I think it's the belief that there're distinct groups that think differently that often drives this kind apathy towards the poor.

You'll find people who're callous towards the weak in every corner of the world and I would guess each one of them has some kind of pseudo scientific claim to their aristocratic roots.

That is pretty ****ed up. Catherine Pugh campaigned on $15/hr and now vetoes it.

Fear of Diversity Made People More Likely to Vote Trump
https://www.thenation.com/article/fe...to-vote-trump/

That is messed up. Sounds like they have a real life Carcetti on their hands.

She's such a little finger.

I had to write a response to the Baltimore Mayor veto-ing the minimum wage increase. I do feel it's a devastating moment and one we need to pay attention to:

Pugh vetoes bill that would raise Baltimore minimum wage
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/mar...324-story.html

This is the road to feudalism. Cannot raise the minimum wage to a livable wage "because it would cost jobs." But it's an unending cycle. Once you've planted your flag that the QUALITY of the jobs is unimportant, you're in a race to the bottom. People need jobs, yes, but they need GOOD jobs. People work hard and are incredibly productive. They deserve to make a living wage. Studies show that a living wage reduces employee turnover, decreases poverty, and does not reduce overall profits in many cases. People are always only looking at one side of the equation--the corporations. There is a price to these sub-living wage jobs. Poverty, crime, homelessness, drug addiction, incarceration. These are all accelerated by sub-living wage jobs.

Many of the victims of this cycle work 3 jobs, 60+ hours each week, trying to make it work. They are told over and over by society that they are lazy,they are leeches,they need to get off their ass and be productive.They are mocked when they buy food for their kids with SNAP. This abuse leads people to drug addiction, suicide, or to just giving up. Noone can make it work on $7.25/hr. The lucky ones get an education or some sort of training which cost resources.

You don't learn valuable skills working most MW jobs. It's the opposite of an unpaid internship. In the unpaid internship, at least you have a future.WIth a MW job, you must work hard for the hope of a living wage. That living wage raise or promotion which often never comes. MW jobs have a very high rate of turnover due to many factors including stress. Oh yeah the devastating kicker:this Mayor ran her campaign on raising the minimum wage to $15/hour.The corporate pressure machine is strong.

Einbert, you probably don't know this because you never read threads you just post links and tweets but there is a whole other thread about MW. I think this post belongs there.

I imagine those aristocrats would consider me callous to the "strong" lol.

The tendencies of an empathy/ethics deficiency to give one a big advantage are well known. It's the centerpiece of most story plots and morality tales. By contrast, poor people are often portrayed as good people, salt of the earth etc. These are both major themes of Christianity as well: "The meek shall inherit the earth.", "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

Still, you have a point. And that's why I always qualify my statements about republicans/exploitative elites and their behavioral genetics. Let real science decide it. I'm sure a lot of people who are heavy into politics would be quite surprised with some recent research into the genetic predisposition towards a particular political orientation or towards levels of empathy. A study involving test subjects playing poker was particularly interesting. It seems as though republicans have a very different reaction to certain fear inducing stimuli than democrats. They are much more fearful than self-identifying democrats according to real time brain scans. Anyone who has read wil here can tell you that, but it's nice to have what is obvious supported by formal research.

No, his post is very relevant to this thread. Democrats doing things like that is absolutely why Trump is president right now. And if it doesn't stop then we could have 8 years of him instead of four.

Here we go...

Trump: US will 'solve' N Korea alone

BBC link


"If China is not going to solve North Korea, we will. That is all I am telling you," he said in an interview with UK paper the Financial Times.

Pressed on whether he thought he could succeed alone, he replied: "Totally."

Mr Trump was speaking ahead of a scheduled visit from Chinese President Xi Jinping this week.

"China has great influence over North Korea. And China will either decide to help us with North Korea, or they won't. And if they do that will be very good for China, and if they don't it won't be good for anyone," Mr Trump told the FT.

Asked if he meant "one-on-one" unilateral action, Mr Trump said: "I don't have to say any more. Totally."

He did not give any further details on what action he would take.

If you voted for Trump this is your fault.

So much bad stuff from trump that things struggle to stand out but is this N Korea thing as different league appalling scary as it seems? Are there any checks and balances on trump when it comes to dealing with N Korea?

I'm hoping that this is him blustering to try to get China to do something. Which they might do but it's a hell of a dangerous game being played with some mad actors.

Who knows what NK does in response to Trump's threat, but Trump could absolutely nuke NK and kill virtually every North Korean and probably many people in the area any time he feels like it.

I believe what NK could do (hypothetically) is nuke Seoul in response. Now they are gonna claim they have the capabilities to nuke the U.S. but I think that is very much in question. Still, it's a possibility.

What NK is gonna do is bluff that they have strategically placed submarines loaded up with nuclear weapons all through the pacific and possibly other strategic locations as well. Those subs are difficult to detect even for the U.S. and that's what they would use to nuke the U.S. if they were to ever do so. Still, much more likely for them to get an effective strike on Seoul than the U.S.

Here's why:


The metro area of Seoul alone has 25,600,000 people living there. The strike could be devastating on levels we haven't seen in decades.

If we did a first strike on NK they probably couldn't nuke SK. They're probably under 50% to be able to nuke Seoul even if they did the first strike. The .1% chance that they could nuke California is too much for me, but Trump in Washington D.C. or Florida might not care about any of these places that much. I'm only about 9 miles from a Trump golf course though so I guess he probably does care somewhat.

Well at least we have a reasonable diplomatic grown-up in charge and not an insane orange toddler.

The scary thing is that the orange toddler can almost certainly find someone in the pentagon (or Steve Bannon) to tell him that we have to first strike NK while we still can. (there are 25 million North Koreans)

Trump has repeatedly mentioned his love for MacArthur who wanted to nuke NK and China.

If Fox and Friends told him to first strike NK, he would do it.

The BBC news just had a very short piece on Trump vs N Korea. There were four options

1) Do nothing and N Korea will develop the capability to hit the USA (and Europe). This capability is expected within the next few years.

2) Sanctions - this requires China and may not work anyway.

3) Direct engagement between trump and N.Korea. The interviewee didn't laugh at the idea of this while dismissing it but probably wanted to.

4) Military. Apparently it's well understood that the USA could not take out all sites before N.Korea could launch against countries such as S. Korea

<gulp>

That's even ignoring that N.Korea might react to a trump tweet by going first.

Also, don't the USA have a ton of troops in the strike zone if N.Korea hit S.Korea. Then wont trump have to try to withdraw them first.

and the orange toddler is facing someone who is bat**** crazy and may well wield absolute power. Are there any saner people underneath him who could help resolve this sensibly?

4 is wrong. NK has like 8 nuclear weapons. Maybe half of them work and maybe half of the missiles work. And there's a missile defense system in SK which might be enough to satisfy Trump.

The military makes plans. We have plans to do things like invade Canada. I guarantee we have extensive plans involving the immediate movement of troops, bombers, subs, missile defense systems, special forces and everything you can think of for a first strike on NK. And if our troops were exposed to some fallout, it wouldn't be the first time.

It's not just the number of weapons, the number of possible sites matters as well - do they know where the bombs are?

But if you're right (or trump believes you are right) it sounds like we're pretty much relying on China (or some 'magical' change in N Korea) to stop mass slaughter.

Or am I wrong in thinking that not only trump, but a large %age of Americans will think that allowing N Korea to develop the capability to hit them is far worse than taking N Korea out?

If Trump tells them that we had to nuke NK before they nuked us I guess 25-35% of people will just agree. Probably more. People fall in line at such times. It'll be unpatriotic not to. You'll be accusing American soldiers of heinous acts if you don't agree that it was necessary. So maybe most people fall in line. Basically either that or the administration would have to fall. There's no way to respectfully disagree on that one.

As far as where there missiles are? We would just nuke all possibilities. We have a lot of nukes to spare.

NK has enough conventional artillery to flatten Seoul.