Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2020 US candidates
#1

2020 US candidates
The first Dem candidate to announce that they are running is Elisabeth Warren. She has launched a presidential exploratory committee. 

Please let's use this thread to gather all the folks who announce.


I don't know why the quality of her video is so bad. It gets better as it goes.


[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
The following 5 users Like Dom's post:
  • Mark, c172, Emma, Aroura, Kim
Reply
#2

2020 US candidates
*announcing

Carry on. Tongue
The following 1 user Likes Vosur's post:
  • Dom
Reply
#3

2020 US candidates
In mid-December, former Obama housing chief Julian Castro also announced a presidential exploratory committee, which legally allows potential candidates to begin raising money. Outgoing Maryland Rep. John Delaney is the only Democrat so far to have formally announced a presidential campaign.

CBC/Radio-Canada
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 2 users Like SYZ's post:
  • Dom, Emma
Reply
#4

2020 US candidates
(12-31-2018, 03:35 PM)SYZ Wrote: In mid-December, former Obama housing chief Julian Castro also announced a presidential exploratory committee, which legally allows potential candidates to begin raising money. Outgoing Maryland Rep. John Delaney is the only Democrat so far to have formally announced a presidential campaign.

CBC/Radio-Canada

Thanks, I missed that.


[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
The following 1 user Likes Dom's post:
  • SYZ
Reply
#5

2020 US candidates
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
The following 1 user Likes Dom's post:
  • SYZ
Reply
#6
Thumbs Down 
2020 US candidates
(12-31-2018, 03:58 PM)Dom Wrote:

He reminds me of this...
[Image: 1canfd.jpg]
The following 7 users Like unfogged's post:
  • RobbyPants, Smercury44, Vosur, Mark, Tres Leches, Aroura, Kim
Reply
#7

2020 US candidates
Is Beto O'Rourke running? He seems very interesting.
“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”
-Carl Sagan

"The best counter to extremist speech is not censorship. The best counter is more speech." -Thumpalumpacus
The following 1 user Likes c172's post:
  • Mark
Reply
#8

2020 US candidates
(12-31-2018, 01:43 PM)Dom Wrote: The first Dem candidate to announce that they are running is Elisabeth Warren. She has launched a presidential exploratory committee. 

Please let's use this thread to gather all the folks who announce.


I don't know why the quality of her video is so bad. It gets better as it goes.



Very persuasive video, I was all in pumping my fist at the Save the Middle Class stuff...just wish it didn't have so many nods to identity politics.  Why not just stick to Save the Middle Class?  No matter what your gender, ethnicity, religion, etc., policies designed to punish Wall Street and corporate manipulation and reward hard work, sacrifice, initiative, and effort should be enough for anyone to cheer.
The following 2 users Like jerry mcmasters's post:
  • WhiskeyDebates, Kim
Reply
#9

2020 US candidates
"Not talking about Identity Politics" is identity politics. It can be roughly translated to let's talk about the majority's problem. There practically no problems that are exclusive to the white majority in the US. Minorities have the same problems then the white majority plus some of their own. Yes, solving the problems of everybody is appealing because everybody can benefit from it, but it's a double edged swrod. This could be a big mistake and alienate minorities further from politics which then leaves the door wide open for exploitation to continue. If there are structural bias, solving problem for the "middle and poor class" might not transfer equally well to minorities belonging to those classes due to those systemic issues. At some point the US will have to make steps forward and face its demons in the form of racism and, to a lesser extand, sexism if it wants its democracy to stay healthy. Of course, one needs to also not antagonise to much a majority always anxious to face criticism and a certain hostility. Idealy you want a balance between measure designed to alievate economical divides between poor, middle and higher classes, but also measures to reduce the divide between socio-cultural groups.
The following 5 users Like epronovost's post:
  • Alan V, Smercury44, Arden Portis, Aroura, Kim
Reply
#10

2020 US candidates
(01-01-2019, 07:25 PM)epronovost Wrote: "Not talking about Identity Politics" is identity politics. It can be roughly translated to let's talk about the majority's problem.

May depend on how you define “majority.” I take majority to mean “citizens of the US given over time smaller and smaller opportunities to be successful; working and middle class.” Those are the people whose problems I want government to solve, those are the people whose loaf I want expanded at the expense of the growing class of mega-rich insiders and bailout recipients. It only becomes identity politics if we then subdivide that “majority” I just described into smaller and smaller sections and then try to specialize policies obstensibly to solve their problems. I think the Democratic party does it that way but I don't think it's good for the country overall (though as pure power politics I understand why they do it; it's their niche and they aren't going to abandon it).

(01-01-2019, 07:25 PM)epronovost Wrote: There practically no problems that are exclusive to the white majority in the U.S. Minorities have the same problems then the white majority plus some of their own.

Agreed, but the question then is the extent of the “some of their own [problems]” and whether they can be solved through governmental policies, at least to some large extent that they can't be solved through the same policies that are intended to rise all boats of any citizen in the “class” I described earlier. I believe that extent is very small, but obviously there is a huge debate and a ton of particulars that can be discussed on that.


(01-01-2019, 07:25 PM)epronovost Wrote: Yes, solving the problems of everybody is appealing because everybody can benefit from it, but it's a double edged swrod. This could be a big mistake and alienate minorities further from politics which then leaves the door wide open for exploitation to continue. If there are structural bias, solving problem for the "middle and poor class" might not transfer equally well to minorities belonging to those classes due to those systemic issues. At some point the US will have to make steps forward and face its demons in the form of racism and, to a lesser extand, sexism if it wants its democracy to stay healthy. Of course, one needs to also not antagonise to much a majority always anxious to face criticism and a certain hostility. Idealy you want a balance between measure designed to alievate economical divides between poor, middle and higher classes, but also measures to reduce the divide between socio-cultural groups.

I don't agree with some of those premises, and you are couching it a bit with “if.” (“If there are structural bias...”) Do you think there is largescale minority exploitation that needs to be addressed by policy? What does it mean to say the US needs to face its demons in the form of racism? Again for me there is a question of the extent of this problem. I don't see “solutions” to this to be found, as is implied in the Warren ad, if only the right people and policies were in place! (Let me put on my helmet now to get ready for all the “white male racist needs to shut up” type replies)

We're both talking very generally here and if we got down to particular issues and policies we would probably have areas of agreement. To the extent access to abortion and health insurance equity is (gender based) “identity politics” I'm for it, that seems like a well-defined need that has difficult, but possible, real-life solutions.
The following 1 user Likes jerry mcmasters's post:
  • Vosur
Reply
#11

2020 US candidates
@jerry mcmasters

You are correct that some of the problems lived by minorities cannot be solved through political actions or, more accurately, through political action alone. The gender and racial pay gaps are a good example of those problems that cannot be solved through political actions. Despite this, some problems can be solved or tremendoulsy helped at least by policies. Immigration reforms are probably the most obvious. Police accountability could be another. Access to abortion and sex education (as you mentioned) would be another one and that's not even without delving into the place and impact of politicaly-backed racism and misogyny. If you don't adress directly those problems you are just adding time to the ticking time bomb. At some point it will have to blow and hte longer you wait, the harder it will.
Reply
#12

2020 US candidates
(01-01-2019, 10:43 PM)epronovost Wrote: You are correct that some of the problems lived by minorities cannot be solved through political actions or, more accurately, through political action alone. The gender and racial pay gaps are a good example of those problems that cannot be solved through political actions. Despite this, some problems can be solved or tremendoulsy helped at least by policies. Immigration reforms are probably the most obvious. Police accountability could be another. Access to abortion and sex education (as you mentioned) would be another one and that's not even without delving into the place and impact of politicaly-backed racism and misogyny.

Each particular issue would need some digging into, each needs its own “how big is the problem?” and its own “what are the solutions?” and its own “what can government do about this?”

Is immigration reform really an “identity politics” issue? Depends on how you frame it. It is in the Democrats best interests to frame it mainly as identity politics; ie., white people hate and distrust brown people, so brown people, you know who has your back and who you need to vote for. But to be fair the Republicans frame it as “drug mules and killers are swarming in” so if that's identity politics they do it too. To me the issue should be strictly based on what immigration policy is best for the well-being of the nation now and going forward.

Abortion etc we seem to agree on but then there's the vague “place and impact of politically backed racism.” What does this mean? (The misogyny I can accept, patriarchal asshole men wanting to be in charge of women's choices)

Police accountability could be a long thread of its own...again, how bad is the problem in reality? Is it in the Democrats interests to suggest that there actually isn't an epidemic of murderous cops out there? No of course not.

(01-01-2019, 10:43 PM)epronovost Wrote: If you don't adress directly those problems you are just adding time to the ticking time bomb. At some point it will have to blow and hte longer you wait, the harder it will.

This depends on the true nature of these “problems.” Besides the ones we just discussed, what are they and how bad are they? I think the danger is the opposite, that we create a self-fulfilling prophecy, anger and frustration that is not really warranted by the conditions. “Your problems exist because you are this or that minority and these problems can be solved with the right politicians (Dem) and policies in place.” And if not, well, the blame of course lies with “the system.”
The following 1 user Likes jerry mcmasters's post:
  • Vosur
Reply
#13

2020 US candidates
@jerry mcmasters

"How big is the problem" is the wrong kind of question to ask. If you take the example of police accountability, "How big is the problem" will have very different answers from person to person and group to group. It doesn't take into account proportions and distribution of the event or even the psychological impact of the problem on the population or subset of the population. A problem with low occurence, but strong psychological impact, terrorism for example, will be seen as "much bigger and much more important" than statistic alone can tell and perhapse very rightly so. On the opposite end of the spectrum a problem with a high occurence, but low psychological impact, traffic jam for example, will not be seen as a big issue. We will piss and whine at a government not solving traffic jam, but we will riot at a government not solving terrorism issues. That's the problem of minorities. They are minorities. The problems exclusive to them touches only a small portion of the total population and no matter how big the problem is, it can be made to look small through the use of statistics. Minorities aren't a monolithic group either. Problems touching the black community might not touch the muslim community and vice-versa. How big is the problem according to who? And then we get to the problem of "your problem isn't urgent/big enough, we will solve it later". The big question then comes to when? When will issues of equality and dignity be adressed? And what will the cost of that waiting?

BTW, yes immigration policies are all about identity politics if only because it affects much more a certain group of people more then other namely immigrants. It's highly in the interest of immigrants to see immigration reform that would facilitate their entry and that of their family in the US. That's why communities of recent immigrants are those pushing hte hardest for reforms in that domain. While we are at it, social classes are also political identities so all call to help the working class and the middle class are also identity politics, this time the share identity is linked to wealth/professions instead of culture or ethnic group. Calling for improvements to the standards of living of the working and middle class is simply a call for improvement to a specific group mostly pushed by people belonging to those classes because of course they would benefit the most from it. Politic in a democracy is all about gathering a bunch of groups with more or less common goals to form alliances and work together. The exchange is fairly simple: "you scratch my back and I'll scartch yours.".

PS: by "place and impact of politically backed racism" I meant the fact that there are numerous political groups who ahve supported and manage to elect politicians with an agenda designed to prevent minorites to have access to their civic rights to the same extend then others. (AKA politician elected to repeal or prevent gay marriage for example or expulse/prevent minorities from entering the country or prevent/repeal abortive rights). The US has and most certainly have elected racist people with racist agenda on the basis they were racist because this was perceived as "a good thing".
Reply
#14

2020 US candidates
(01-02-2019, 12:25 AM)epronovost Wrote: @jerry mcmasters

"How big is the problem" is the wrong kind of question to ask. If you take the example of police accountability, "How big is the problem" will have very different answers from person to person and group to group. It doesn't take into account proportions and distribution of the event or even the psychological impact of the problem on the population or subset of the population. A problem with low occurence, but strong psychological impact, terrorism for example, will be seen as "much bigger and much more important" than statistic alone can tell and perhapse very rightly so. On the opposite end of the spectrum a problem with a high occurence, but low psychological impact, traffic jam for example, will not be seen as a big issue. We will piss and whine at a government not solving traffic jam, but we will riot at a government not solving terrorism issues. That's the problem of minorities. They are minorities. The problems exclusive to them touches only a small portion of the total population and no matter how big the problem is, it can be made to look small through the use of statistics. Minorities aren't a monolithic group either. Problems touching the black community might not touch the muslim community and vice-versa. How big is the problem according to who?

So it really doesn't matter how large or small the problem actually is, all that matters are the perceptions of the problem. So if I'm a middle-class white guy somewhere in Detroit and I perceive that immigrants are flooding into the country devaluing jobs that used to provide people like me a good living, you Epronovost have no position to criticize that perception. Do you?  Personally I feel like perceptions can be closer to or farther from reality.

Sadly, though, you're probably right. It doesn't really matter if its true that there is (regarding police accountability) an epidemic of police violence against minorities, it's thought to be true, encouraged to be true by those that profit from minority acceptance of that “truth,” and the Democrats are wise to let no counter-narratives see the light of day. Smart politics. I don't have to like it though, and will continue to speak against it.

(01-02-2019, 12:25 AM)epronovost Wrote: BTW, yes immigration policies are all about identity politics if only because it affects much more a certain group of people more then other namely immigrants. It's highly in the interest of immigrants to see immigration reform that would facilitate their entry and that of their family in the US. That's why communities of recent immigrants are those pushing hte hardest for reforms in that domain. While we are at it, social classes are also political identities so all call to help the working class and the middle class are also identity politics, this time the share identity is linked to wealth/professions instead of culture or ethnic group. Calling for improvements to the standards of living of the working and middle class is simply a call for improvement to a specific group mostly pushed by people belonging to those classes because of course they would benefit the most from it. Politic in a democracy is all about gathering a bunch of groups with more or less common goals to form alliances and work together. The exchange is fairly simple: "you scratch my back and I'll scartch yours.".

The bolded part is what I have been saying all along! Have I not? My criticism of the Warren ad is: let it be enough! It's good enough! Don't then further sub-divide...but I'm wasting my breath. The Democratic party is what it is, the right crumbs must be thrown, the right sub-groups must be appeased, the right winks must be winked.

(01-02-2019, 12:25 AM)epronovost Wrote: PS: by "place and impact of politically backed racism" I meant the fact that there are numerous political groups who ahve supported and manage to elect politicians with an agenda designed to prevent minorites to have access to their civic rights to the same extend then others. (AKA politician elected to repeal or prevent gay marriage for example or expulse/prevent minorities from entering the country or prevent/repeal abortive rights).

Your examples of racism are suspiciously not very racism-y. The gay marriage thing I totally agree with (like abortion) as a needed and do-able “identity politics” issue. Are non-white gays not allowed to get married?

The immigration issue, I've already explained how it can be framed as racist (by one side) so I have to ask, why can't one be against illegal immigration and not be racist? And if so, how can one prove it? Or does it matter, because it is of course only your perception that such a person is racist that matters, not whether or not the person actually is, right?

(01-02-2019, 12:25 AM)epronovost Wrote: The US has and most certainly have elected racist people with racist agenda on the basis they were racist because this was perceived as "a good thing".

No doubt true in specifics, but those are the kinds of dangerous generalizations that beg for more information so we can find out what's really going on:  How many?  How often?  How recently?  Who exactly?  What have been their racist policies and is their any alternative explanation for those policies besides racism?

Or does none of that matter, it's all just perception?  An honest politician would fight to unmask perception and seek the reality beneath.  I ask for too much; can you imagine Warren's ad so edited?!  But I can at least bitch and moan about it on a forum.
The following 1 user Likes jerry mcmasters's post:
  • Vosur
Reply
#15

2020 US candidates
Did you know you can tell who runs a country boy the amount of clothes they wear?

The average taxpayer, they're the less ons.
The mayors, governors, senators, and the like, they are the more ons.
The following 1 user Likes no one's post:
  • Dom
Reply
#16

2020 US candidates
(01-02-2019, 02:23 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: So it really doesn't matter how large or small the problem actually is, all that matters are the perceptions of the problem. So if I'm a middle-class white guy somewhere in Detroit and I perceive that immigrants are flooding into the country devaluing jobs that used to provide people like me a good living, you Epronovost have no position to criticize that perception. Do you?  Personally I feel like perceptions can be closer to or farther from reality. Sadly, though, you're probably right. It doesn't really matter if its true that there is (regarding police accountability) an epidemic of police violence against minorities, it's thought to be true, encouraged to be true by those that profit from minority acceptance of that “truth,” and the Democrats are wise to let no counter-narratives see the light of day. Smart politics. I don't have to like it though, and will continue to speak against it.

Where did I used the word perception exactly? I talked about psychological impact, occurence and distribution of a specific problem. These have nothing to do with your usage of perception in the example above. Nice strawman or missunderstanding of the entire point.

If you take police accountability. There is definitly an endemic problem of police violence against the black community (and to an extend the SGM community). I don't think it can even be questionned at that point. Black communities have been targetted by more police surveilliance, affected more harshly by arrests and suffered cases of violence and harassment to a much greater degree then their demographic weight. There is a long history in the US of use of police force as repressive tools against black communities. And of course police forces are not accountable to those black communities to the same level then white communities. Police are held in check by the electorate. Police officers are under the command of elected officials or are elected officials themselves. The surest way to avoid abuse of power from them is to use counter powers and remove them from office (or at least threaten them to do so seriously enough for them to back down). The black communities are too small a portion of that electorate to swing elections on this issue without wide support. That's what makes them a minority in the first place. So if there is police abuse of power or missuse of power against them, but not toward others, they must still convince others to care about them enough about the issue to swing an election. The methods for a private citizen to seek justice against the police are also highly flawed since it relies on the police and procecutors, who work closely together, to achieve something. There is an obvious case of bias and conflict of interest there, but it's the current system. And all of this is without counting the policies the police are supposed to enforce and the method they are asked to use to do so.

If John the white guy get's shot in a botched police operation, it's tragic and people are angry. The good thing, is that if it happens to much or even if one time is too much, John's community can protest and force the mayor to enact changes in the police force (or the sheriff if applicable). Thus, the problem of police botching their job isn't that great since it can be solved without changes in policies and institutions. If John the black guy get's shot in a botched police operation, it's tragic and people are angry. The bad thing, is that even if they protest, they probably don't have the number or the wealth alone to force the mayor to enact changes (or the sheriff). Then the problem gets big, because now you got no counter powers against abuse of power from the police and the police knows it too. We might say that statistically cops botching operation are rare all things taken into account; that not that much people are killed by them in dubious circomstances, but when you are powerful a threat is easily brushed aside and tempered since you have the means and the confidence to take it on. When you are weak, even a small threat can cause a major problem. Is it a small or a big problem to have little or no counter power to a group with a legal monopoly on violence? I personnaly think it's a big problem and most people in the black communities of the US believe so too, but since that's not the situation you are in, how would you judge such a problem?

Quote: My criticism of the Warren ad is: let it be enough! It's good enough! Don't then further sub-divide...but I'm wasting my breath.

You are asking a political leader who wants to lead a diverse nation to care only about your group problem exclusively? It seems to me that you are so anxious to see the problems of your group being solved that the mear mention of other groups problems makes you cringe and threatens you (or even the admission that the solutions we might find to your problem might not transfer equally to all the members of your large group and that is, in and on itself, a new problem). That reaction, if it's yours, appears to me as the quintessential definition of a divisive and dangerous use of identity politics. The idea that you cannot form a coalition with other groups with the objective of lending each other strength to solve problems that are specific to minorities and others that aren't. It basically means that only one group can win at a time and that of course, in the interest of the greater good, the majority group must win all the time while minorities must wait until the majority throws a bone to them. It should be normal and tradition for all presidential candidates to at least present one or two measure adopted to answer a minority's issue in addition to their measures destined to larger or even all groups.
Reply
#17

2020 US candidates
(01-02-2019, 04:12 AM)epronovost Wrote:
(01-02-2019, 02:23 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: So it really doesn't matter how large or small the problem actually is, all that matters are the perceptions of the problem. So if I'm a middle-class white guy somewhere in Detroit and I perceive that immigrants are flooding into the country devaluing jobs that used to provide people like me a good living, you Epronovost have no position to criticize that perception. Do you?  Personally I feel like perceptions can be closer to or farther from reality. Sadly, though, you're probably right. It doesn't really matter if its true that there is (regarding police accountability) an epidemic of police violence against minorities, it's thought to be true, encouraged to be true by those that profit from minority acceptance of that “truth,” and the Democrats are wise to let no counter-narratives see the light of day. Smart politics. I don't have to like it though, and will continue to speak against it.

Where did I used the word perception exactly? I talked about psychological impact, occurence and distribution of a specific problem. These have nothing to do with your usage of perception in the example above. Nice strawman or missunderstanding of the entire point.


Okay I totally did not catch the “proportions and distribution of the events” and focused on your description of psychological impact, I concede that is completely my misunderstandng and my fault, I apologize. To look back at your paragraph, though, it does mainly focus on the PERCEPTION of the events rather than on what's actually going on, and it is what's actually going on that I am concerned with.  And I take you to mean that “proportions and distributions” are quite high and are for racist reasons, I do not at all concede that point.

(01-02-2019, 04:12 AM)epronovost Wrote: If you take police accountability. There is definitle an endemic problem of police violence against the black community (and to an extend the SGM community). I don't think it can even be questionned at that point. Black communities have been targetted by more police surveilliance, affected more harshly by arrests and suffered cases of violence and harassment to a much greater degree then their demographic weight. There is a long history in the US of use of police force as repressive tools against black communities. And of course police forces are not accountable to those black communities to the same level then white communities. Police are held in check by the electorate. Police officers are under the command of elected officials or are elected officials themselves. The surest way to avoid abuse of power from them is to use counter powers and remove them from office (or at least threaten them to do so seriously enough for them to back down). The black communities are too small a portion of that electorate to swing elections on this issue without wide support. That's what makes them a minority in the first place. So if there is police abuse of power or missuse of power against them, but not toward others, they must still convince others to care about them enough about the issue to swing an election. The methods for a private citizen to seek justice against the police are also highly flawed since it relies on the police and procecutors, who work closely together, to achieve something. There is an obvious case of bias and conflict of interest there, but it's the current system. And all of this is without counting the policies the police are supposed to enforce and the method they are asked to use to do so.

I don't concede any of that, it's a lot of loaded gospel (“endemic problem of police violence against the black community”) that's just supposed to be assumed because if one doesn't, well...it's just practicing identify politics incarnate, right? But it can and should be “questioned at this point.” Of course there has been a long history of police abuse against blacks in general and yes there are racist bad cops and yes incidents still happen, but overall a more accurate narrative is that, uncomfortable as it is to state, the disproportion of incidents between cops and African Americans is due to the disproportion of African American rates of criminal activity, which brings them into conflict with cops.

(01-02-2019, 04:12 AM)epronovost Wrote: If John the white guy get's shot in a botched police operation, it's tragic and people are angry. The good thing, is that if it happens to much or even if one time is too much, John's community can protest and force the mayor to enact changes in the police force (or the sheriff if applicable). Thus, the problem of police botching their job isn't that great since it can be solved without changes in policies and institutions. If John the black guy get's shot in a botched police operation, it's tragic and people are angry. The bad thing, is that even if they protest, they probably don't have the number or the wealth alone to force the mayor to enact changes (or the sheriff). Then the problem gets big, because now you got no counter powers against abuse of power from the police and the police knows it too. We might say that statistically cops botching operation are rare all things taken into account; that not that much people are killed by them in dubious circomstances, but when you are powerful a threat is easily brushed aside and tempered since you have the means and the confidence to take it on. When you are weak, even a small threat can cause a major problem. Is it a small or a big problem to have little or no counter power to a group with a legal monopoly on violence? I personnaly think it's a big problem and most people in the black communities of the US believe so too, but since that's not the situation you are in, how would you judge such a problem?

You describe that very persuasively and that may be the case but I'm not certain. I think after these botched situations there is enormous pressure on police forces to reform and improve, if only to avoid another public relations disaster and lawsuit. We would have to get into this case by case almost, how many cases involve resistance or non-compliance, not saying that means open fire, I'm saying it's a question, it's open for debate, it's not a settled matter. What are the proportions, things like that, there are hundreds of thousands of interactions between police and criminals, you get into proportions of blacks involved in criminal activity that brings them into contact with the police compared with other racial groups, it's a lot higher, so you're going to have more chances for shit to go wrong.

(01-02-2019, 04:12 AM)epronovost Wrote:
Quote: My criticism of the Warren ad is: let it be enough! It's good enough! Don't then further sub-divide...but I'm wasting my breath.

You are asking a political leader who wants to lead a diverse nation to care only about your group problem exclusively? It seems to me that you are so anxious to see the problems of your group being solved that the mear mention of other groups problems makes you cringe and threatens you (or even the admission that the solutions we might find to your problem might not transfer equally to all the members of your large group and that is, in and on itself, a new problem).

MY “GROUP” IS AMERICANS GODDAMMIT. Can't you at least acknowledge you literally just parroted my main point, which is that by endorsing policies that help a certain class or economic station, you by default help members of general “identity politics” groups? How can you construe that as some kind of cold-hearted selfishness? I'm not cringing or threatened, I'm just questioning the vapid and vague promise of “solutions” to identity group problems when maybe we can't even put our finger on if there is a problem at all (which is kind of what I've been prompting you to do). All it does is further divide us as Americans, further reminds us that we are sub-group first, united Americans second (if that at all). And yeah I know the Repubs divide us even worse, that's not the point.

(01-02-2019, 04:12 AM)epronovost Wrote:
Quote:No doubt true in specifics, but those are the kinds of dangerous generalizations that beg for more information so we can find out what's really going on:  How many?  How often?  How recently?  Who exactly?  What have been their racist policies and is their any alternative explanation for those policies besides racism?

Or does none of that matter, it's all just perception?  An honest politician would fight to unmask perception and seek the reality beneath.  I ask for too much; can you imagine Warren's ad so edited?!  But I can at least bitch and moan about it on a forum.

You are aware that things like police victimization of the black community as been demonstrated ad nauseam over the last four decades? That all of your questions on that specific subject (and a few more) have probably already been answered, probably multiple times? At that point, what do you want more beside minorities to shut up as you so elegantly mention by saying "stop talking about problems that I don't care about?" or insinuating that their problem is either small or made up. That's the sum total of your argument right now. It's divise identity politics incarnate.

Bit of a red herring to say four decades ago, obviously things were worse in race relations the farther back you go, I'm concerned with things now. I don't believe things are worse now for minorities than they were three years, ten, twenty years ago, do you? And I don't think these questions have been answered, at least not honestly, there's an emotional content to such discussions that makes virtuous liars of us, to suggest that behaviors in certain segments of the population are by far the determining factor in police encounters that go south (as opposed to police racism) is to practically demand social ostracization so it's safer to just say “these questions have all been answered! (duh, racist cops!)” or “can't be questioned at this point (duh, racist cops)”

But I do believe the particular problem under discussion, racist cops out there gunning down innocent blacks, to be small, but I understand why a political party would want to trump it up and make it seem more pervasive than it is.

All that said, any police screw ups are too many, so a useful reform would be more police training at all levels, conflict de-escalation, communication, etc.

Okay so for the sake of argument, I grant you the racist cop narrative. The scorecard might then include that plus abortion/women's health/insurance as legit issues best receiving attention through identity politics. Immigration...I have trouble shoe-horning that into an identity politics framework, it seems to me purely like manipulation preying on counter-identity politics, the accusation that those frustrated with border security must hate brown people. What have we left out? What else is legit grounds for politicking based on some subgroup that can't be best addressed with “all boats rise” policies that help everybody?
The following 1 user Likes jerry mcmasters's post:
  • Vosur
Reply
#18

2020 US candidates
(01-02-2019, 05:54 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: I don't concede any of that, it's a lot of loaded gospel (“endemic problem of police violence against the black community”) that's just supposed to be assumed because if one doesn't, well...it's just practicing identify politics incarnate, right? But it can and should be “questioned at this point.” Of course there has been a long history of police abuse against blacks in general and yes there are racist bad cops and yes incidents still happen, but overall a more accurate narrative is that, uncomfortable as it is to state, the disproportion of incidents between cops and African Americans is due to the disproportion of African American rates of criminal activity, which brings them into conflict with cops.

It's obvious that if a community is overly policed it will be found to have a disproportion of crimes. You find crimes where you search for them. If you stop three times more often black people you will find more crimes involving black people leading you to believe that black people commit more crimes which might lead you to police them even more. Just look at drug arrests. It was found multiple times that there is no significant difference between the usage and traffic of drugs between white and black communities yet black people are twice to thrice more likely to be incarcerated and for longer period of times precisely because they are stopped more often. The same goes for driving violation. That's a form of violence called harrasment. It's threatening, plus when you are confronted by a police officer who believes you are more likely to be dangerous or guilty than another person, you are highly likely to be met with more hostility and less respect and kindness making the interaction more likely to feel threatened or even be in more danger. When you are stopped more often, you are also more likely to fall upon a bad police officer at some point too.

Quote:MY “GROUP” IS AMERICANS GODDAMMIT.

Nobody belongs to just one group and almost no policy affects all group equally. All minorities belong to that group and so do all illegal immigrant on a large number of aspect. Nobody can belong to only one wide group. Those who relate the most to wide groups are the members of the majority group since they have predominance in defining the characteristics and values of the wide group. It's easy to "feel" AMERICAN when your culture pretty much define alone what it is to be AMERICAN. For a recent immigrant or people who were denied proper representation in culture and politics (like black people or women) being AMERICAN has a different influence in your pool of group. 

Quote:Can't you at least acknowledge you literally just parroted my main point, which is that by endorsing policies that help a certain class or economic station, you by default help members of general “identity politics” groups? How can you construe that as some kind of cold-hearted selfishness? I'm not cringing or threatened, I'm just questioning the vapid and vague promise of “solutions” to identity group problems when maybe we can't even put our finger on if there is a problem at all (which is kind of what I've been prompting you to do). All it does is further divide us as Americans, further reminds us that we are sub-group first, united Americans second (if that at all). And yeah I know the Repubs divide us even worse, that's not the point.

Yeah, people are sub-group before group and they are individuals before sub-group members. It's the normal state of being of a normal person. A sub-group is more precise so it of course define you better than a wider group and othing defines you better than...well...you. 

Are you asking me for concrete solutions for precise problems of minorities in the US? If I had any, I would chatting with you on a forum. I would be a political leader in my own country which has relatively similar problems.

Quote:What else is legit grounds for politicking based on some subgroup that can't be best addressed with “all boats rise” policies that help everybody?

All of them can be questionned up to a certain point for there is no or very little "all boats rise" policies since pretty much all policies don't affect all groups in the same fashion. If you decide to invigorate the wroking class by improving work conditions and employment opportunities in the manufacturing sector you might actually help urban men a lot more then urban women who, at the same level of education, are much more likely to work in the service industry. In the same fashion, this policy might help the working class in urban and sub-urban area, but in rural area it's not that important since most working class people in rural area work in the primary sector as fisherman, lumberjacks, farmhands, etc. Your policy just doesn't affect them as much. Then your policy might affect positively white people more than black people since those employment opportunities are harder for black people to get due to bias in employee selection (another thing that has been observed many times). It also depends on how or through what institution you will funnel the money to provide higher employment opportunities and improved working conditions in the manufacturing sector since it might affect who has the best opportunities or if everybody has equal opportunities. Now, you could offer tax breaks to the working class, but then this might advantage the rural working class a lot more then the urban one due to different cost living, etc. The list can go on and on and on. It's not just what policy it's how those policies are made and implemented.

But if you want other politics specifically addressing minorities issues, you could add Native American land management, the taxation/limits of the transfer of money of immigrants to family still living outside the US, mandatory sexual education in schools, urban development and zoning reforms, fight against hate crimes, the budget management of every single program still active targetting exclusively minorities, the potential implementation of any program targetting exclusively minorities (for example english classes for new immigrants), the removal of blatantly racist apologetic monuments from public spaces (especially governmental buildings, with notable exception for museum and historical military cemeteries). These are the ones I can think of in 15 minutes. There is probably more. I'm neither an American neither a member of a minority (well technically yes, but it's a bit complicated).
Reply
#19

2020 US candidates
(01-02-2019, 07:08 AM)epronovost Wrote:
(01-02-2019, 05:54 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: I don't concede any of that, it's a lot of loaded gospel (“endemic problem of police violence against the black community”) that's just supposed to be assumed because if one doesn't, well...it's just practicing identify politics incarnate, right? But it can and should be “questioned at this point.” Of course there has been a long history of police abuse against blacks in general and yes there are racist bad cops and yes incidents still happen, but overall a more accurate narrative is that, uncomfortable as it is to state, the disproportion of incidents between cops and African Americans is due to the disproportion of African American rates of criminal activity, which brings them into conflict with cops.

It's obvious that if a community is overly policed it will be found to have a disproportion of crimes. You find crimes where you search for them. If you stop three times more often black people you will find more crimes involving black people leading you to believe that black people commit more crimes which might lead you to police them even more. Just look at drug arrests. It was found multiple times that there is no significant difference between the usage and traffic of drugs between white and black communities yet black people are twice to thrice more likely to be incarcerated and for longer period of times precisely because they are stopped more often. The same goes for driving violation. That's a form of violence called harrasment. It's threatening, plus when you are confronted by a police officer who believes you are more likely to be dangerous or guilty than another person, you are highly likely to be met with more hostility and less respect and kindness making the interaction more likely to feel threatened or even be in more danger. When you are stopped more often, you are also more likely to fall upon a bad police officer at some point too.

I think a point can be conceded (black Americans in general get a worse shake at the hands of the police than other Americans) but the severity of that difference and the causes are very much up for honest debate. If a community is overly policed it will be found to have a disproportion of crimes is one narrative (implying racist policing and a joyful desire to stick it to blacks), another is simply that areas of high crime need more policing. The victims of these high crime rates are overwhelmingly the people who live in these neighborhoods, they don't deserve lawlessness and the absence of justice. Obviously I don't think you think they do deserve that, I'm just saying there are difficult trade-offs going on.

(01-02-2019, 07:08 AM)epronovost Wrote:
Quote:MY “GROUP” IS AMERICANS GODDAMMIT.

Nobody belongs to just one group and almost no policy affects all group equally. All minorities belong to that group and so do all illegal immigrant on a large number of aspect. Nobody can belong to only one wide group. Those who relate the most to wide groups are the members of the majority group since they have predominance in defining the characteristics and values of the wide group. It's easy to "feel" AMERICAN when your culture pretty much define alone what it is to be AMERICAN. For a recent immigrant or people who were denied proper representation in culture and politics (like black people or women) being AMERICAN has a different influence in your pool of group. 

Nonetheless I advocate stressing those things that we have in common rather than where we have differences, and those things we have in common, or rather the problems we have most in common, are what politicians should focus their attention and energy. Cast the net wide rather than narrow. We should wind this down as we are in the realm of just having different opinions about what's wisest.

(01-02-2019, 07:08 AM)epronovost Wrote:
Quote:Can't you at least acknowledge you literally just parroted my main point, which is that by endorsing policies that help a certain class or economic station, you by default help members of general “identity politics” groups? How can you construe that as some kind of cold-hearted selfishness? I'm not cringing or threatened, I'm just questioning the vapid and vague promise of “solutions” to identity group problems when maybe we can't even put our finger on if there is a problem at all (which is kind of what I've been prompting you to do). All it does is further divide us as Americans, further reminds us that we are sub-group first, united Americans second (if that at all). And yeah I know the Repubs divide us even worse, that's not the point.

Yeah, people are sub-group before group and they are individuals before sub-group members. It's the normal state of being of a normal person. A sub-group is more precise so it of course define you better than a wider group and othing defines you better than...well...you. 

Exactly why we should try to transcend our base selfish “normal” impulses. Self first, clan second, this affiliation next, then the other...the continuing Balkanization of the US.   I say focus on the largest group possible that can benefit (not with perfect equity, granted, but try!) then work downward to your smaller group wants and needs. It's an outlook I think will produce the best future for the nation, but it's also just an opinion.

(01-02-2019, 07:08 AM)epronovost Wrote: Are you asking me for concrete solutions for precise problems of minorities in the US? If I had any, I would chatting with you on a forum. I would be a political leader in my own country which has relatively similar problems.

Quote:What else is legit grounds for politicking based on some subgroup that can't be best addressed with “all boats rise” policies that help everybody?


All of them can be questionned up to a certain point for there is no or very little "all boats rise" policies since pretty much all policies don't affect all groups in the same fashion. If you decide to invigorate the wroking class by improving work conditions and employment opportunities in the manufacturing sector you might actually help urban men a lot more then urban women who, at the same level of education, are much more likely to work in the service industry. In the same fashion, this policy might help the working class in urban and sub-urban area, but in rural area it's not that important since most working class people in rural area work in the primary sector as fisherman, lumberjacks, farmhands, etc. Your policy just doesn't affect them as much. Then your policy might affect positively white people more than black people since those employment opportunities are harder for black people to get due to bias in employee selection (another thing that has been observed many times). It also depends on how or through what institution you will funnel the money to provide higher employment opportunities and improved working conditions in the manufacturing sector since it might affect who has the best opportunities or if everybody has equal opportunities. Now, you could offer tax breaks to the working class, but then this might advantage the rural working class a lot more then the urban one due to different cost living, etc. The list can go on and on and on. It's not just what policy it's how those policies are made and implemented.

You have described well how politics and policy implementation works, I don't deny any of those difficulties. Like you, I'm not an expert with concrete plans. I never meant to imply all we had to do was wave our magic “all boats rise!” wand and there would be equitable distribution among all Americans- whites, blacks, lumberjacks, the elderly, workers at McDonalds- of problems solved and gains made. What I'm saying there can be more or less commitment to that goal, there can be greater or lesser focus on it as the goal, we can let ourselves be distracted by other things to greater and lesser degrees. All the while noting that though there won't be perfect equity we can strive for that goal.

And maybe some policies could dodge the equal distribution problem, at least partially- universal health care, some kind of tax breaks or tax credits for children. I'm warming up to UBI, which seems to undercut the resentments that come from a byzantine welfare system, fuck it, just give every American X dollars a month. (Not sure how we're going to handle a couple trillion dollars of new debt every year, but what's a few more trillion dollars?)


(01-02-2019, 07:08 AM)epronovost Wrote: But if you want other politics specifically addressing minorities issues, you could add Native American land management, the taxation/limits of the transfer of money of immigrants to family still living outside the US, mandatory sexual education in schools, urban development and zoning reforms, fight against hate crimes, the budget management of every single program still active targetting exclusively minorities, the potential implementation of any program targetting exclusively minorities (for example english classes for new immigrants), the removal of blatantly racist apologetic monuments from public spaces (especially governmental buildings, with notable exception for museum and historical military cemeteries). These are the ones I can think of in 15 minutes. There is probably more. I'm neither an American neither a member of a minority (well technically yes, but it's a bit complicated).


Everyone wants something, for sure. Some of those sound more valid than others, but I think most of them should be secondary to more general “grow and support the middle class” policies. (That's from someone who thinks the growing wealth divide is the greatest threat to the nation, so if I'm wrong about that much of everything I've said won't make sense).

How great of a political ad would that make, stressing your laundry list of concerns? Just from political expediency I can't see how being too expressive about each group getting its due is going to help any Democratic candidate...but on the other hand maybe division is the political wave of the future and the key political wants are narrowly defined and identity focused.

We can probably wrap this up fairly soon, I do understand your criticisms of my position.
The following 1 user Likes jerry mcmasters's post:
  • Vosur
Reply
#20

2020 US candidates
(01-02-2019, 08:47 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: I think a point can be conceded (black Americans in general get a worse shake at the hands of the police than other Americans) but the severity of that difference and the causes are very much up for honest debate. If a community is overly policed it will be found to have a disproportion of crimes is one narrative (implying racist policing and a joyful desire to stick it to blacks) another is simply that areas of high crime need more policing. The victims of these high crime rates are overwhelmingly the people who live in these neighborhoods, they don't deserve lawlessness and the absence of justice. Obviously I don't think you think they do deserve that, I'm just saying there are difficult trade-offs going on

Except that's not a "narrative" (as in a fabulation or a belief without much support) that black communities are more policed than white community, searched more often, accused and condamned more often and condamned with more severity despite the fact they don't commit more crimes than white communities. That's a fact. It's not only a perception. It's a perception supported by a historical analysis of the raport of the black community with the rest of hte US society, statistical analysis and a small army of judicial case studies. 

You can't deny that white people consume and traffic drugs at the same rate then the black community since that's a known fact. We know it from various scientific surveys and can even see it through cases of overdoses. Many studies even founded that the white community has a much bigger problem then the black community in terms of drug consumption and traffic both of which are crimes. Neither can you deny that black people are more likely to be searched than white people. You can't deny either that the police has been used in history explicitly with the mission to repress black community (slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregative policies). You can't deny either that the black community has been portrayed more negatively than the white community in popular media and culture. There wasn't a time in the US history where black communities weren't more policed than white communities. If the level of policing of the black community was equal to that of the white community, black people no more feared and demonised than white people in US popular culture, and suddenly there was a rise in the level of policing in the back community then your "narrative" that the police is responding to a crime increase would have support in reality. But such isn't the case. There never was such a time. The War on Drug is pretty much one of the biggest cornerstone of US policing strategy and the War on Drug was specifically designed and implemented with a racist conotation (and anti left wing activism). We know it from FBI files and Nixon's own tapes. Nobody ever said that their community shoudn't be policed, just that its level and method of policing is harmful to those community.

Quote:Nonetheless I advocate stressing those things that we have in common rather than where we have differences, and those things we have in common, or rather the problems we have most in common, are what politicians should focus their attention and energy. Cast the net wide rather than narrow. We should wind this down as we are in the realm of just having different opinions about what's wisest.

That's certainly a noble idea, I can't blame you for that, but the idea that we should cast a wide net basically means that the main beneficiary are going to be the majority group and certainly not marginalised minorities (as I showed with my example), those that might need the most help. Sometime, perfection is the enemy of good. Furthermore, policies and laws seldom are "wide" they are precise concise things with very fine tuned language and method of application since all policies work through the use of institutions all of which with their own mode of operations and bureaucratic structures. Slogans can be wide, but policies seldom are.

Quote:Exactly why we should try to transcend our base selfish “normal” impulses. Self first, clan second, this affiliation next, then the other...the continuing Balkanization of the US.   I say focus on the largest group possible that can benefit (not with perfect equity, granted, but try!) then work downward to your smaller group wants and needs. It's an outlook I think will produce the best future for the nation, but it's also just an opinion.

The US isn't really more blakanized then in the time where women couldn't vote or were without any real and powerful political representation. Or when black people were basically in the same situation. When none WASP struggled to have political and cultural representation that didn't amount to basically tokenism. The US has never been less divided and that's the great illusion of division. Mainstream culture just never heard the other group opinions, beliefs and values to such a level and extand before. It was a fake sense unity based on the oppression of people. If you want a real sense of unity, not one based on the near absolute dominance of group over the others. You will have to develop a form of interculturalism that is nearly abscent of the US political and social culture which navigates between monocultural hegemony and multiculturalism.



Quote:And maybe some policies could dodge the equal distribution problem, at least partially- universal health care, some kind of tax breaks or tax credits for children. I'm warming up to UBI, which seems to undercut the resentments that come from a byzantine welfare system, fuck it, just give every American X dollars a month. (Not sure how we're going to handle a couple trillion dollars of new debt every year, but what's a few more trillion dollars?)

The problem with many of those policies which are indeed more in the "all boat rises" category is that they tend to be very costly and frequently more wasteful then more precise and concise ones and the US, like all developped nations, has the tendency to be short on cash.


Quote:Everyone wants something, for sure. Some of those sound more valid than others, but I think most of them should be secondary to more general “grow and support the middle class” policies. (That's from someone who thinks the growing wealth divide is the greatest threat to the nation, so if I'm wrong about that much of everything I've said won't make sense).

What sounds more valid can be heavily influenced by what you know or how a problem affects you. Some of those policies might be less important then others. They can't be "secondary" to the more general "grow and support the middle class" since all those I metionned were designed to give better access to the middle class to minorities thus "growing and supporting the middle class". They are a part of the policy how can they be "secondary"?

Quote:How great of a political ad would that make, stressing your laundry list of concerns? Just from political expediency I can't see how being too expressive about each group getting its due is going to help any Democratic candidate...but on the other hand maybe division is the political wave of the future and the key political wants are narrowly defined and identity focused.

We can probably wrap this up fairly soon, I do understand your criticisms of my position.

What you want your ad to have is a good simple slogan that rings true and good to a majority (try not to be too corny though) and you want the mention of a big "all boats rise" style policy and the mention of a more technical and focused one. This way you look charismatic, ideologically sound and competent (or at least not lying about your big intent). Then, you want your social media guru to produce a wide variety of "sniper ads" which target specific groups that contain your slogan, your big "all boat rises" policy and a policy change (or continuation) that specifically target the precise minority/sub-group. This way everybody can rally under your slogan and you big "all boat rises" policy, all the while being actually really enthousiast and motivated thanks to the more precise policy. That, in my opinion, is how you campaign. You need a multi-modular message with a common central core. Note that no politician in the last century campaigned without a pro middle-class/pro family core message. That's why many minorities don't trust/listen to those messages, because politicians dedicated to fucking with them have used similar slogans and policies before. You got to be careful with "big tent" idea. It's easy to lose small people in big tents and little people have gotten wise to it.
Reply
#21

2020 US candidates
(01-02-2019, 10:59 PM)epronovost Wrote:
(01-02-2019, 08:47 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: I think a point can be conceded (black Americans in general get a worse shake at the hands of the police than other Americans) but the severity of that difference and the causes are very much up for honest debate. If a community is overly policed it will be found to have a disproportion of crimes is one narrative (implying racist policing and a joyful desire to stick it to blacks) another is simply that areas of high crime need more policing. The victims of these high crime rates are overwhelmingly the people who live in these neighborhoods, they don't deserve lawlessness and the absence of justice. Obviously I don't think you think they do deserve that, I'm just saying there are difficult trade-offs going on

Except that's not a "narrative" (as in a fabulation or a belief without much support) that black communities are more policed than white community, searched more often, accused and condamned more often and condamned with more severity despite the fact they don't commit more crimes than white communities. That's a fact. It's not only a perception. It's a perception supported by a historical analysis of the raport of the black community with the rest of hte US society, statistical analysis and a small army of judicial case studies.

I'm concerned with the state of things in 2019 so I'm not willing to just say “history says this therefore this is the case now.” Of course the past, the farther back the worse, had worse instances of racism and injustice. But today it is indeed a narrative that white cops are out there preying on blacks.

(01-02-2019, 10:59 PM)epronovost Wrote: You can't deny that white people consume and traffic drugs at the same rate then the black community since that's a known fact. We know it from various scientific surveys and can even see it through cases of overdoses. Many studies even founded that the white community has a much bigger problem then the black community in terms of drug consumption and traffic both of which are crimes. Neither can you deny that black people are more likely to be searched than white people. You can't deny either that the police has been used in history explicitly with the mission to repress black community (slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregative policies). You can't deny either that the black community has been portrayed more negatively than the white community in popular media and culture. There wasn't a time in the US history where black communities weren't more policed than white communities. If the level of policing of the black community was equal to that of the white community, black people no more feared and demonised than white people in US popular culture, and suddenly there was a rise in the level of policing in the back community then your "narrative" that the police is responding to a crime increase would have support in reality. But such isn't the case. There never was such a time. The War on Drug is pretty much one of the biggest cornerstone of US policing strategy and the War on Drug was specifically designed and implemented with a racist conotation (and anti left wing activism). We know it from FBI files and Nixon's own tapes. Nobody ever said that their community shoudn't be policed, just that its level and method of policing is harmful to those community.

Again it's this “there wasn't a time in US history...” and references to slavery, Jim Crow, etc. History does indeed cast a long shadow but in 2019 it is far from a settled issue that racist cops are out there gunning for blacks. It's a narrative. “Nixon's own tapes.” Great. Could we approach the 21st century perhaps? A bit? I already talked about “trade offs.” High crime areas are going to get more scrutiny and thus more opportunities for tragic consequences. There are high-crime “overpoliced” cities where the rate of young black males being involved in a violent crime is something like tenfold that of other racial groups, Epronovost you expect me to take you seriously if your explanation for that is there are just more cops in the neighborhood observing these incidents, and of course they are going on equally as prevelently in other neighborhoods? Murder rates well into the hundreds every year in major cities, you're going to tell me this is because of the cops? This would be a fucking scandal if it were happening in white or Asian or Hispanic neighborhoods, but we just say what, it's overpolicing?

(01-02-2019, 10:59 PM)epronovost Wrote:
Quote:Nonetheless I advocate stressing those things that we have in common rather than where we have differences, and those things we have in common, or rather the problems we have most in common, are what politicians should focus their attention and energy. Cast the net wide rather than narrow. We should wind this down as we are in the realm of just having different opinions about what's wisest.

That's certainly a noble idea, I can't blame you for that, but the idea that we should cast a wide net basically means that the main beneficiary are going to be the majority group and certainly not marginalised minorities (as I showed with my example), those that might need the most help. Sometime, perfection is the enemy of good. Furthermore, policies and laws seldom are "wide" they are precise concise things with very fine tuned language and method of application since all policies work through the use of institutions all of which with their own mode of operations and bureaucratic structures. Slogans can be wide, but policies seldom are.

I said I understand your criticism of my position. All policies will be problematic, as they are carried out by fallible and corrupt human beings. My position is I would rather have priority go to wide-net policies be attempted, even if fucked up, before small identity politic policies, even though the latter may be more immune from those potential fuck ups.

(01-02-2019, 10:59 PM)epronovost Wrote:
Quote:Exactly why we should try to transcend our base selfish “normal” impulses. Self first, clan second, this affiliation next, then the other...the continuing Balkanization of the US.   I say focus on the largest group possible that can benefit (not with perfect equity, granted, but try!) then work downward to your smaller group wants and needs. It's an outlook I think will produce the best future for the nation, but it's also just an opinion.

The US isn't really more blakanized then in the time where women couldn't vote or were without any real and powerful political representation. Or when black people were basically in the same situation. When none WASP struggled to have political and cultural representation that didn't amount to basically tokenism. The US has never been less divided and that's the great illusion of division. Mainstream culture just never heard the other group opinions, beliefs and values to such a level and extand before. It was a fake sense unity based on the oppression of people. If you want a real sense of unity, not one based on the near absolute dominance of group over the others. You will have to develop a form of interculturalism that is nearly abscent of the US political and social culture which navigates between monocultural hegemony and multiculturalism.

I didn't mean it was more Balkanized than when women and blacks couldn't vote or hold office, for Christ's sake. I'm also dimly aware that we've moved on from steam-powered railroads and the telegraph. I just don't favor an over fetishing of those things that divide us as Americans rather than unite us. And a near absolute dominance of one group over the others? Come on, what planet are you describing? Immigrants aren't scratching and clawing to get here so they can suffer near absolute dominance from, presumable, white male assholes. It is the hand-wringing insistence that all this country offers is near absolute dominance of one group over the others (i.e. white male assholes) that is dividing the country.

I'm getting a bit worn out by this conversation; my ideas are pie in the sky propaganda, yours are a fucking nirvana of interculturalism, navigating between monocultural hegemony and multiculturalism. I think we understand each other's positions. Let's wrap it up.

(01-02-2019, 10:59 PM)epronovost Wrote:
Quote:And maybe some policies could dodge the equal distribution problem, at least partially- universal health care, some kind of tax breaks or tax credits for children. I'm warming up to UBI, which seems to undercut the resentments that come from a byzantine welfare system, fuck it, just give every American X dollars a month. (Not sure how we're going to handle a couple trillion dollars of new debt every year, but what's a few more trillion dollars?)

The problem with many of those policies which are indeed more in the "all boat rises" category is that they tend to be very costly and frequently more wasteful then more precise and concise ones and the US, like all developped nations, has the tendency to be short on cash.

In my opinion, the virtue is trying, even if failing, at policies that support and defend the greatest majority of Americans.

(01-02-2019, 10:59 PM)epronovost Wrote:
Quote:Everyone wants something, for sure. Some of those sound more valid than others, but I think most of them should be secondary to more general “grow and support the middle class” policies. (That's from someone who thinks the growing wealth divide is the greatest threat to the nation, so if I'm wrong about that much of everything I've said won't make sense).

What sounds more valid can be heavily influenced by what you know or how a problem affects you. Some of those policies might be less important then others. They can't be "secondary" to the more general "grow and support the middle class" since all those I metionned were designed to give better access to the middle class to minorities thus "growing and supporting the middle class". They are a part of the policy how can they be "secondary"?

Of course there is no objective way they can be “secondary.” It's just my opinion. We're going to look up and your this identity group or that identity group's primary problems will be answered- that hateful statue of that asshole RE Lee will have come down- but you will have lost any chance for your children or grandchildren to do anything but serve french fries to the guys that live in the gated communities on the hill. I don't want any individuals or group of individuals to be denied their right to focus on their own pet issues, but I do see any such concerns as secondary.

(01-02-2019, 10:59 PM)epronovost Wrote:
Quote:How great of a political ad would that make, stressing your laundry list of concerns? Just from political expediency I can't see how being too expressive about each group getting its due is going to help any Democratic candidate...but on the other hand maybe division is the political wave of the future and the key political wants are narrowly defined and identity focused.

We can probably wrap this up fairly soon, I do understand your criticisms of my position.

What you want your ad to have is a good simple slogan that rings true and good to a majority (try not to be too corny though) and you want the mention of a big "all boats rise" style policy and the mention of a more technical and focused one. This way you look charismatic, ideologically sound and competent (or at least not lying about your big intent). Then, you want your social media guru to produce a wide variety of "sniper ads" which target specific groups that contain your slogan, your big "all boat rises" policy and a policy change (or continuation) that specifically target the precise minority/sub-group. This way everybody can rally under your slogan and you big "all boat rises" policy, all the while being actually really enthousiast and motivated thanks to the more precise policy. That, in my opinion, is how you campaign. You need a multi-modular message with a common central core. Note that no politician in the last century campaigned without a pro middle-class/pro family core message. That's why many minorities don't trust/listen to those messages, because politicians dedicated to fucking with them have used similar slogans and policies before. You got to be careful with "big tent" idea. It's easy to lose small people in big tents and little people have gotten wise to it.

I think you're describing a really good campaign! The problem is the small issue targeted stuff in today's media age would find it's way to the larger audience, turning them off a bit, but overall you have a good strategy. Maybe the difference between you and I is that you would think the larger “big tent” message to be the insincere part, with the true valid message being in the “small tent” targeted messages, whereas I would be the opposite, seeing the big message as the sincere effort and the little stuff as just buying votes. But ironically by your description you would have to agree with me that Warren's ad that started this conversation was a bit flawed, by the standard you just set?

You know I wonder if I had framed my initial complaint of Warren's complaint differently we would have disagreed at all...what if I had not specifically used the term “identity politics”? What if I had said “I liked the Warren ad when it was emphasizing the average American “little guy” getting a fair shake, but didn't like the parts where it seemed to cater to smaller sub-groups”?
The following 1 user Likes jerry mcmasters's post:
  • Vosur
Reply
#22

2020 US candidates
(01-03-2019, 01:34 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: Again it's this “there wasn't a time in US history...” and references to slavery, Jim Crow, etc. History does indeed cast a long shadow but in 2019 it is far from a settled issue that racist cops are out there gunning for blacks. It's a narrative. “Nixon's own tapes.” Great. Could we approach the 21st century perhaps? A bit?

Why for? The policy is the same. The laws and methods, the whole War on Drug package, have barely changed since they were implemented in the mid 70's. That's what we say about the long shadow of history. If you don't change the policy, the policy continues with its intended effect. You can repeat that it happened long ago, but it's still current policies. It's like the electoral college, layed out centuries ago, but still in current use. Yes, the corner stone of modern policing startegy included racist policies and it's still in use. I'm sorry you don't like it, but it's still a cold hard fact.

Quote:I already talked about “trade offs.” High crime areas are going to get more scrutiny and thus more opportunities for tragic consequences. There are high-crime “overpoliced” cities where the rate of young black males being involved in a violent crime is something like tenfold that of other racial groups, Epronovost you expect me to take you seriously if your explanation for that is there are just more cops in the neighborhood observing these incidents, and of course they are going on equally as prevelently in other neighborhoods? Murder rates well into the hundreds every year in major cities, you're going to tell me this is because of the cops? This would be a fucking scandal if it were happening in white or Asian or Hispanic neighborhoods, but we just say what, it's overpolicing?

Do I really need to explain to you the finer point of statistical analysis like how you are basically making a basic selection bias error by setting the focus on "hot spots" and ignore the wider reality of things? Do I also need to explain to you that bad police practice like overpolicing actually CREATES more crime by amongst other things, increasing the vulnerability of a community to poverty and unstabality due to people being imprisonned or force to pay fines (which can be a pain and a major problem when you are living paycheck to paycheck and lead to imprisonment if you can't pay or fail to pay)? That it's reducing trust and confidence in law enforcement in general leading to people not filling complain to the police when a crime is commited agaisnt them or refusing to cooperate with them unless they absolutly need to? That this lack of trust can even lead to a feeling of alienation and opposition to governmental structure thus to a legitimisation of lawlessness and criminality? That constant and regular crackdown on organised crime structures without a clear, well funded and efficient decriminalisation strategy simply prevents a single criminal organisation of dominating an area leading to greater occurence of inter-gang competition and thus inter-gang violence (a bit like going into a country to remove its dictator is going to create more chaos and violence)? Did you really think that overpolicing had only one consequence (finding more crime within a community)? If we look at the "hot spots" aren't they characterised by ALL of the above? The biggest problem of those "hot-spots" isn't criminality so much than bad policing which only makes things worse. "Tough on crime" and heavy policing of those community has been ongoing for over thirty years. The "hot spots" are pretty much the same since the mid 80's (if not even older then that for some). Some are worse then they were in the 80's and 90's, others are just as bad demonstrating the complete uselessness of this strategy to actually reduce criminality and improve those community. In politics, like in most thing in life, you will have to learn that the only thing worse than a bad problem is a bad solution.
 
Quote:I said I understand your criticism of my position. All policies will be problematic, as they are carried out by fallible and corrupt human beings. My position is I would rather have priority go to wide-net policies be attempted, even if fucked up, before small identity politic policies, even though the latter may be more immune from those potential fuck ups.

I can get the appeal, but I personnaly think that, due to examples like above, the cost of potential fuck ups is giving me a cold feet. But without the fuck ups they are indeed amongst the best if not the best policies.

 
Quote:And a near absolute dominance of one group over the others? Come on, what planet are you describing? Immigrants aren't scratching and clawing to get here so they can suffer near absolute dominance from, presumable, white male assholes.

I didn't meant dominance so much in economical and political, but more in ethical and cultural terms. 

Quote:I'm getting a bit worn out by this conversation; my ideas are pie in the sky propaganda, yours are a fucking nirvana of interculturalism, navigating between monocultural hegemony and multiculturalism. I think we understand each other's positions. Let's wrap it up.

Actually in my country, your ideas are what we call "very conservative". To be honest, in my country, my ideas are considered "very progressive" if not downright revolutionary (and not really in the "good" sense of revolutionary). You'd probably love Maxime Bernier if it wasn't for his anti-environmental agenda. Right now your main man would probably be François Legault on the provincial and you would probably pinch your nose and vote Trudeau at federal level (unless environment isn't a main issue, then Bernier would probably appeal to you a lot more).

Quote:You know I wonder if I had framed my initial complaint of Warren's complaint differently we would have disagreed at all...what if I had not specifically used the term “identity politics”? What if I had said “I liked the Warren ad when it was emphasizing the average American “little guy” getting a fair shake, but didn't like the parts where it seemed to cater to smaller sub-groups”?

I would have said to you that the smaller sub-groups form a disproportionate number of the "little guy" compared to their overall demographic weight so adressing them directly and more precisely is not a dumb thing to do and that a good politician should be capable of walking and chewing gum a the same time (both in literal and figurative way).
Reply
#23

2020 US candidates
The roster of Democratic candidates for president in 2020 keeps growing.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) is plotting a presidential run, The Atlantic reports, noting that he has launched a political action committee and plans to form an exploratory committee next. Inslee, who has served as the governor of Washington since 2013 and was previously a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, said he's "laying the groundwork that would make this a feasible thing in the relatively short term." Climate change, a long-standing issue of Inslee's, will be the primary focus of his campaign.
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
The following 1 user Likes Dom's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#24

2020 US candidates
(01-03-2019, 11:54 AM)Dom Wrote: The roster of Democratic candidates for president in 2020 keeps growing.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) is plotting a presidential run, The Atlantic reports, noting that he has launched a political action committee and plans to form an exploratory committee next. Inslee, who has served as the governor of Washington since 2013 and was previously a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, said he's "laying the groundwork that would make this a feasible thing in the relatively short term." Climate change, a long-standing issue of Inslee's, will be the primary focus of his campaign.

This might come to bite him in the ass if he's not careful. In Canada, we had a candidate for Prime Minister that ran with Climate Change policies front and center. He was one of the architect of the Kyoto Protocole and had been a minister in previous administration (mostly nown as technocrat, not a charismatic leader). He was accused by his opposition of basically running on a tax. They hammered his campaign by simply raising the specter of a sharp increase in fuel cost and an increase in price on energy to the already overtaxed middle class. Conservatives were really efficient with that counter message and easily won the election. If the Republican face him off, they will use the same tactic and use the "Gilet Jaune" massive protests in France as the consequences of "environmental policies run hammock". He will need a good counter to that and not one that imply pointing out that the Gilet Jaune protests are about a lot more than a hike in fuel cost.
The following 1 user Likes epronovost's post:
  • DLJ
Reply
#25

2020 US candidates
(01-03-2019, 05:11 PM)epronovost Wrote: This might come to bite him in the ass if he's not careful. In Canada, we had a candidate for Prime Minister that ran with Climate Change policies front and center. He was one of the architect of the Kyoto Protocole and had been a minister in previous administration (mostly nown as technocrat, not a charismatic leader). He was accused by his opposition of basically running on a tax. They hammered his campaign by simply raising the specter of a sharp increase in fuel cost and an increase in price on energy to the already overtaxed middle class. Conservatives were really efficient with that counter message and easily won the election. If the Republican face him off, they will use the same tactic and use the "Gilet Jaune" massive protests in France as the consequences of "environmental policies run hammock". He will need a good counter to that and not one that imply pointing out that the Gilet Jaune protests are about a lot more than a hike in fuel cost.

Since a carbon tax is regressive, it needs to be offset by a tax refund so that it is revenue neutral.  The point is to change behaviors, not raise taxes.  As it is, we subsidize fossil fuels in a variety of ways, including military protection for oil producing countries, health care for people affected by fossil fuel pollution, and so on.  Then there are also the rising costs of extreme weather events.  Any politician who knows his stuff should be able to make a good economic case for a carbon tax.
The following 1 user Likes Alan V's post:
  • Dr H
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)