"He would see this country burn if he could be King of the ashes." - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15055540
late wrote:You could have just said no.


WOKE, SJW, or anti-racism has become a pseudo-religion. And anytime there is any form of religion the ability to reason is suspended. I believe this pseudo-religion is born out of frustration, and brainwashing by the media and political WOKE leaders.

In the old days it was easy to see and diagnose racism. The racism was very clear with signs on the wall that said whites only. And then Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of the bus. She reacted to clear-cut racism. And the civil rights leaders of that era had clear obvious unequivocal hurdles that needed to come down. Only 53 years passed between Rosa parks and the election of obama as POTUS. And he was elected because a lot of white people adored Obama.

Eight years passed and the joy of having a black POTUS banished. Racism fet much worse for many on the left despite all the advances. New hurdles were created such as white privilege and white supremacy. The problem with these hurdles is that they are not clearly visible or identifiable. Nevertheless, if a black person failed the reason was lack of privilege or the supremacy of whites.

And the anti-racist people fell black on old religion: Slavery and Jim Crow. And they made sure all new black people heard this message from birth to the tomb. This lead to low self esteem, anxiety, insecurity, nihilism, and hopelessness. The fact that a HUGE number of black people are thriving meant nothing for the for those that joined the new religion of antiracism.
#15055541
Julian658 wrote:
Oops, it seems you do not want to leave tribalism behind. As I said, tribalism is as bad or even worse than racism. I beg you to look into this.



Workers started trying to organise a few hundred years ago. They finally broke through in the 20th Century.

But then Reagan broke them deliberately, and now they are going to have to fight their way back.

There is a reality out there.

So here it is: In this country, power comes from groups, organisations. The Koch brothers couldn't get much done before they built over a dozen organisations of various types. Then they were able to drag the country to the far Right.

There isn't always a lot of conflict happening with the endless jockeying for advantage. But it's gotten a lot worse over the course of my life.

This is largely the result of the Republican need to cheat.
#15055544
@late

late wrote:Workers started trying to organise a few hundred years ago. They finally broke through in the 20th Century.

But then Reagan broke them deliberately, and now they are going to have to fight their way back.

There is a reality out there.

So here it is: In this country, power comes from groups, organisations. The Koch brothers couldn't get much done before they built over a dozen organisations of various types. Then they were able to drag the country to the far Right.

There isn't always a lot of conflict happening with the endless jockeying for advantage. But it's gotten a lot worse over the course of my life.

This is largely the result of the Republican need to cheat.


I agree late. This country started going down with Reagan's fraudulent "Trickle Down Economics" which was nothing but a fraud and failure. On top of that, Reagan firing striking government air traffic controllers set a legal precedent that private employers use to replace striking union workers. If the government can do it, why can't private sector employers do it?

So, you can vote in a union in your work place but it won't matter much because when you go out on strike the private sector employers can just replace you using the legal precedent set by Reagan when he fired the striking government air traffic controllers. And get this, after firing those striking air traffic controllers, it took them many many years to rebuild the loss they suffered from doing so and they instituted a lot of the things that the striking air traffic controllers were striking about in the first place.

So, I think it was more about breaking unions and not giving a damn if they were going to be short handed for many years to come to get their numbers back up. Plus, they ended up instituting a lot of the striking air traffic controller demands anyway after firing them. Isn't that some bullshit!?

And now because of these disastrous Reagan policies like "Trickle Down Economics" which really was just a con so that the rich could rob from the middle class to get richer at the expense of the middle class and because of unions being broken by firing striking air traffic controllers, gerrymandering and big money and politics, we have the extreme polarization today. The extreme polarization we are having today that is tearing the country apart is the result of Reagan doing these things I listed above.
#15055545
late wrote:Workers started trying to organise a few hundred years ago. They finally broke through in the 20th Century.

But then Reagan broke them deliberately, and now they are going to have to fight their way back.

There is a reality out there.

So here it is: In this country, power comes from groups, organisations. The Koch brothers couldn't get much done before they built over a dozen organisations of various types. Then they were able to drag the country to the far Right.

There isn't always a lot of conflict happening with the endless jockeying for advantage. But it's gotten a lot worse over the course of my life.

This is largely the result of the Republican need to cheat.


Sure, groups can join together to fight for a cause as long as there is no race ID politics and the goals are achievable. Unions play a legit role. However, trying to fight for abstract ideas is worthless. Define the problem in real palpable terms and let's go for that. Saying, I want to fight systemic racism or white privilege or patriarchy does not help because the terms are metaphysical with no palpable easy to see hurdles. This is where the extreme left lost its mission. They want to fight for abstract poorly defined causes because the rhetoric sounds great.. I only give them credit for trying to fix health care, that is palpable.
#15055547
Politics_Observer wrote:@late



I agree late. This country started going down with Reagan's fraudulent "Trickle Down Economics" which was nothing but a fraud and failure. On top of that, Reagan firing striking government air traffic controllers set a legal precedent that private employers use to replace striking union workers. If the government can do it, why can't private sector employers do it?

So, you can vote in a union in your work place but it won't matter much because when you go out on strike the private sector employers can just replace you using the legal precedent set by Reagan when he fired the striking government air traffic controllers. And get this, after firing those striking air traffic controllers, it took them many many years to rebuild the loss they suffered from doing so and they instituted a lot of the things that the striking air traffic controllers were striking about in the first place.

So, I think it was more about breaking unions and not giving a damn if they were going to be short handed for many years to come to get their numbers back up. Plus, they ended up instituting a lot of the striking air traffic controller demands anyway after firing them. Isn't that some bullshit!?

And now because of these disastrous Reagan policies like "Trickle Down Economics" which really was just a con so that the rich could rob from the middle class to get richer at the expense of the middle class and because of unions being broken by firing striking air traffic controllers, gerrymandering and big money and politics, we have the extreme polarization today. The extreme polarization we are having today that is tearing the country apart is the result of Reagan doing these things I listed above.


Trickle down economics?? I have no idea what that is. It sounds more like a term to gain believers or voters.
If you had a chance to immigrate to two nations that are nearly identical, but there is one difference. In one nation 100% of the people belong to the same social average middle class and in the other nation there is a spectrum of rich to poor. Which nation will you choose to be your home?
#15055549
Julian658 wrote:Trickle down economics?? I have no idea what that is. It sounds more like a term to gain believers or voters.
If you had a chance to immigrate to two nations that are nearly identical, but there is one difference. In one nation 100% of the people belong to the same social average middle class and in the other nation there is a spectrum of rich to poor. Which nation will you choose to be your home?


Well, you described the United States when you described a nation that has a spectrum of rich to poor. However, there will always be rich and poor no matter where you go even in other developed first world countries that has less inequality than the United States. The question, is how much inequality are we willing to tolerate? I would choose to stay here in the US where we are the most unequal first world country in the world and do what I can to advance the cause of fighting for a less unequal society. I accept the fact though that there is always going to be inequality no matter where you go in the world and no matter what policy we institute here in the US. I just want to make the inequality tolerable for all (which currently, the level of inequality is not acceptable). Societies that are very equal tend to be equal and everybody impoverished. Which is not a solution to economic problems either.
#15055552
Politics_Observer wrote:Well, you described the United States when you described a nation that has a spectrum of rich to poor. However, there will always be rich and poor no matter where you go even in other developed first world countries that has less inequality than the United States.


Wow, you are way more enlightened than the average person in the planet. There is no equality! Even identical twins with same DNA and same upbringing achieve differently. There will always be a hierarchy of talent and competence. In most classrooms there is a kid that is smarter than the others. And sadly one that falls behind. The goal is to have less inequality but not by reducing the achievements of those on top.

The question, is how much inequality are we willing to tolerate? I would choose to stay here in the US where we are the most unequal first world country in the world and do what I can to advance the cause of fighting for a less unequal society. I accept the fact though that there is always going to be inequality no matter where you go in the world and no matter what policy we institute here in the US. I just want to make the inequality tolerable for all (which currently, the level of inequality is not acceptable). Societies that are very equal tend to be equal and everybody impoverished. Which is not a solution to economic problems either.


Inequality leads to revolution and no one wants a revolution. A poor person in 2019 has much more than a poor person in 1900 however, those at the bottom will compare themselves to those above them rather than with those that lived in the past. In theory we should look at absolute poverty rather than relative poverty which is tied to the wealth gap and inequality. Nevertheless, too much inequality is not a good idea. This is a difficult problem indeed as the normal state of many humans is poverty. It is not so much about fighting what causes poverty but trying to discover what causes humans not to be poor. Having wealth is the exception whereas poverty is the normal baseline state. So what to do? It sounds too simplistic to just spread wealth. Those that receive wealth that they did not earn often become nihilistic.
#15055553
Julian658 wrote:Oops, it seems you do not want to leave tribalism behind. As I said, tribalism is as bad or even worse than racism. I beg you to look into this.

I probably agree with you but it seems to be a "problem" with no solution. I would imagine tribalism has been around as long at life on planet earth has been around. It is ingrained in human nature just as is greed. Animals also use it. It is, among other things, a survival strategy.
#15055554
jimjam wrote:I probably agree with you but it seems to be a "problem" with no solution. I would imagine tribalism has been around as long at life on planet earth has been around. It is ingrained in human nature just as is greed. Animals also use it. It is, among other things, a survival strategy.


I agree! It requires a lot of work not to be tribal in a system that is promoting multiple cultures to live next to each other. It is easy not to be tribal in good times and everybody can sit around the fire and sing Kumbaya. TRibalism becomes more prominent when there is economic despair. Tribalism is also big if inculcated to children from the womb to the tomb. In the same manner grievance and victimhood culture can also become perennial if leaders push that agenda 24/7.
#15055558
Julian658 wrote:
Saying, I want to fight systemic racism or white privilege or patriarchy does not help because the terms are metaphysical...



History isn't metaphysics.

Neither is reality.

Had a history prof that did her doctoral thesis on slavery and racism at the U of Va. She liked to say she was teaching in Maine because Virginia didn't want to hear about it.

If you took the time to actually learn about this, it is astonishing.
#15055562
jimjam wrote:
I probably agree with you but it seems to be a "problem" with no solution.



Most problems have solutions.

We have a Black middle class today because we built part of the solution.

The basics never change, and they would be the next logical step. People are an asset to be invested in. We let them get strip mined.

We could start by making sure every kid gets a good education, starting with national pre-K.

Etc.
#15055569
late wrote:History isn't metaphysics.

Neither is reality.

Had a history prof that did her doctoral thesis on slavery and racism at the U of Va. She liked to say she was teaching in Maine because Virginia didn't want to hear about it.

If you took the time to actually learn about this, it is astonishing.


Slavery is real! I did not say slavery was metaphysical. But, today the fight should be directed at other issues. It is wonderful to study history so it does not repeat. Most blacks are climbing the ladder and getting better every day. The issue have to do with poverty, crime, murder, and lack of education in many cities and communities. Moaning about slavery will not solve the issues. REAL action is needed!

What would you do to improve the conditions of those at the bottom? If you blame a kid not graduating from HS on slavery then there is no solution. Because history cannot be changed.
#15055574
@Julian658

Julian658 wrote:Wow, you are way more enlightened than the average person in the planet. There is no equality! Even identical twins with same DNA and same upbringing achieve differently. There will always be a hierarchy of talent and competence. In most classrooms there is a kid that is smarter than the others. And sadly one that falls behind. The goal is to have less inequality but not by reducing the achievements of those on top.


You are correct that there is an hierarchy of talent and competence. But it is also true we have an hierarchy of wealth and privilege that is not tied to any hierarchy of talent and competence. Just because one has more wealth and is on top, does not necessarily mean they got there through talent and competence. Some are born on top and either choose to use their advantages that others do not have to develop their talent and competence and some born on top choose not to.

There are also those who are born on the bottom and don't have the same advantages and opportunities as those born on the top. They (those born on the bottom) will never have the same advantages as those born on the top. However, we should work to ensure those born on the bottom are not preyed upon by those at the top and also work to ensure that they are able to access more opportunities so that they can rise above their current station. The law should work to protect the weak from the strong on some level and not to enable the strong to better prey upon or exploit the weak.

Julian658 wrote:Inequality leads to revolution and no one wants a revolution. A poor person in 2019 has much more than a poor person in 1900 however, those at the bottom will compare themselves to those above them rather than with those that lived in the past. In theory we should look at absolute poverty rather than relative poverty which is tied to the wealth gap and inequality. Nevertheless, too much inequality is not a good idea.


I absolutely agree with part of your assessment here and I am unsure about the other part. Too much inequality is a bad idea. Inequality does not necessarily lead to revolution though. However, not having enough to provide for the basic necessities of life could possibly lead to revolution. If you can't put a roof over your head or food on the table despite working hard then you obviously do not have enough.

Most people would also like to be able to have some money to enjoy a vacation once and awhile or some leisure time in addition to having enough to provide a roof over their heads and food on the table. So instead of aiming for egalitarianism, we should instead be aiming to ensure that everybody has enough but may very well not have equal amounts of income and wealth as others. If people have enough to have their own roof over their head and food on the table as well as money for some leisure time or vacation once and awhile, perhaps their own car that will last awhile, health insurance and money saved for retirement then it is of less concern to people if others have more than them.

It is when those on top engage in economic gluttony at the expense of those beneath them on the economic ladder to where those below them on the economic ladder no longer have enough do we begin to have problems, political instability, political polarization and social unrest.

Julian658 wrote:This is a difficult problem indeed as the normal state of many humans is poverty. It is not so much about fighting what causes poverty but trying to discover what causes humans not to be poor. Having wealth is the exception whereas poverty is the normal baseline state. So what to do? It sounds too simplistic to just spread wealth. Those that receive wealth that they did not earn often become nihilistic.


Yes, it seems the normal state of humans is poverty. I don't have all the solutions. I wish I did. I am a democrat, so I believe in former President Obama's economic policies of "middle class economics." One of former President Clinton's economic advisors Robert Reich suggests creating counter-veiling power to the power of big corporations and big money that currently influence our politics. But it's about balance and not allowing things to swing too far from one extreme to the other. But again, I don't have all the answers. I would listen to those people who specialize in economics and listen to some of their ideas. Here is a video that has Robert Reich in it:

#15055591
late wrote:The Trump Cult is trying to hold onto the power they got from majority status, and racist repression, at all cost.

Trump is doing quite a bit for black and Hispanic unemployment and has helped to increase once stagnant wage growth. Trump also spearheaded the First Step Act, which has helped minorities disproportionately. Trump even got funding for historically black colleges--not even Obama did that. Trump is not exactly a racist, nor are his supporters. Incidentally, Corbyn and his supporters calling Labour voters racist worked out really well for Labour. Hopefully, Democrats will continue calling blue collar voters racist, because it will help them immensely in November 2020.

late wrote:But then Reagan broke them deliberately, and now they are going to have to fight their way back.

Patco was a miniscule union. There are plenty of government employee unions. What happened to labor is that free trade made it appealing to move production overseas. Remember, Reagan won by getting a lot of union households to vote for him.

Politics_Observer wrote: On top of that, Reagan firing striking government air traffic controllers set a legal precedent that private employers use to replace striking union workers.

Patco's strike was illegal.

Politics_Observer wrote:So, you can vote in a union in your work place but it won't matter much because when you go out on strike the private sector employers can just replace you using the legal precedent set by Reagan when he fired the striking government air traffic controllers.

The private sector cannot just fire striking workers. It is illegal. They must negotiate in good faith.
#15055594
@blackjack21

blackjack wrote:The private sector cannot just fire striking workers. It is illegal. They must negotiate in good faith.


Well if it's illegal they dang sure been doing it.


Here is a quote from NPR in regards to this:

NPR wrote:Moffet calls the strike a "calamity," not just for the fired air-traffic controllers, but for unions everywhere. Back in 1981, labor negotiations centered around the size of workers' raises. Subsequently, management began going after all unions for concessions and laying people off, he says.

Georgetown University historian Joseph McCartin is writing a book about the PATCO strike. Prior to PATCO, it was not acceptable for employers to replace workers on strike, even though the law gave employers the right to do so, he says.

The PATCO strike eased those inhibitions. Major strikes plummeted from an average of 300 each year in the decades before to fewer than 30 today.

"Any kind of worker, it seemed, was vulnerable to replacement if they went out on strike, and the psychological impact of that, I think, was huge," McCartin says. "The loss of the strike as a weapon for American workers has some rather profound, long-range consequences."



https://www.npr.org/2006/08/03/5604656/ ... 6992252143

They can basically fire striking workers and hire scabs. Here is an audio from NPR talking about the legal precedent set by Reagan's PATCO strike. You can click on the link below to play the audio that talks about the precedent that Reagan firing air traffic controllers had not just on air traffic controllers today, but on all private sector unions today too:

https://www.npr.org/player/embed/5604656/5604659

Thus, this is the reason why we have too much inequality in America today that is not acceptable. We will always have inequality but the levels of inequality we have are not acceptable and part of the reason why this is the case is the precedent Reagan set by firing those government air traffic controllers and the impact it had on private sector unions and their ability to strike to get concessions from employers.
By Julian658
#15055596
Patrickov wrote:IIRC My Friend has defined tribalism as "race identity politics". IMHO racism is a form of tribalism under this definition.

Racism implies one group feels superior to another. Of course, this can only work if the other group has low self esteem or insecurity and has been oppressed in the past. Tribalism does not imply superiority of one group over another and is mostly about hatred for the other group. The opposition is demonized and there is no room for compromise.
#15055597
Politics_Observer wrote:@Julian658



You are correct that there is an hierarchy of talent and competence. But it is also true we have an hierarchy of wealth and privilege that is not tied to any hierarchy of talent and competence. Just because one has more wealth and is on top, does not necessarily mean they got there through talent and competence. Some are born on top and either choose to use their advantages that others do not have to develop their talent and competence and some born on top choose not to.

There are also those who are born on the bottom and don't have the same advantages and opportunities as those born on the top. They (those born on the bottom) will never have the same advantages as those born on the top. However, we should work to ensure those born on the bottom are not preyed upon by those at the top and also work to ensure that they are able to access more opportunities so that they can rise above their current station. The law should work to protect the weak from the strong on some level and not to enable the strong to better prey upon or exploit the weak.


This is a difficult dilemma. Most parents want to provide the offspring with as much advantage as possible. Both my parents were highly educated and they stayed married while i was growing up. that gave me me an enormous advantage over those growing up in a one parent household. I would simply promote better parenting, this is the key to the success we see in the kids of Asian and Indian immigrants in America. These kids do way better than whites because they have tow good parents at home.

Sadly equa opportunity does not lead to equal results. At some point we have to accept this and move one. The Kansas City school experiment of the 1990s failed. Poor kids were provided with the best schools in the galaxy and yet scholastic scores did not change Hence I would concentrate on improving the quality of life at home first.



If you can't put a roof over your head or food on the table despite working hard then you obviously do not have enough.


That can easily be fixed by slowing down immigration, but this is seen as racist.

Most people would also like to be able to have some money to enjoy a vacation once and awhile or some leisure time in addition to having enough to provide a roof over their heads and food on the table. So instead of aiming for egalitarianism, we should instead be aiming to ensure that everybody has enough but may very well not have equal amounts of income and wealth as others. If people have enough to have their own roof over their head and food on the table as well as money for some leisure time or vacation once and awhile, perhaps their own car that will last awhile, health insurance and money saved for retirement then it is of less concern to people if others have more than them.


I agree, but we will not get there by importing extremely cheap labor 24/7.

It is when those on top engage in economic gluttony at the expense of those beneath them on the economic ladder to where those below them on the economic ladder no longer have enough do we begin to have problems, political instability, political polarization and social unrest.


Those on top love the low wages paid to immigrants. We keep going back to the same issue. Why do you think Brexit is popular among the blue collar workers of ther UK?
#15055599
late wrote:
We could start by making sure every kid gets a good education, starting with national pre-K.

Etc.



I suggest you look up the Kansas City school experiment of the 1990s. They were spending up to 40k per pupil in public schools in poor areas and got ZERO results. The solution for education is at home. Give a kid two solid parents that are interested in education and the kid thrives. Your slogan sounds awesome, but the solution is really two good parents.
The Myth of Late Stage Capitalism

When technology makes a higher level of organisat[…]

There are several reasons for people to go to coll[…]

Biden’s running mate

Hey @Godstud , he used the cultural Marxist word[…]

Discrimination based on racial group is a prefere[…]