billion dollars in Humvees.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPqxvvt0O7E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ikbL63RlNo

http://www.ibtimes.com/isis-has-1b-worth-us-humvee-armored-vehicles-one-was-used-mondays-suicide-bombing-1946521

Anti Trumps have selective memory.

.....

Quote: MichaelBluejay

You forgot about his plan to "Cut off the head of ISIS -- and take their oil!" That's straight from his campaign commercial a few months ago. That along with "building a wall along the Mexican border, and make Mexico pay for it", among other ridiculous things. When my son showed it to me, I told him it was either an obvious hoax or satire and kind of chided him for being so easily taken in. Then he showed me that the same commercial was on Trump's website.

But anyway, yeah, how do you suppose he intends to "cut the head off ISIS—and take their oil" without committing any troops to that effort? But I suppose Trump supporters are like Trump himself -- they just ignore illogical inconsistencies like that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8wJc7vHcTs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NllVMlu0g1Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJHgA4_0CAo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPqxvvt0O7E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ikbL63RlNo

http://www.ibtimes.com/isis-has-1b-worth-us-humvee-armored-vehicles-one-was-used-mondays-suicide-bombing-1946521

Trump- cause he ain't Hillary.

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

Mr Sun, obviously I wasn't clear. Happens all the time ;-) I meant I wouldn't have made either bet UNLESS there were life changing odds offered. Such was my faith in either of these candidates.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, I see. My apologies for misunderstanding then. Carry on!

Quote: AZDuffman

Because it is not. It puts bias against anyone not a legacy.

You keep missing the point. Who do you think was attending the University of Mississippi in 1960? The legacies are NOT going to be minorities at the same rate in part because of this institutationalized racism.

This is just an example, though. The larger point here is that this kind of structural discrimination is everywhere. However, you are insistent that any claim of bias anywhere is "crying." It seems never to have occurred that maybe someone who is not a white male could have a valid point about what they experienced. That idea must be terrifying for you.

Quote:

I gave several good examples of how to fix it.

My answer would have been something like "institutions and people should be more conscious of this problem, identify ways to remediate it, and work to be aware of and thereby reduce our inherent bias."

Your response is "change your name" and telling people they need to get slapped. In other words, nothing about the problem itself, just blame the victims. Why not consider the possibility of addressing the discrimination itself at its root?

Quote:

America will never be a post-racial utopia as you say because there is too much money and power to be had digging up proof of racism.

I think a much bigger problem is people who won't give any credence to the notion there is still work to be done.

Even given that you are ready to dismiss anything things lots of people say about their experiences, there is tons of proof via academic studies, but you are simply determined to ignore all of that. You are being actively, aggressively blind about this topic, which is a nice luxury you have that a lot of people don't.

We're all inclined to believe what we want to believe. But at some point in their lives, some of us decide to really take the plunge and it's all over.

Quote: jjjoooggg

One way is for USA to stop supporting ISIS with 1 billion dollars in Humvees.

Those things need near constant maintenance, especially in that environment. I bet half of them are broken down and worthless within a year's time.

Quote: jjjoooggg

Trump was against going into Iraq. He complained that we got nothing from that war. He is now dealing with ISIS.

So what? You said, "Trump was the only candidate to speak against sending our troops to war." Are you now saying that applied only to the Iraq war? Because that's certainly not what you said when you posted your original comment.

Quote: jjjoooggg

One way is for USA to stop supporting ISIS with 1 billion dollars in Humvees.

So, we're going to "cut the head off ISIS and take their oil" simply by stopping Humvee exports? Good luck with that.

Quote: jjjoooggg

Anti Trumps have selective memory.

Oh, the irony.

Quote: Twirdman

Wait so your claiming Nixon illegally acquiring information about political opponents and attempting to personally use the IRS to punish his enemies is worse than a lying about a blow job? Lying about a blowjob is frankly a pathetic scandal to be charged with given things we've let presidents get away with. Reagan got to remain in office with no negative effect after Iran-Contra for Christ sake and somehow a blowjob is the end of the world.

Talk about mixing apples and oranges. None of your bogeymen were found to have lied under oath. But then again, the rule of law does not mean as much for some people as much as it does for others.

Quote:

Also waterboarding has been found illegal. In fact it has been found illegal repeatedly both by international courts and US courts. http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1356870 there is US generals finding waterboarding illegal during the Vietnam war era. A person was also sentenced to 10 years for waterboarding someone during the Spanish American War in 1901. The UN and by extension international criminal court have also been clear in stating that torture is illegal and waterboarding is torture. Now you are right that George W Bush will never be charged with it, but to try and pretend that waterboarding is not illegal is just ridiculous.

The Justice Department and its Office of Legal Counsel authorized it as a legal program. U.S. courts, the ones that matter in this and similar cases, have not found it "illegal." Other people can stand on the tiptoes and proclaim all they care to. But seeing as how the question has never been adjudicated by the relevant legal authorities, it is inaccurate, to say the least, to declare that it has been found to be illegal. Especially in view of the apparent continuance of using the practice for American military and civilian operatives.

Quote: Rigondeaux

We're all inclined to believe what we want to believe. But at some point in their lives, some of us decide to really take the plunge and it's all over.

It's easy for someone to believe that discrimination doesn't exist when neither they nor anyone they know have ever experienced it. When someone is ignorant in that way, is it worth pointing out when they themselves discriminate? Or does the sentiment "never wise up a chump" apply here as well?

Quote: RonC

ME, we have a choice between two flawed candidates. Hillary has lied time and again about the emails; she continues to perpetuate those lies on an almost daily basis. her best defense is "they did it, too" which is a very weak defense. Are we to think the Democrats would not ask Rice about her handling of emails were she actually a candidate?

Trump is also a flawed candidate.

It is just a matter of which flawed candidate you support...there is no good candidate.

I agree that both candidates are flawed, but I think simply saying that minimizes the difference between the flaws of each candidate. I don't think Hillary's flaws are qualitatively equivalent to Trump's. Not even close.

For some reason, Trump has been able to get away with saying things like "climate change doesn't exist" and at the same time "I need to build a wall around my golf course because otherwise climate change will cause the sea level to rise and wash it away." When Romney was caught on camera with his 47% crack four years ago, he was excoriated by everyone, including the conservative media. But Trump gets a free pass despite the far more obnoxious and self-contradictory messages coming out of his mouth. Why is that?

What is it about Trump that enables him to skate by while spewing rhetoric that would sink any other candidate on either side of the aisle? Can you imagine anyone, from any party, not committing political suicide by saying that "you have to treat [women] like shit"? How can that possibly be acceptable discourse for someone running for President of the United States?

As usual, I am voting Libertarian. Gary Johnson is actually a viable choice.

Quote: MrV

As usual, I am voting Libertarian. Gary Johnson is actually a viable choice.

would you bet that your candidate wins?
What long odds would you need?

Quote: MathExtremist

It's easy for someone to believe that discrimination doesn't exist when neither they nor anyone they know have ever experienced it. When someone is ignorant in that way, is it worth pointing out when they themselves discriminate? Or does the sentiment "never wise up a chump" apply here as well?

It amazes me that people in the modern age can believe discrimination doesn't exist even though there are mountains of evidence pointing to it.

There was the name aspect brought up earlier for job preference. There is an unimaginable bias in justice. African Americans get busted at a higher rate than whites for drug use and drug selling even though statistically they are near equal in use rates and whites are more likely to sell drugs 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/. They get hit with more severe sentences even when charged with the exact same crime. http://newsone.com/1859475/black-people-receive-60-longer-sentences-for-same-crimes/ .

Those are cases of obvious systematic bias in the system itself. Along with that there are mountains of research about how people of color are treated differently than whites and face significantly more issues do to that. For instance whites make up 63% of the population, but make up 70% of arrest for shoplifting and yet it is people of color that are normally watched by the store, suggesting that the 70% statistic is probably understated. Blacks have more difficulty selling items on craigslist then white peers http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/05/30/3443205/black-online-sellers/ . I mean you have to be supremely willfully ignorant to claim racism isn't still a major problem.

Quote: Twirdman

It amazes me that people in the modern age can believe discrimination doesn't exist even though there are mountains of evidence pointing to it. ... I mean you have to be supremely willfully ignorant to claim racism isn't still a major problem.

But there are just as many mountains of evidence pointing to many people being supremely willfully ignorant. It's hard to see how to address problems like discrimination when it rests on a foundation of willful ignorance. There are a lot of societal problems that rest on a foundation of willful ignorance. Climate change is another obvious one, but so is monetary policy. Let's go back to the gold standard, it makes intuitive sense, right? It makes exactly as much intuitive sense as thinking that the Martingale is a winning casino system. Most people's intuition is wrong about most advanced topics, regardless of what those topics are. It takes work to learn how to evaluate complex systems like probability theory, the economy, the climate, or racial demographics and sociology. We're not born knowing how to think about such things.

Quote: MathExtremist

But there are just as many mountains of evidence pointing to many people being supremely willfully ignorant. It's hard to see how to address problems like discrimination when it rests on a foundation of willful ignorance. There are a lot of societal problems that rest on a foundation of willful ignorance. Climate change is another obvious one, but so is monetary policy. Let's go back to the gold standard, it makes intuitive sense, right? It makes exactly as much intuitive sense as thinking that the Martingale is a winning casino system. Most people's intuition is wrong about most advanced topics, regardless of what those topics are. It takes work to learn how to evaluate complex systems like probability theory, the economy, the climate, or racial demographics and sociology. We're not born knowing how to think about such things.

Yeah I know. I guess it isn't so much amazing or surprising as unbearably disappointing. We have entered an era where people literally have basically all the information they could ever want at their fingertips and yet they choose to remain in the dark.

Quote: MathExtremist

What is it about Trump that enables him to skate by while spewing rhetoric that would sink any other candidate on either side of the aisle? Can you imagine anyone, from any party, not committing political suicide by saying that "you have to treat [women] like shit"? How can that possibly be acceptable discourse for someone running for President of the United States?

Here is maybe one reason (not that I support it, please separate the message from the messenger): The issue for a lot of Americans is that based on what has gone on in the White House over the last 24 years, a lot of the "luster" has come off of the office off POTUS (and Congressmen/women & Senators for that matter). I believe there are a lot of Americans, who will vote this November, that think the establishment on both sides of the aisle are all a bunch of snakes out for their own political and monetary gain that comes along with their elected offices. As far as the average American can tell, they don't care about "us" or "our country" rather they care about getting re-elected and grabbing what they can for themselves (e.g. speaking fees, book writing fees, etc.).

So when they look at Trump and see all the negative stuff that he has said and proposed, etc., a lot of average Americans are going to give the proverbial FU to the established political leadership on both sides of the aisle, because to them, it doesn't really impact their lives (remember, they are all so stupid anyway right :-)...and this attitude is going to carry over to November....it is the reason Hillary can't shake Bernie as readily as you would think given his extreme left views...she represents Democratic establishment and many of the Dems don't feel like they got what they thought they would get in Obama, let alone will get what they want in a more "establishment leader" like Hillary.

Many, despite the outrage, may need to get comfortable with the fact that Trump has a legitimate shot at being the next POTUS. How can that be based on all that he has said in the past, during the campaign, etc.? Because that is how outraged a lot of Americans are with what has been going on leaving the "politicians" in charge, that say all the right things so as not to commit political suicide, but have accomplished very little to change their lives for the better. Couple that with the fact that I think a good portion of the Dems will become disenchanted when Bernie is given the proverbial boot and I think you have the makings of a heavy Republican/Right leaning turn out in November and less of a turnout on the Dems side...I think Trump is going to win this thing due to a perfect storm of events this election cycle.

Am I scared...not really (I am not really "scared" about Hillary winning either). Trump isn't going to be able to get much of his "Make America Great Again" platform done anyway. This is the sad state of our Country.....AMS is right about one thing, it is all really irrelevant, but the "it" isn't Trump winning. The "it" is the fact that whoever is the next POTUS is will have very little impact on the average Americans life or the direction of the Country. The system is totally corrupt and broken...so meh, who cares?

People are freaking out about a possible Trump presidency, but you know what? To me that just means the system is working perfectly.

What are the quals to be president? American citizen 35 years old? That's it, right? There are literally no other qualifications to be president, right? The fact that someone like Trump is so close to being president is almost refreshing. I kind of like living in a country where as citizens we can just say, "F*** it... let's give this random guy a shot. If we don't like it we'll pick someone else in four years." There are plenty of checks and balances in place. It's not like we're electing a dictator to a life term or anything.

That's a good explanation.

Another part of the appeal of a guy like Trump is, people believe that he will do what he believes is right. That might often be wrong. They might often disagree. But it means there's a chance he will do the right thing.

When someone is not even TRYING to do the right thing, (Hillary,) there is no chance that they will do the right thing, except when doing so coincides with their own interests.

Iraq is a good example. If someone is willing to start a war, knowing perfectly well that the justifications are bogus, then her criteria for starting wars/deploying the military have nothing to do with if the war is just or in the interest of the people. It's at least conceivable that Trump would refuse to start a war because he thought it was wrong and/or against the interests of the people. We know that such considerations are not a factor for Crooked Hillary.

The flipside, raised by Michael, is that Trump might actually be as big a fool as he represents himself to be. So doing what he believes is right, might be even worse than following the dictates of a corrupt elite that at least desires some level of stability.

I care.
At least I want to care, though I prolly haven't done enough to show I care. To mean I care.
The 'majority' of the voting public seems to be a bit 'pissed', both left and right...
So I assumed we'd get a republican elected POTUS, (Clinton had the Dem nomination locked from the get-go).
No huge surprise there.
Not that changing the party in the White House would significantly change the 'direction' of the country.
That's what we do, we get pissed and make a change, though alot of things don't really change...
Like us staying pissed.

For better or worse, for richer or poorer, till death do us part, I do believe Trump is going to be elected POTUS.
He 'might' be able to shake things up for the good, no chance Hillary would.
How in the hell did we find ourselves in this spot?

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

How in the hell did we find ourselves in this spot?

Because politically speaking, our country was stagnating.

Quote: Twirdman

Blacks have more difficulty selling items on craigslist then white peers http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/05/30/3443205/black-online-sellers/ . I mean you have to be supremely willfully ignorant to claim racism isn't still a major problem.

How on earth would I know someone selling in craigslist is black?

Quote: AZDuffman

How on earth would I know someone selling in craigslist is black?

Fresh watermelon and fried chicken listed? Maybe if they had a weird name you'd never run into before, like AZDuffman?

<edit> I thought I deleted the first part of that before I added the second. Oooppsiee ;-)

Quote: AZDuffman

How on earth would I know someone selling in craigslist is black?

Well, if you were smart enough to click the link, the answer would have been obvious. But we all know about your opposition to learning anything. Still, questioning something when you haven't even bothered to click about it is pretty pathetic.

Your question is akin to your climate change denial. You don't understand how something could be the case (because of your limited knowledge), therefore you conclude that it can't be the case.

Quote: MathExtremist

It's easy for someone to believe that discrimination doesn't exist when neither they nor anyone they know have ever experienced it. When someone is ignorant in that way, is it worth pointing out when they themselves discriminate? Or does the sentiment "never wise up a chump" apply here as well?

I don't think there's much harm in trying, but have you ever tried to debate a Jehovah's witness? I guess in this case, it's more like a non-witness.

Gambling example. Can't tell you how many times, I have listened to someone's 20 minute torrent of pure nonsense about some sports plays. I like the person, so I want to help them. They know me, know I don't work. I try to hold their attention for 30 seconds to convey a basic point, such as the importance of getting the best line. This very rarely has any effect. It's more satisfying for them to believe that they can win on "Brady's going to be extra motivated this year."

This is obviously a much more complicated issue than sports betting. Once someone has decided it is all the fault of black people, who have decided that they want bad life outcomes (or all the fault of evil, evil whites) they're usually not willing to listen to anything else.

But, this is a pretty good essay by a guy who was willing to listen and observe.

I always imagined that I was full of heart, but it turned out that I was oblivious. Like so many Republicans, I had assumed that society’s “losers” had somehow earned their desserts. As I came to recognize that poverty is not earned or chosen or deserved, and that our use of force is far less precise than I had believed, I realized with a shock that I had effectively viewed whole swaths of the country and the world as second-class people.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175590/tomgram%3A_jeremiah_goulka,_confessions_of_a_former_republican

Quote: MrGoldenSun

You keep missing the point. Who do you think was attending the University of Mississippi in 1960? The legacies are NOT going to be minorities at the same rate in part because of this institutationalized racism.

Well, the answer is again simple. The first generation of minorities needs to hustle and get into the "good" schools, Then their kids can get a legacy preference. IOW, they can WORK for it same as the white parents did.

Quote:

However, you are insistent that any claim of bias anywhere is "crying."

It is crying. White males actually have to work harder the last 50 years since the government has pushed everyone else except them for promotion. 50 years ago the workforce was pretty much all white males, It was not "special treatment" but demographics. I've seen good blacks in high places. I've seen bad blacks who cannot succeed. Guess which group spends their time crying?

Quote:

My answer would have been something like "institutions and people should be more conscious of this problem, identify ways to remediate it, and work to be aware of and thereby reduce our inherent bias."

Your response is "change your name" and telling people they need to get slapped. In other words, nothing about the problem itself, just blame the victims. Why not consider the possibility of addressing the discrimination itself at its root?

Two reasons. One, because the race industry will never be satisfied. During the Rodney King trial they made a fuss because a witness said a voice "sounded black." Years later they say there is discrimination against people with voices that "sound black." You cannot satisfy them. So why try,

The second reason is simple pragmatism. Did Dean Martin cry that there was discrimination against Italian performers and demand a remedy? No. Why? Because even if there was a remedy he would have been dead by the time it happened. And the "remedy" you can be sure would be a quota system of one sort or another. If that happened, there would be people smart enough to go by a black-sounding name to take advantage!

Quote:

Even given that you are ready to dismiss anything things lots of people say about their experiences, there is tons of proof via academic studies, but you are simply determined to ignore all of that. You are being actively, aggressively blind about this topic, which is a nice luxury you have that a lot of people don't.

If a person claims they will never get ahead because of discrimination they will always be correct. Simple as that,

Quote: AZDuffman

How on earth would I know someone selling in craigslist is black?

The link that you quoted? Click on it.

I clicked. Somebody owes me 10 minutes.

Quote: AZDuffman

How on earth would I know someone selling in craigslist is black?

I love how I posted multiple articles talking about multiple types of discrimination and all you did was choose what you figured would be the simplest to dismiss and said "nuh uh" without even reading the article I so graciously supplied. Now of course you are claiming that since you didn't bother to read the article about how the discrimination worked and thus you think the discrimination doesn't happen you will be able to say discrimination doesn't exist and we as a society don't need to attempt to do anything.

It must be nice living in a world where discrimination will never effect you and hence you can simply cavalierly claim it doesn't exist.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Well, if you were smart enough to click the link, the answer would have been obvious. But we all know about your opposition to learning anything. Still, questioning something when you haven't even bothered to click about it is pretty pathetic.

Your question is akin to your climate change denial. You don't understand how something could be the case (because of your limited knowledge), therefore you conclude that it can't be the case.

I quoted that.
Because I wanted to.
Not nice.

<edit> I once said to another member , "that is a pretty lame response, even for you".
But that was awhile back. Maybe the 'times they are a changing'. -Bobby D.

Did any of the really super extra brilliant people who know more than all consider that someone may have read the evidence available and decided that the climate change issue was not quite the immediate concern that everyone tried to say that it was? I have talked with actual scientists, in person, that do not believe things are anywhere nearly as dire as some would say they are.

Do any of those learned people understand that quite possibly we will do all we can here to stop pollution and climate change, perhaps even wreck our economy, while the Chinese laugh at us and our new-found poverty? That maybe a more universal approach than just trying to do it alone is required?

What do I think? I think we need to be careful and reduce pollution without destroying the economy. I think we need to apply economic pressure to China and other indifferent polluters or all efforts on our part will but a drop in the bucket. Simply put, they can pollute faster than we can reduce pollution. I think climate change was way oversold as something that would destroy the earth in mere years and a few people made a lot of money on it...instead of presenting good science, helping us move towards change, and being reasonable.

I think people like Al Gore and that actor dude who tell us all to reduce pollution and then fly around in private jets between their 18 houses don't help the average man or woman see why they should change how they behave. It is simple--it is a bad visual to leave a speech telling everyone to stop polluting and then jump on a private jet.

There isn't a simple answer and saying that people that don't agree with you must have limited knowledge is condescending and insulting.

One of these days I'm just gonna change my sig to "What RonC just said". I'll never have to type again.

Quote: MathExtremist

The link that you quoted? Click on it.

Meh. Never bought something with someone's picture with the item.

Quote: RonC

Did any of the really super extra brilliant people who know more than all consider that someone may have read the evidence available and decided that the climate change issue was not quite the immediate concern that everyone tried to say that it was? I have talked with actual scientists, in person, that do not believe things are anywhere nearly as dire as some would say they are.

Do any of those learned people understand that quite possibly we will do all we can here to stop pollution and climate change, perhaps even wreck our economy, while the Chinese laugh at us and our new-found poverty? That maybe a more universal approach than just trying to do it alone is required?

What do I think? I think we need to be careful and reduce pollution without destroying the economy. I think we need to apply economic pressure to China and other indifferent polluters or all efforts on our part will but a drop in the bucket. Simply put, they can pollute faster than we can reduce pollution. I think climate change was way oversold as something that would destroy the earth in mere years and a few people made a lot of money on it...instead of presenting good science, helping us move towards change, and being reasonable.

I think people like Al Gore and that actor dude who tell us all to reduce pollution and then fly around in private jets between their 18 houses don't help the average man or woman see why they should change how they behave. It is simple--it is a bad visual to leave a speech telling everyone to stop polluting and then jump on a private jet.

There isn't a simple answer and saying that people that don't agree with you must have limited knowledge is condescending and insulting.

But China is reducing emissions and has pledged to continue to try and further reduce emissions. In fact most countries around the world have pledge to reduce emissions and are diligently working towards reducing emissions. You are right that the US should not be acting alone to reduce green house gases, but we are not acting alone towards reducing green house gas emissions. http://climateactiontracker.org/countries.html

Quote: AZDuffman

White males actually have to work harder the last 50 years since the government has pushed everyone else except them for promotion. 50 years ago the workforce was pretty much all white males, It was not "special treatment" but demographics.

I give up. You're right. There was NO discrimination in America in the 1960s. It had ended by then. Everything was a meritocracy, just like now. Evidence doesn't matter, facts don't matter. Everything is fine. Nothing else to be done.

I've done my best here, but you are a lost cause. Thank goodness that attitudes like yours are increasingly rare.

Quote: RonC

Did any of the really super extra brilliant people who know more than all consider that someone may have read the evidence available and decided that the climate change issue was not quite the immediate concern that everyone tried to say that it was? I have talked with actual scientists, in person, that do not believe things are anywhere nearly as dire as some would say they are.

It seems to me that the scientific consensus is pretty strong on this. So, no, I actually don't care if you personally have talked to scientists, and I don't care much that you personally have come to a different conclusion. I don't mean that to be insulting, but personal anecdotes should hold very little weight on this topic.

The way I see it is that the preponderance of evidence says climate change is both real and problematic. If you have different info on this, I am legitimately open to it.