Yes, nationalism, not racism. Nothing to do with skin color. In fact that was a mainstream right and left opinion including Clinton, Schumer etc just a decade ago before the crazy left got more power.
Sure. It's probably north of 5% and less than 20%.

I don't think anyone is bigoted toward Muslims outside of some stupid people. I do think people are rightly deeply concerned about Muslim ideology though, which involves the repressive subjugation of women, religiously codified xenophobia toward outsiders, violence toward outsiders, the murder of people who leave the religion, the murder of people who criticize the religion, the murder and oppression of gays, etc, all as mainstream, >50% views in many countries. They're very similar to the far fringe scary right ideologies minus racism and plus mysogyny/death for heresy and homosexuality as a mainstream majority in many of those countries.

One of the left's great mistakes which is driving people right is to a) apologize and lie for a religion whose mainstream interpretation as recorded by reliable surveys and observable practice/legal frameworks is as horrible as the far right (except it's mainstream rather than isolated fringe) and b) calling those who rightly worry about it racist.

Anyway, before the discussion was economic but now it's pure politics so I'll bow out.

Id say more then that dont want America to become less then 51% white. And much more for people who dont want Muslims here.

There is no lie in saying Islam in the US is not an existential threat. They are a small minority who are more liberal then evangelicals on a lot of issues and the longer they are here the more liberal they get. Barring them is religious bigotry and one based on unfounded fear.

Comey, a republican, comes out with the Hillary email info days before the election, essentially handing the election to Trump, going against the FBI tradition of not interfering in elections, all while they were investigating Trump for possibly being compromised and more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Scared bootlicking toothsayer spewing more bigoted lies and hatred in a list of made up facts.

he has a grandfatherly, alpha male vibe that makes people feel safe and in good hands

yeah, racist grandpa




www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/22/trumps-rhetoric-does-inspire-more-hate-crimes/

Counties that hosted a 2016 Trump rally saw a 226 percent increase in hate crimes

There is suggestive evidence that Trump’s rhetoric matters.

Using the Anti-Defamation League’s Hate, Extremism, Anti-Semitism, Terrorism map data (HEAT map), we examined whether there was a correlation between the counties that hosted one of Trump’s 275 presidential campaign rallies in 2016 and increased incidents of hate crimes in subsequent months.

To test this, we aggregated hate-crime incident data and Trump rally data to the county level and then used statistical tools to estimate a rally’s impact. We included controls for factors such as the county’s crime rates, its number of active hate groups, its minority populations, its percentage with college educations, its location in the country and the month when the rallies occurred.

We found that counties that had hosted a 2016 Trump campaign rally saw a 226 percent increase in reported hate crimes over comparable counties that did not host such a rally.

I was hoping something would be done about this tasteless post, but Mr. Malmuth's rules are different for places where toothsayer can post. I suppose it was just an analogy and not to be taking as uncivil, so instead I'll just fix the post.

original

Nope not happening. Dems need to take the Senate and nuke the filibuster completely.

Nope no this either. Again, Dems need to take the Senate and nuke the filibuster completely.

Nah. Even any effort at doing this would take years to make its way through the courts.


Not happening either. Dems need to take the Senate and nuke the filibuster completely.

Dems need to take the Senate and nuke the filibuster completely.

Dems need to take the Senate and nuke the filibuster completely.

Unclear what the point is.

Possible to at least some degre

Dems need to take the Senate and nuke the filibuster completely.

If you are going to sell, sell now actually FWIW. Why wait?

If you think tooth operates on fear in his political life, YOU SHOULD SEE HIS TRADING! Guy trades 1 lot otm spy weeklies like its his life savings.

Has he posted a daily stormer article yet?

I'm reporting that post. It's disgusting and very bigoted. You have to be careful when triggering these racists. They can turn vicious when their lil' feelings get hurt.

When any welfare policy that would improve the lives of the poor be it a UBI, welfare policy, etc is proposed right wing economists are very explicit that all welfare policies that remove the requirement to work hender not only the ability of capitalists to force their workers to work at wages the capitalists want, but that it's a detriment to the moral well being of the poor.

But if you think working is important for one's moral well being in then forcing the most productive to work seems like you'd get more utility out of it.

In any case we've seen that rents, dividends, etc come from no working, but currently those benifits mostly accrue to a small portion of the population. We could let the state buy up more of those assets to distribute that benifit to more people.

Lol, bro he is just parroting stuff he read in 12 rules for life.

Thinks the poors are immoral because they don't work. THIS IS TRUMP'S AMERICA PEOPLE! It's disgusting. It shocks the conscience.

Right. I wanted more responses and wanted to hear what people had to say about it, but it seems posters here would rather ignore it than admit it. My question was posted quoting Juan Valdez because he himself seems to be stating the obvious.

It's a fundamental disagreement about lines drawn in the sand. What I want to know from posters like ToothSayer and Juan Valdez is, knowing we can do better and given their distinct views on things, how do we get there?

That quote reminds me of a post I made on Facebook two months ago. It was a broader point even though it was in response to this FB post:

We seem to praise technology that raises the standard of living for all human beings while at the same time technology has created environments where birth in the wrong place and time might as well be a death sentence compared to the fortunate. Why argue for 100% equities vs 70/30 stock/bond when the latter is believed to be a healthier balance for roughly the same return risk adjusted?

"Equity" was brought in to the discussion because the democrats are introducing the language and concept more and more. I never said or to my knowledge even implied anything that could reasonably be interpreted as "raising tax revenue a brand of equity ideology".

It's now apart of googles ideology. If you didn't follow, they publicly fired James Damore for citing mainstream social science demonstrating that men are in fact different than women when an internal memo got leaked to the public. Citing science here and losing is absolutely terrifying. A robot from the 80's has the social skills to understand that there are clear differences between men and women at the group level. FYI that ideology is perpetuated here by politics mods.

Here is some training material from google. Take a look at equity and whiteness.

"diversity training" as of Feb 2018, Allyship 101
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2SuWqqXgAIW-yb.jpg

This is the most powerful company in the history of the world. They control and distribute an incomprehensible amount of information. From the democrats, google, and universities, this is clearly not fringe. Its real and it's serious. Equity ideology implemented in political systems has a perfect track record of economic collapse and genocide. These aren't mixed or insignificant results

It's also interesting to note how the far left and right mirror each other. They both place group identity ahead of the individual. Check out alt-right on netflix. the right wing antisemitism is full of jew hating conspiracies. They run the banks and hoard the gold etc. Listen to the left talk about white privilege or the patriarchy. It's the same identity based conspiracy theories. They are race obsessed. Just look no further than this thread. Zero content posters steering the conversation towards race for no logical reason. Both hitler and richard spencer are in favor of socialism. Extremism starts to mirror each other on the left and right. the political spectrum doesn't put the far left and right further from each other, its more like a horseshoe where they become more similar. It's no coincidence to see their definitions of equity be accompanied by racist white privilege ideology. Extremism gonna extremism.

Equity ideology isn't even remotely close to liberal ideology. It's important to distinguish the difference and understand why. Mainstream views in the democratic party and society are moving in that direction. If people want to raise taxes on the rich, there's a discussion to be had about the effectiveness and consequences but I was specifically dealing with the issue of the democrats adopting equity ideology and language and it becoming more mainstream.

My "little" air conditioner example was actually normal sized. It's also applicable to just about everything. Just about everything has got better for everyone. If it takes multiple attempts to land that point then you're probably too focused on a negatively warped view of the world. We all get that things have fallen short of a hypothetical utopia

Why does it sound like a "tallest midget" argument to you? Are you basing the benchmark on a hypothetical utopia? A disney movie? Where is this coming from. We continue to make giant leaps forward decade after decade. Long before governments and politics there was terribly worse suffering and life was insanely tragic and difficult. Obviously things could be better. Hopefully things continue on this trajectory. What is your hope or expectation? Do you think someone should write a book of political ideology and social policy that will achieve some sort of global excellence during a presidential term? What exactly are you pointing at other than the fact there's plenty of things that can be improved upon?

When people advocate social policy changes and criticize capitalism they aren't really considering consequences. Yes capitalism hasn't achieved anything close to perfection. What it has shown us is that it has lifted the quality of life at an extraordinary rate. When people try socialism it moves in the opposite direction with catastrophic consequences. There's a very noticeable bitter tone about poverty etc as if it was just created or forced upon people. It's actually our entire history and for a very short amount of time a portion of the population has risen above it. There seems to be a delusional perception here

You’re implying pure socialism, and again, that not what these critics of our current system are advocating for. Why is this so hard for people?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They’re telling you we’re getting there. So either you don’t believe them or you think we can get there sooner?

With the U.S. if things just continue on, the literal socioeconomic caboose should hit the figurative Promise Land in 40-50 years; RoW 100 years or so. What they et al are saying is let’s not shoot ourselves in the productivity-foot because doing so will only prolong the trip at best or get the trip canceled at worst.

It’s enlightened self-interest. But it cuts both ways. Sure the rich could better appreciate those who the acquirement of wealth depends, but the poor (or their advocates) need to better appreciate that their rising income is ultimately the byproduct of that wealth. In other words, the rich need to better understand that it’s in their self- interest (to become even more wealthy) by increasing the productivity and income of the poor, and the poor need to better understand that it’s in their best interest (higher standard of living) for the wealthy to become even more wealthy. Obviously that’s directly opposed to approaches predicated on reducing income/wealth inequality, but it’s the “best” we can (and should) do, imo.

Oh I know. It's mostly just practice.

That does seem to break the rules of civil discourse with a little fun.

I collect a lot of rents and it requires a hell of a lot of work. The dividends I collect don't require work, but getting the money to buy the stocks that get me the dividends sure did. I must be doing it wrong.

A new home emerges for the exiles and disenchanted.


WELCOME TO THE BEST POLITICS THREAD ON 2+2

"banned from politard" is probably neutral to good as far as merit badges go...

how about the "bigoted racist and misogynistic trolling" merit badge? because he's earned that one

I've never seen it first hand. In fact, everything I've seen you insist was racist, bigoted, or misogynistic over the past 2 years has been markedly free of said charges. Those are the trademark insults you throw around instead of idiot, or ******, or cuck.

I don't agree with the extremist right politics either

I think Max Cut is referencing his adherence to Social Darwinism

i despise hilary (and trump), but i'm surprised this isn't mentioned more. trump would not have won the election if not for that FBI action. i think that's undeniable. but of course, it's not undeniable that the sun will come up tomorrow.

peggy noonan in wsj had interesting take. she says swing voters might not be as comfortable voting D president if the house/senate will both be D (2020). she seems to think that people see the president/house/senate being split politically is the preference of voters. not sure that isn't overthinking.