https://finance.yahoo.com/video/char...191921063.html

Karen Hunter and other commentators have also said similar things.

Surely most of you will agree that this advice coming from successful media people has two problems.

1.People who are struggling should not be reprimanded for deciding that a significant uptick in their economic situation is less important than a vague sense of being looked down upon more than in the past. At least not by people who can much more easily afford to pass up that uptick. The internet says the guy I quoted has a net worth of ten million. The concept is reasonable but should be debated among those to whom the decision is of greater consequence.

2. Those who are trying to make this point are implying that there is a good possibility that you will do economically worse under a different president. That has a good chance of doing more harm than good. Simplistically speaking would not many people possibly say to themselves something like "I'm not worried about becoming a slave but I do like the idea of becoming richer. Perhaps I should reevaluate who I vote for."

he did say youd be better off pocket wise but worse with your freedom/liberty interesting..

If trump will set us back on civil liberties, which I hope is no the case, how far back adn how will he? does this stem from his immigration policy and beyond or what?

I say in his 3.5 years, I dont think hes set us into a spiral or unraveling that signals alarm bells.

I think when you hear candidates saying we should seize every busstop or airport..thats a bigger concern since trump or nobody in his admin has said anything that woudl seem theyd push back on any fredom

im not a person of color so i can only say so much btw since I woulnt know how truth and how big it would affect me

"Why do we only hear about this every four years?"

Well, Michelle, that'd be because the dems want your votes but don't actually give a flying **** about improving your lives.

Many of the worst places to be a black American in this country have been run by democrats for many decades. It was only a matter of time before some woke up and said, "Wait, why are we doing this?"

Which Republican controlled areas are black utopias? Also, lol @ the notion that Democrats in control at the municipal level is equivalent to total Democratic control.

Black concentrated areas tend to be democratic and poor by default, to say that voting democrat has cause this is correlation without causation which is a logical fallacy. Conservatives love to say this as they drive into the City awash with imported CIA drugs.

Atlanta Georgia, while a hot slow mess, is not seen a bad place to live for black americans

If your name was Inso0, this would be a great way to eat a ban.

I'm not going to sit here and blame democrats for the creation of the average urban hellhole in the USA. I can absolutely call out their callous disregard for those who currently live in them.

Your bleeding heart regard for these people is to just shame them for imagined personal failings and to vote for people who oppose civil rights.

In what sense do they have a callous disregard? Do you expect politicians to be able to just magically make the problems disappear? You can call out "their" callous disregard but you probably should be a bit more specific.

How can someone who calls himself Charlamane tha God ever be wrong?

Speaking for my local hellhole, I can point to things like making school choice as difficult as possible to participate in or expand on, even though the local public system is an unmitigated disaster. Cutting the police force and outright cancelling new classes at the academy under the claim of lack of funding, even though the local dems are spending ungodly sums of money on things like a downtown trolley that nobody wanted and subsequently hardly anyone rides, even though it's "free" to do so. Providing a revolving-door justice system so when criminals are caught and found guilty, they're maybe given some probation or supervision and sent right back out on the streets to run down and kill more children on their revoked license in an unregistered, uninsured vehicle.

I don't expect much from my local government, but providing access to a decent education and ensuring public safety are two of the basic items. Milwaukee democratic leaders give approximately zero ****s about anyone but themselves.

As an aside, the latest craze in Milwaukee seems to be driving like an absolute maniac on city streets. People have figured out that you will only get tickets and a revocation of your license. Well, if you have no intention to pay the tickets, and the only punishment for driving on a revoked license is more tickets, then who cares? We're up to half a dozen dead or maimed children in hit-and-run incidents over the past few weeks. Shame on them I guess for crossing the street with a light and not checking both ways for some asshat going 70 on a 35 limit city street and ignoring minor inconveniences like red lights. I drive through the inner city to and from work and witness it first hand on a daily basis. Gotta keep those "non-violent" criminals out of prison though, right? The guy linked above walked out scott-free on the double homicide and was cited again this month while Facetiming at 80mph, without a license or insurance, but thankfully before he killed anyone else. Any bets on whether or not he'll actually go to prison this time for violation of his probation?

The law-abiding citizens of Milwaukee shouldn't have to put up with this bullshit in their neighborhoods. Where you at, city leaders?

I don't think it is a matter of callous disregard. It is a matter of very bad ideas. All the people making policy decisions are all coming through progressive echo chamber universities with liberal art degrees (normally including masters and possibly PhD's), and have a fundamentally incorrect (and in many cases maladaptive) view of how humans work and what is good for them. Whatever you think of Juan Valdez, IMO there is some real truth to his observations that the average 8 year old has a better understanding of human psychology/nature than the average Democratic policy maker with a masters in public policy.

This actually touches on another point that this article touches on

https://quillette.com/2019/11/16/tho...status-update/

The basic concept idea is that a lot of behavior that progressives champion (or at least are sympathetic to) that are maladaptive, if you are wealthy you have the resources to overcome them and still function, but they are devastating if you are poor and don't have resources.

This includes such behavior as teenage promiscuity, having children out of wedlock, drug use, etc. Rich, white progressives that champion such behavior (or at the least don't moralize against it) can overcome it and live functional lives; but poor people cannot. It sets a lot of them on a destructive spiral they never can overcome. Hunter Biden can be a junkie who sleeps around with prostitutes and still come up on top. Most people that make such choices are going to end up at the bottom.

Whatever you think of religion, one thing that it can do well is set a pro-adaptive structure for poor people to live functional lives. And this is something progressivism utterly fails at for the lower classes.

I admit that I too have flippantly attributed disregard, or even malice, as a motive for progressive thought. And I think there is some truth there at the subconscious level (that subconsciously we still have our competitive drives and tend to support ideas that benefit us at the expense of others).

But at the conscious level I think it is more a problem of being completely married to bad ideas for ideological reasons, and not realizing just because the rich, white progressives can overcome these bad ideas and function other people without resources cannot.

I was making my post when Inso wrote his. They actually complement eachother IMO. He gives concrete examples of bad ideas that are maladaptive, that the people making the policy cannot (or won't) see the truth due to their ideological biases. Also, a lot of policy makers are living very comfortable lives themselves pushing their progressive policies, and if they admit how bad it is, they are in danger of losing what they have, so there is extra motivation to not accept reality.

If you are making $300K running a public school district, where you were hired because you promised all these good results using progressive techniques you learned whilst getting your PhD in Education in some elite Ivy League school; you are obviously very motivated to not accept reality when those ideas obviously just make things worse.

this is how you are characterizing the proposition that potential financial gains under Trump will come with diminished civil liberty?

progressives should stop pushing "abstinence only" education in the schools, imo

also they should never have declared a "war on drugs"

For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?

Progressives are FOR "abstinence only"?

He was being sarcastic.

But like I said, he is a rich white dude. Him and his kids can afford the costs of promiscuity as a teenager and drug experimentation. Those without such privilege can’t.

It isn’t an accident the sexual revolution coinciding with skyrocketing STD rates and children born out of wedlock, especially in the lower classes.

Teenage promiscuity and drug use is a luxury belief. Every culture that has every existed has recognized how destructive behaviors they are, and insituted cultural controls, they have worked with varying degrees of success.

Our liberal experiment promoting such behavior pretty much demonstrates how maladaptive they are for people they don’t have resources and support, as opposed to people that do.

dude, a couple hundred years ago we were marrying 14-year-old girls to 40-year old men while holding that "rape" was not a thing between spouses

plz

Uhh, abstinence-only sex ed has been repeatedly shown to result in greater rates of teenage pregnancies and STDs than proper education. It's not just increased rates of pregnancy or STDs that are are harmful results of conservative and abstinence-only sex ed; it also tends to also involve the perpetuation of harmful gender stereotypes that frequently leads to domestic abuse. Conservative style education might end up with fewer children born out of wedlock but it has a hell of a lot more people stuck in essentially forced and often abusive marriages.

The stuff about drugs is maybe somewhat defensible - although I don't agree that progressive actively promote drug use and think that conservative, prohibition style attitudes are more harmful than helpful - but the idea that progressive attitudes towards sex are "maladaptive" is entirely contrary to essentially every piece of research on the subject.

Is that worse for society than having generations of fatherless boys roaming the streets? Like I said, part of the problem may be that theoretically good ideas have bad unintended consequences, and there isn't a lot of honesty about what may be going on. Instead there is this reflexive impulse to circle the ideological weapons and double down.

Given there is conclusive research as to the positives these ideas have it would require more than some vague notion that unintended consequences might be worse than the proven positives for me to not think they were good ideas. For starters any evidence that the correlation you're claiming actually exists. A quick look over single parent statistics shows that there's no obvious relationship between the rate of single parent households and red/blue states. If anything it actually looks like there's a slight correlation in the opposite direction, with Louisiana, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, Georgia and Oklahoma making up 6 of the top 7 states for highest rate of households led by a single mother (the other state is New Mexico - https://www.statista.com/statistics/...e-us-by-state/).

Basically I think you're making assumptions about potential side-effects without actually having any proof that they exist at all, let alone that they outweigh the proven benefits.

I think people who use condoms when their partner has no BC should still pull out tbh dont they only have 88% rate? thast kinda low imo

maybe just do it even with bc idk