Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

KingBrian2

oscarBravo wrote: »

I didn't say your opinion wasn't valid because of your sex and your race. It's telling when you can't argue with what I say, so you have to invent what you decided I must have meant and argue with that instead.

I pointed out that it's easy to have an opinion about how other people's problems don't matter, just because they're problems you don't have.

So no: it's not that your opinion doesn't matter because of your sex and your race. It's that your opinion is wrong, because you don't know what you're talking about. Ask some women whether sexism is a solved problem; ask some black people whether racism is a memory from the sixties; ask some transgender people whether or not their lives can be terrifying ordeals.

Or don't. Form your opinions from your straight, white, male ivory tower and pronounce them as enlightened truths. But you don't get to sulk when you're called on it.

Talk about substituting one form of sexism for another. Yikes.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

Now, do JP's opinions conclusively prove that he's a straight white male? Nope. But I'll cheerfully wager a large sum of money that he is, and I'd be curious how many of you arguing the point would give me odds.

No, a person's general opinions don't prove anything about the physical characteristics of the person giving them.

You're creating a stereotype, and then using an ad hominem against it.
I'd guess he probably is a straight white male, but I would not fall into the trap of employing the above fallacies in lieu of a proper argument.

Anyone see the new Jungle book movie BTW. The big bad tiger goes to great lengths to explain to the wolf pack about cuckoos and how rearing Mowgli was such a bad idea. Sign of the times I suppose, or was that actually in the original book? Reminded me of some comments in this thread :pac:
Very good movie though.

KingBrian2

Links234 wrote: »

Sorry, but if someone's voting for this guy...

I don't know he had various business ventures some failed others prospered and he stands before the American electorate with everyone throwing insults, condescension and abuse at him. At the campaign stage he has no friends or allies only enemies. He may be crass but he is cunning and before people use his wealth and status as a bludgeon against him he was at one of the Clinton's weddings.

In a way peoples opinion about Trump is immaterial infact I would go out of my way to say that the abuse chucked at Trump at this stage is more towards his supporters who are not the brightest in the room then him. They use Trump as a piñata. Now I feel this is unwise no matter how much you dislike your rivals you must stop yourself insulting the people that vote for Trump many of whom are decent law abiding conservatives.

Their not all rednecks. I realize the social media assholes are getting all the attention I dare say that many Trump voters are not as nasty as we have come to regard them as.

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

Tough on Trump, tough on the causes of Trump.

Lurkio

Custardpi wrote: »

So why mention (or indeed assume) someone's race gender or sexuality in that context if not to imply that their ideas have less value as a result? Like I said I don't agree with JP on these issues but the approach of saying "sure you're only a straight white male, what would you know?" is just a lazy ad hominem.

That's not what he said.

"Says the straight white male. I guess if you don't have a problem, then there isn't a problem. "

in the context that was made is fairly clear cut.

Custardpi wrote: »

So you can automatically predict with 100% accuracy what someone's political views will be based on their race, gender & sexuality?.

I wasn't aware that the existence of racism against minorities was a "political view"

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

But that is his argument, literally. Laws against state and private companies discriminating, affirmative action, quota's, all not good enough, we need thought police(and more laws I assume) and my opinion is not valid because of my sex and my race.
.

Your opinion is not valid because it appears to be largely based on anti-Semitic nonsense and pseudo scientific racism. Your "race" and sex are fairly irrelevant.

orubiru

robindch wrote: »

I would argue that one of the problems with the Anti-Trump crowd is that they are not actually as smart as they like to think they are. They spread divisive rhetoric constantly then wonder why there is so much divisiveness. Are you kidding me?

Yup, the Trump side also spreads a fair share of divisive rhetoric but fighting fire with fire? Probably not going to work. I get that it's easy to just say that those people who will vote Trump are dumb or uneducated or whatever but they can't seriously think it'll work.

Actually, it's just lazy. Telling people they are only voting a certain way because they are too thick to realise the truth? Not likely to convert them. Are they trying to shame people into not voting Trump?

I'm not sure that the anti-Trump people are even aware that their own rhetoric is divisive.

Paradoxically they will claim that it's all privileged white males who are voting for Trump. What? Being uneducated is a privilege now?

On one side we have all the super smart people who will vote "anyone but Trump" and on the other side we have all the uneducated dumb-dumbs who just don't know any better. Right?

I wonder if there is a better way to convince a Trump supporter to change their views? A way that isn't based on buzzwords or ad hominem arguments?

"Trump Supporters are all ignorant idiots", said the ignorant idiot.

KomradeBishop

Christy42 wrote: »

Education should be about broadening the mind and allowing people to make the fact checks themselves. The fact that one man can get so far on statements simply blaming Johnny Foreigner is worrying. Johnny Foreigner is not why wages have stagnated or why manufacturing jobs are going away.

A quick fact check will show you that most Mexicans are not rapists. Mexico will not pay for a wall for no reason. Women are capable of asking relevant questions whether or not they are on their period.

While I disagree with xenophobia obviously, there is a valid argument to be had on the issue of immigration - it definitely does contribute to undercutting wages, for one - and there are valid arguments for restricting it.

So there is actually a valid argument there. It doesn't have to involve xenophobia though - but it is the fear of this perception, which seems to lead to it not being discussed on these terms.

Economically, restricting immigration is a valid argument - but it's politically tainted with association with xenophobia (even though one doesn't mean the other) - so 'the left' has failed to make a coherent economic argument on the issue of immigration, due to concerns about political perception.

Trump has no such concerns though - and carries the superior economic argument on this specific issue (even if it's laced with unnecessary xenophobia).


What we are going to see in the future, is one of these two outcomes:
1: 'The Left' will get its shít together economically, and will start actually putting forward coherent economic views, which aren't restricted to the current orthodoxy, and which can deal with controversial issues like immigration, without resorting to e.g. xenophobia and the like. Economics will be reformed in a progressive manner.

2: 'The Right' will move farther and farther rightwards, taking advantage of 'The Left's impotence economically, and will take advantage of escalating economic dysfunction/crisis, to promote xenophobia/bigoted social views, as being the cause/blame for this, and will push for extremely socially regressive policies. Economics and society, will be reformed in a regressive manner.

'2' there, is pretty much what happened in Germany, leading up to WWII - and today, the impotence of 'The Left' is paving the way for a return to exactly that kind of extremely polarized politics - and we may see that play out gradually, over the course of the next few decades (was politics as extreme as it is today, a decade or even two decades ago? imagine how it will be as even more decades pass...don't underestimate how bad it can get, given enough time).

Lurkio

orubiru wrote: »

I would argue that one of the problems with the Anti-Trump crowd is that they are not actually as smart as they like to think they are. They spread divisive rhetoric constantly then wonder why there is so much divisiveness. Are you kidding me?

While they probably aren't (who is?) one might query how precisely one can change the mind of somebody who wholeheartedly swallows the Trump message of xenophobia and bigotry. If, for instance, somebody genuinely thinks the Mexican government are sending their deviants over the border, I'm not sure as to how one can counter an argument that left of field.

KomradeBishop

Lurkio wrote: »

Racism, xenophobia and sexism are the result of ignorance/lack of education. If a political viewpoint incorporates them, then that is not a valid view point but an expression of ignorance/lack of education.

Incoherent economic views are a result of ignorance and lack of education too - and the state of economic teaching/discourse is utterly dire - and people everywhere, are openly disinterested in becoming informed about economics and the flaws within its teaching/practice - i.e. are highly ignorant about it, with no intention of rectifying that.

Xenophobia/Racism and the like are much more obvious and easily noticed forms of ignorance - but no side in politics there or anywhere, has a monopoly on ignorant/uninformed views.

Christy42

orubiru wrote: »

I would argue that one of the problems with the Anti-Trump crowd is that they are not actually as smart as they like to think they are. They spread divisive rhetoric constantly then wonder why there is so much divisiveness. Are you kidding me?

Yup, the Trump side also spreads a fair share of divisive rhetoric but fighting fire with fire? Probably not going to work. I get that it's easy to just say that those people who will vote Trump are dumb or uneducated or whatever but they can't seriously think it'll work.

Actually, it's just lazy. Telling people they are only voting a certain way because they are too thick to realise the truth? Not likely to convert them. Are they trying to shame people into not voting Trump?

I'm not sure that the anti-Trump people are even aware that their own rhetoric is divisive.

Paradoxically they will claim that it's all privileged white males who are voting for Trump. What? Being uneducated is a privilege now?

On one side we have all the super smart people who will vote "anyone but Trump" and on the other side we have all the uneducated dumb-dumbs who just don't know any better. Right?

I wonder if there is a better way to convince a Trump supporter to change their views? A way that isn't based on buzzwords or ad hominem arguments?

"Trump Supporters are all ignorant idiots", said the ignorant idiot.

Shockingly that isn't meant to convince a Trump supporter. It is trying to figure out why we still have so many people willing to judge people based on race/gender. As it says stopping Trump is the short term solution and it wants to look at the long term solution.

As for the privilege comment no one said being uneducated was a privilege. It most certainly isn't. However all else being equal being an uneducated white male will make your life easier on average (I. E. Across the full population, individual results may vary) than being uneducated and a member of a minority.

robdonn

KomradeBishop wrote: »

While I disagree with xenophobia obviously, there is a valid argument to be had on the issue of immigration - it definitely does contribute to undercutting wages, for one - and there are valid arguments for restricting it.

But it is the Americans who are paying the undercutting wages and it's their responsibility (and the law) not to do so. Building a wall and stopping immigration as it will only encourage unscrupulous business people is akin to telling women not to wear short skirts as it will only tempt the rapists.

Christy42

KomradeBishop wrote: »

While I disagree with xenophobia obviously, there is a valid argument to be had on the issue of immigration - it definitely does contribute to undercutting wages, for one - and there are valid arguments for restricting it.

So there is actually a valid argument there. It doesn't have to involve xenophobia though - but it is the fear of this perception, which seems to lead to it not being discussed on these terms.

Economically, restricting immigration is a valid argument - but it's politically tainted with association with xenophobia (even though one doesn't mean the other) - so 'the left' has failed to make a coherent economic argument on the issue of immigration, due to concerns about political perception.

Trump has no such concerns though - and carries the superior economic argument on this specific issue (even if it's laced with unnecessary xenophobia).


What we are going to see in the future, is one of these two outcomes:
1: 'The Left' will get its shít together economically, and will start actually putting forward coherent economic views, which aren't restricted to the current orthodoxy, and which can deal with controversial issues like immigration, without resorting to e.g. xenophobia and the like. Economics will be reformed in a progressive manner.

2: 'The Right' will move farther and farther rightwards, taking advantage of 'The Left's impotence economically, and will take advantage of escalating economic dysfunction/crisis, to promote xenophobia/bigoted social views, as being the cause/blame for this, and will push for extremely socially regressive policies. Economics and society, will be reformed in a regressive manner.

'2' there, is pretty much what happened in Germany, leading up to WWII - and today, the impotence of 'The Left' is paving the way for a return to exactly that kind of extremely polarized politics - and we may see that play out gradually, over the course of the next few decades (was politics as extreme as it is today, a decade or even two decades ago? imagine how it will be as even more decades pass...don't underestimate how bad it can get, given enough time).

Sorry I wasn't clear. Immigration is not the main driving force behind stagnating wages at present levels. So I disagree that Trump has the best economic argument here (it is better than the extreme left of let everybody in but worse than the we don't need to shut ourselves away from the world).

I am aware of many on the left who are in favour of unrestricted immigration but I am not one of them. It would cause havoc economically but Hillary at least seems unlikely to drive through unrestricted immigarion

KomradeBishop

robdonn wrote: »

But it is the Americans who are paying the undercutting wages and it's their responsibility (and the law) not to do so. Building a wall and stopping immigration as it will only encourage unscrupulous business people is akin to telling women not to wear short skirts as it will only tempt the rapists.

I don't know what the best policy to advocate is - probably one involving a more balanced (i.e. less in the US's favour) trade treaty with Mexico, so that less people will want to go to the US (and this solution would only bear fruit in the long-term) - but the simple fact is, if immigrants are entering the US, then they are going to undercut wages by sheer numbers alone (especially when unemployment is high), not necessarily because of being underpaid.

So immigration can have a downward effect on wages, even when businesses stay within the bounds of wage laws - it's not analogous to your rape example at all.

JPNelsforearm

Lurkio wrote: »

Your opinion is not valid because it appears to be largely based on anti-Semitic nonsense and pseudo scientific racism. Your "race" and sex are fairly irrelevant.

>Tfw ****posting insults at 4am

orubiru

Christy42 wrote: »

Shockingly that isn't meant to convince a Trump supporter. It is trying to figure out why we still have so many people willing to judge people based on race/gender. As it says stopping Trump is the short term solution and it wants to look at the long term solution.

As for the privilege comment no one said being uneducated was a privilege. It most certainly isn't. However all else being equal being an uneducated white male will make your life easier on average (I. E. Across the full population, individual results may vary) than being uneducated and a member of a minority.

"However all else being equal being an uneducated white male will make your life easier on average"

OK, but what happens when life ISN'T easier?

My understanding of the popularity of Trump is that it is mainly people who are struggling that want to vote for him? Poor, uneducated etc. If his voter base comes from people who are poorer and less well educated then the argument that "on average people of your race and gender are better off" doesn't work.

If an individual doesn't have an easy life then I'm gonna guess that they don't much care that they share a race or gender with 90% of the nations millionaires.

On an individual level, average means nothing.

So you can say "don't judge people based on race or gender" but when they feel like life is bad and they want to vote Trump? NOW it's time to start judging based on race or gender?

Most people are interested in jobs and money. Sure, it's possible to foster a culture of racism when people are convinced that they don't have a job or any money because of some undeserving, privileged, "other" who is unfairly taking those things for themselves. It has happened before and it will happen again.

How do you untangle that knot? The man or woman who needs money to feed their family will do almost anything to get that money. What happens when you believe, rightly or wrongly, that supporting Trump will put food on the table?

Along comes the anti-Trump person who says "ah, sure, people of your race and gender have it easier on average, you just need some educatin' so you'll be less ignorant". Along comes Trump who says "I'll create jobs and money". It's an open goal for Trump.

Another poster said:

Ask some women whether sexism is a solved problem;
Ask some black people whether racism is a memory from the sixties;
Ask some transgender people whether or not their lives can be terrifying ordeals.

That seems fine on the surface. Sure, historically, women and transgender people have been treated poorly. In every nation on Earth the "foreigner" or the "minority" has been treated badly at one point or another.

This does not erase the problems faced by other people though. If we can't easily dismiss the lived experiences of women, black people and transgender people then by extension you can't dismiss the lived experiences of straight white males.

You get stuck categorising people, labelling people, trying to figure why people are they way they are by boiling individuals down to basic attributes.

When you get down to it, people in the US are voting for Trump because they think life will be better with Trump in charge.

How can you even "educate" that opinion out of them? They feel that current government is bad, they think that this guy can make it better. So you tell them "buh-but Trump is a buh-big bad racist sexist" and he just ignores that stuff and says "we're gonna create jobs and money for the nation".

Regarding the quote from the photo that was posted, you have a supposedly democratic nation going through a crisis where people are sincerely wondering how they can condition people to not vote for certain candidates in the future. What's the point of democracy then?

It's actually worse than convincing a Trump supporter to change their mind. It's wondering if there's a way to condition folks such that voting for someone like Trump isn't even an option.

How slippery is that slope?

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I didn't say your opinion wasn't valid because of your sex and your race. It's telling when you can't argue with what I say, so you have to invent what you decided I must have meant and argue with that instead.

I pointed out that it's easy to have an opinion about how other people's problems don't matter, just because they're problems you don't have.

So no: it's not that your opinion doesn't matter because of your sex and your race. It's that your opinion is wrong, because you don't know what you're talking about. Ask some women whether sexism is a solved problem; ask some black people whether racism is a memory from the sixties; ask some transgender people whether or not their lives can be terrifying ordeals.

Or don't. Form your opinions from your straight, white, male ivory tower and pronounce them as enlightened truths. But you don't get to sulk when you're called on it.

"people have problems shocker"

I dont pronounce anything as an enlightened truth, no sulking here, Im not the clown saying the world needs to be re-educated so they will have a certain political bent.

There is legislation against any discrimination that matters, everything else is free interaction between people, sack up.

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

>Tfw ****posting insults at 4am

It's a statement of fact, not an insult. Not sure what the tfw thing is about.

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

There is legislation against any discrimination that matters, everything else is free interaction between people, sack up.

So where legislation doesn't cover discrimination all is fair game then? Rather underlines my point.

JPNelsforearm

Lurkio wrote: »

So where legislation doesn't cover discrimination all is fair game then? Rather underlines my point.

As usual with your posts, *citation needed*

robdonn

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

There is legislation against any discrimination that matters, everything else is free interaction between people, sack up.

And there is legislation that promotes forms of discrimination, do these forms of discrimination not matter?

Want a job in a restaurant in North Carolina but can't get it because the owner doesn't like that you're gay? Sucks to be you.

Want to send your kid to the only Irish state-funded school for miles around but can't get in because you're not Catholic? Tough titties.

Christy42

orubiru wrote: »

"However all else being equal being an uneducated white male will make your life easier on average"

OK, but what happens when life ISN'T easier?

My understanding of the popularity of Trump is that it is mainly people who are struggling that want to vote for him? Poor, uneducated etc. If his voter base comes from people who are poorer and less well educated then the argument that "on average people of your race and gender are better off" doesn't work.

If an individual doesn't have an easy life then I'm gonna guess that they don't much care that they share a race or gender with 90% of the nations millionaires.

On an individual level, average means nothing.

So you can say "don't judge people based on race or gender" but when they feel like life is bad and they want to vote Trump? NOW it's time to start judging based on race or gender?

Most people are interested in jobs and money. Sure, it's possible to foster a culture of racism when people are convinced that they don't have a job or any money because of some undeserving, privileged, "other" who is unfairly taking those things for themselves. It has happened before and it will happen again.

How do you untangle that knot? The man or woman who needs money to feed their family will do almost anything to get that money. What happens when you believe, rightly or wrongly, that supporting Trump will put food on the table?

Along comes the anti-Trump person who says "ah, sure, people of your race and gender have it easier on average, you just need some educatin' so you'll be less ignorant". Along comes Trump who says "I'll create jobs and money". It's an open goal for Trump.

Another poster said:

Ask some women whether sexism is a solved problem;
Ask some black people whether racism is a memory from the sixties;
Ask some transgender people whether or not their lives can be terrifying ordeals.

That seems fine on the surface. Sure, historically, women and transgender people have been treated poorly. In every nation on Earth the "foreigner" or the "minority" has been treated badly at one point or another.

This does not erase the problems faced by other people though. If we can't easily dismiss the lived experiences of women, black people and transgender people then by extension you can't dismiss the lived experiences of straight white males.

You get stuck categorising people, labelling people, trying to figure why people are they way they are by boiling individuals down to basic attributes.

When you get down to it, people in the US are voting for Trump because they think life will be better with Trump in charge.

How can you even "educate" that opinion out of them? They feel that current government is bad, they think that this guy can make it better. So you tell them "buh-but Trump is a buh-big bad racist sexist" and he just ignores that stuff and says "we're gonna create jobs and money for the nation".

Regarding the quote from the photo that was posted, you have a supposedly democratic nation going through a crisis where people are sincerely wondering how they can condition people to not vote for certain candidates in the future. What's the point of democracy then?

It's actually worse than convincing a Trump supporter to change their mind. It's wondering if there's a way to condition folks such that voting for someone like Trump isn't even an option.

How slippery is that slope?

The point of democracy is for people to pick who leads them.
The point of education is to equip people with the skills needed to analyse a situation and to expose them to how the world works in general. No one is saying that education should say don't vote for this candidate.
Education should say that women can ask relevant questions whether or not they are on their period or give the pros and cons of an isolationist economic policy (plus other things like math and English). If we manage to teach people to treat others as equals (not controversial afaik) then Trump won't get many votes. It would also show them that he won't create jobs for them.

Yes I understand that white people will also have issues and that going that guy had it worse won't help. Happily enough education will though. No one is saying we need to make the lives of poor white men worse. One candidate is saying we need to make the lives of minorities worse. Hense the focus on minorities.

oscarBravo

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

There is legislation against any discrimination that matters...

I'm seriously starting to think you're just posting as a caricature of privilege.

JPNelsforearm

robdonn wrote: »

And there is legislation that promotes forms of discrimination, do these forms of discrimination not matter?

Want a job in a restaurant in North Carolina but can't get it because the owner doesn't like that you're gay? Sucks to be you.

Want to send your kid to the only Irish state-funded school for miles around but can't get in because you're not Catholic? Tough titties.

Such as? My point is that this great (White male-led) oppression and the forthcoming Reich under Trump is a complete fantasy. Of course there are small kinks in society, and some people have it ****, but that stands true across the board for everyone, black, white, whatever. This oppression olympics concept is complete fantasy, invented by people who missed out on the 60's and need a cause to get behind. Finding none, grievances are invented, enemies(white males) are found and used as a prop to further an agenda(take your pick).

There is legislation against that, take your employer/prospective employer to court, there are plenty of deep pocketed civil rights law firms and charities who would take that case on. As an aside, how would one know a person is gay?
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm

All anecdotal, no child is being denied a place in their local school, solely because they didnt have a baptismal cert. Every child in their local area is accommodated. Thats not to say I agree state funded schools should include religion as part of an entrance criteria. Im an atheist/irreligious no baptismal cert for myself or my son, no issues, anecdotal of course, but until a study comes along showing widespread discrimination, depriving reams of children of an education, pardon me if I remain skeptical.

recedite

Christy42 wrote: »

Yes I understand that white people will also have issues and that going that guy had it worse won't help. Happily enough education will though. No one is saying we need to make the lives of poor white men worse. One candidate is saying we need to make the lives of minorities worse. Hense the focus on minorities.

Where has Trump argued for white man's privilege?
Immigration and xenophobia is not just about racism, its about property rights as much as anything. The anti-Trump camp don't understand why that is, so they get all worked up about racism and sexism, and launch hate campaigns against Trump.
Imagine there was no immigration control anywhere. An unskilled white Irish male on the dole could move to Saudi Arabia and live in the sun with the best of free healthcare. The Saudis don't allow that, just as they don't allow Syrian refugees in. Are they racists? Not necessarily; they have their oil, and they don't want to share it with people who don't pay for it.
Do you have a lock on the door where you live? Why don't you just leave the door open, and just allow anyone to wander in? Just share your stuff with the world.
If you're not willing to do it on a personal level, don't expect countries to do it at international level.

The far left think "all property is theft". If you subscribe to that view, then fair enough, that is a valid (if naive) position, and you should also be an advocate of no borders. If you don't subscribe to that view, but still call for open borders because it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside, then maybe you're not as smart as you like to think you are.

The USA has an official immigration program for bringing in skilled and properly security vetted workers and also a limited number of unskilled refugees, which Trump fully supports.

Christy42

recedite wrote: »

Where has Trump argued for white man's privilege?
Immigration and xenophobia is not just about racism, its about property rights as much as anything. The anti-Trump camp don't understand why that is, so they get all worked up about racism and sexism, and launch hate campaigns against Trump.
Imagine there was no immigration control anywhere. An unskilled white Irish male on the dole could move to Saudi Arabia and live in the sun with the best of free healthcare. The Saudis don't allow that, just as they don't allow Syrian refugees in. Are they racists? Not necessarily; they have their oil, and they don't want to share it with people who don't pay for it.
Do you have a lock on the door where you live? Why don't you just leave the door open, and just allow anyone to wander in? Just share your stuff with the world.
If you're not willing to do it on a personal level, don't expect countries to do it at international level.

The far left think "all property is theft". If you subscribe to that view, then fair enough, that is a valid (if naive) position, and you should also be an advocate of no borders. If you don't subscribe to that view, but still call for open borders because it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside, then maybe you're not as smart as you like to think you are.

The USA has an official immigration program for bringing in skilled and properly security vetted workers and also a limited number of unskilled refugees, which Trump fully supports.

Why would specifically banning Muslims affect property rights? Also banning Muslims specifically is not what the current official immigration program is aimed at so he does not seem to support it. The rest of your post is simply putting words in my mouth. I didn't any of that but evidentally you thought it was easier to argue against than anything I actually said.

KomradeBishop

You know, after seeing this, I think it's maybe already too late for 'The Left' to get their shít together, on economic issues:

"People said I want to go and buy debt and default on debt, and I mean, these people are crazy. This is the United States government," Trump told CNN's Chris Cuomo on "New Day." "First of all, you never have to default because you print the money, I hate to tell you, OK?"

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-no-debt-default-222957
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/09/politics/donald-trump-national-debt-strategy/

If that isn't just another throwaway comment from him, then he's well on his way to defeating any potential for a Left-led effort at reforming economics in the US - because he's just nailed the most important issue for reforming economic policy: Having a proper understanding of how money works, and being willing to use it to its full potential.

Remember that, in Germany leading up to WWII, they literally printed money to stealthily fund rearmament - they were the last major nation, to show a proper understanding of and willingness to use, the full potential/power of a national currency.

This is something approximately nobody gives a shít about, when discussing politics/economics, because people all assume such policies aren't possible, due to persistent economic myths - yet if a major political party in the US of all places, does begin to platform on this issue, it's going to become one of the most important issues in politics very quickly, and it will lead to right-wing politicians such as Trump, absolutely trouncing all left-wing opposition, because the latter will be saddled with outdated economic views.

That's a bit scary to see really. If left-leaning parties don't get their shít together here, and start platforming on issues like this too, then they could become discredited - and then extreme-right-wing parties could get to shape, how future governments utilize national currencies, in very regressive ways (it's how many wars have been funded in the past, for instance).

robdonn

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Such as?

How about the two examples I gave? They are forms of discrimination that are not simply ignored by legislation but are actually supported by it. In Mississippi (not North Carolina, I got that mixed up with a different law) there is a law specifically saying that you can refuse services and jobs to gay people. In Ireland there is a law that says you can reject a child from admission to a public, state-funded school because they are not a member of a particular religion. Same applies to people trying to seek work in schools and hospitals.

These people are not ignored by the law, but are actively discriminated against with the full support of the law.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

There is legislation against that, take your employer/prospective employer to court, there are plenty of deep pocketed civil rights law firms and charities who would take that case on. As an aside, how would one know a person is gay?
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm

There is legislation in support of it. Right now in Mississippi the law is on the side of the employer.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

All anecdotal, no child is being denied a place in their local school, solely because they didnt have a baptismal cert. Every child in their local area is accommodated. Thats not to say I agree state funded schools should include religion as part of an entrance criteria. Im an atheist/irreligious no baptismal cert for myself or my son, no issues, anecdotal of course, but until a study comes along showing widespread discrimination, depriving reams of children of an education, pardon me if I remain skeptical.

Your son managed to get into a school without any issues, congratulations? What kind of study do you require when you are aware of the admission policy already? Preferential treatment to Catholic children, for a public school, is discriminatory to non-Catholic children. How many times does it need to happen to count for you?

And it's not just school admission policies, it is legislation that supports it.

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm seriously starting to think you're just posting as a caricature of privilege.

What would this "privilege" consist of, in an Irish context? How can one have any privilege outside of the financial?

JPNelsforearm

robdonn wrote: »

How about the two examples I gave? They are forms of discrimination that are not simply ignored by legislation but are actually supported by it. In Mississippi (not North Carolina, I got that mixed up with a different law) there is a law specifically saying that you can refuse services and jobs to gay people. In Ireland there is a law that says you can reject a child from admission to a public, state-funded school because they are not a member of a particular religion. Same applies to people trying to seek work in schools and hospitals.

These people are not ignored by the law, but are actively discriminated against with the full support of the law.



There is legislation in support of it. Right now in Mississippi the law is on the side of the employer.



Your son managed to get into a school without any issues, congratulations? What kind of study do you require when you are aware of the admission policy already? Preferential treatment to Catholic children, for a public school, is discriminatory to non-Catholic children. How many times does it need to happen to count for you?

And it's not just school admission policies, it is legislation that supports it.

No they arent, local ordinance is subservient to Federal law, which I linked. No gay person is being denied a job because they are gay in the USA in 2016, give me a single example that was upheld by the courts or otherwise.

The proof is in the pudding, like the blasphemy laws, discrimination exits, on paper, but until we see mass arrests for blasphemy and multitudes of kids denied an education.. I agree it should be changed, but its not an example of active and massive discrimination. No child is being denied an education.