[Winstonm]

olegru, on 2018-January-24, 14:03, said:

There is old Russian joke, sorry it seems a bit rude:
"Rabinowitch, dear, please make up your mind and hide one of two things: Orthodox Cross or your penis.”

I am simply saying that if you agree with existing of based on race policies you cannot say "race has nothing to do with anything" in the same time. I am not discussing morality and logic behind the policy, but can share my opinion - generalization based solely on the skin color is stupid and racist.

Race does have nothing to do with it - discrimination based on race has everything to do with it. I know it seems a fine distinction but it is a critical difference. There would be no need for affirmative action if everyone were and always had been color blind as to race and ethnicity.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2018-January-24, 15:37, said:

This is not action against whites because they are white - that would be racial discrimination. This is action to advance those of color, not because of anyone's color but because of previous and continuing discrimination against those peoples.

It seems to me that if you classify people as white and non-white, for whatever reason, you are engaging in discrimination. Color/race has entered into the conversation.

[kenberg]

y66, on 2018-January-24, 15:35, said:

Good discussion here about the 2018 midterm elections and the challenges and opportunities they present for Democrats by Frank Bruni, NYT, Deval Patrick, former Massachusetts governor and the managing director of Bain Capital Double Impact, and Joe Trippi, a Democratic strategist most recently with the Doug Jones Senate campaign in Alabama.

More focus on core values, fixing the health care system, expanding the economy to those left out and securing our communities consistent with the Constitution -- not Trump bashing -- is the key? Good idea.

Here is an excerpt that I think illustrates a recurring problem:

Quote

Republican strategists tell me that they love the fact that Nancy Pelosi, from San Francisco, still presides over Democrats in the House. They don't think Chuck Schumer in the Senate is doing the party any big national favors, either. Should there be more of a movement for a youth-ifying turnover in congressional leadership? Should Pelosi and Steny Hoyer & Co. let go?

Wait! I find Nancy Pelosi very difficult to listen to. And I agree that Chuck Schumer is not doing the party any favors with the voters nationally. But how does this slide into youth-ifying? I don't like Pelosi and Shumer because I don't like them. I am fine with Steny Hoyer. Age is not the issue.

This slide from one issue to another happens often. Schumer is smug and condescending. You can be smug and condescending at any age. So recognize that smug and condescending is unattractive to voters. Joe Biden is 75 and, just from my own experience as a 79 year old and from what I have seen of others my age, I do think age is an issue for him, for anyone 75, if he considers a run for the presidency. We tire more easily than we used to. I think he should drop the idea of the presidency. He doesn't have to quietly take up bridge, just forget about the presidency. Chuck Schumer is 67, that's not too old to be a Senator, not too old to be a Senate leader. So it's not about age, at least with Schumer. Pelosi, I see, is 77, She is hardly irreplaceable, and it might well help if she were to step down, but again my objection to her has far more to do with her than that she is 77.

But my objection really is the slide from saying that voters don't like Pelosi and Schumer, which I think is true, to the idea that that we must youth-ify. Youth can be fine. I liked Bill Clinton a lot. But I liked him because I thought he was a good president, not because he was the first president to be younger than I was. That was interesting, another sign that I am not young anymore, but irrelevant.

[RedSpawn]

kenberg, on 2018-January-24, 16:55, said:

Here is an excerpt that I think illustrates a recurring problem:



Wait! I find Nancy Pelosi very difficult to listen to. And I agree that Chuck Schumer is not doing the party any favors with the voters nationally. But how does this slide into youth-ifying? I don't like Pelosi and Shumer because I don't like them. I am fine with Steny Hoyer. Age is not the issue.

This slide from one issue to another happens often. Schumer is smug and condescending. You can be smug and condescending at any age. So recognize that smug and condescending is unattractive to voters. Joe Biden is 75 and, just from my own experience as a 79 year old and from what I have seen of others my age, I do think age is an issue for him, for anyone 75, if he considers a run for the presidency. We tire more easily than we used to. I think he should drop the idea of the presidency. He doesn't have to quietly take up bridge, just forget about the presidency. Chuck Schumer is 67, that's not too old to be a Senator, not too old to be a Senate leader. So it's not about age, at least with Schumer. Pelosi, I see, is 77, She is hardly irreplaceable, and it might well help if she were to step down, but again my objection to her has far more to do with her than that she is 77.

But my objection really is the slide from saying that voters don't like Pelosi and Schumer, which I think is true, to the idea that that we must youth-ify. Youth can be fine. I liked Bill Clinton a lot. But I liked him because I thought he was a good president, not because he was the first president to be younger than I was. That was interesting, another sign that I am not young anymore, but irrelevant.

Age is NOT the issue. It's the DNC'S intransigence to let go of the old political order and the reluctance to showcase new, fresh leadership. The Presidential election was a mea culpa moment for the DNC and a chance to take a full inventory of "stinking thinking" and misguided strategies. The DNC hasn't embraced the takeaways from that tragedy.

[Winstonm]

I am reading that the WH released a transcript of the call from Trump to Erdogan but Turkey has immediately replied that the conversation did not go in the way the WH is claiming and Fredo did not say what the WH is claiming he said.

Head scratcher about which liar to believe.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2018-January-24, 19:46, said:

I am reading that the WH released a transcript of the call from Trump to Erdogan but Turkey has immediately replied that the conversation did not go in the way the WH is claiming and Fredo did not say what the WH is claiming he said.

Head scratcher about which liar to believe.

Apparently Erdogan kills opponents or throws them in jail. So far Trump has done neither. I suggest going with Trump.

[ldrews]

IMF raises global growth forecasts, US tax cuts provide boost https://www.yahoo.co...-152450420.html

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on 2018-January-24, 19:46, said:

I am reading that the WH released a transcript of the call from Trump to Erdogan but Turkey has immediately replied that the conversation did not go in the way the WH is claiming and Fredo did not say what the WH is claiming he said.

Head scratcher about which liar to believe.

The one who releases tapes

[jjbrr]

hrothgar, on 2018-January-24, 23:23, said:

The one who releases tapes

Lordy

[rmnka447]

jjbrr, on 2018-January-23, 16:54, said:

I suppose I don't understand your post about Trump specifically, but these Harvard/Harris polls always seems very poorly conducted to me to the point of being meaningless. Do I want secure borders? Of course I do. Do I want physical barriers? Maybe, if the borders are unsafe without them. Do I oppose a government shutdown? I think so in most cases. Do I oppose a government shutdown for DACA? I didn't realize DACA had anything to do with government shutdowns except in Trump's government, but when was that context provided? And if that's the context, there are other things besides DACA that contribute to my answer. Similarly, if that's the context, do I want physical barriers at the border? No, of course I don't want Trump's borders, but that wasn't the question.

I guess you missed something. The Dems said all along that they wouldn't vote for a continuing resolution for temporary government funding without a DACA fix. What seems insane about that stance is that legislators from both sides were working on DACA to come up with a law that legalizes dreamers before the DACA termination deadline in March. And there is strong support for a DACA fix in both parties. Ultimately 60+ votes were required to allow the continuing resolution to progress, but the Reps only have 51 Senators, so without some Dem support the continuing resolution couldn't be enacted. That support was withheld and the government shutdown.

The whole DACA issue was fomented when President Trump scheduled an end to the temporary DACA program set up by executive order of President Obama. President Trump (and most conservatives) view President Obama's DACA actions as an unconstitutional executive overreach. Obama himself said a number of times he couldn't legally do it, then did it anyway. Since the action affected such a large group of people, it is rightfully something that should have been addressed through legislation. What Obama did was essentially create law by decree which is unconstitutional and strikes at the heart of our democracy. Dreamers were not on as strong legal grounds as they believed. AFAIK, Obama's DACA action hasn't been fully tested in the courts, but there's reason to believe it would be struck down as unconstitutional. So, President Trump provided a sunset timetable that provided time for Congress to pass a permanent legal fix for DACA.

Apparently, the Dems believed they could bring things to a head by shutting down the government. This was a political decision on their part. Polls seemed to show that Republicans would be blamed for such a shutdown, so maybe they thought there wouldn't be much political damage for doing it. But once the shutdown occurred, the Dems words in the past came back to haunt them. IMO, the most telling was on Sunday when CNN's Jake Tapper (not exactly a Trump fan) on his program State of the Union played Sen. Schumer's comments in 2013 where he said "shutting down the government over a single like immigration is idiocy." On Monday, the Dems decide to provide the votes to reopen the government for what was available by voting the continuing resolution through on Friday.

Border security enters into the immigration issue due to the last major comprehensive immigration settlement during the Reagan administration. In that settlement, a comprehensive amnesty was provided for all illegal immigrants with the understanding that comprehensive border security would follow. The amnesty happened, the security didn't. Here we are 30 years later with an even larger issue of what to do with illegal immigrants. This time though there won't be any comprehensive solution without significant real improvements in border security. Without reasonable control of our border, there's reason to believe that we'll be facing the same immigration problems again in the future.

As for a "wall", I think my opinion was changed a number of years ago when one of the Democratic Congressman from a border district vehemently expressed how much improved border security was needed. Places where any significant amount of illegal activities (such as drug smuggling, human trafficking, etc.) occur aren't likely to be particularly safe. This was one of the things that the Congressman reiterated.

As for the Harvard/Harris poll, if it's a reasonably representative sample of Americans, it's results show that President Trump's position on immigration is line with large majority of Americans. I was using it to refute Hrothgar's assertion that Trump didn't know or understand policy positions/issues.

[RedSpawn]

Wash. Rinse. Repeat

http://abcnews.go.co...chines-52533536

[olegru]

Winstonm, on 2018-January-24, 15:41, said:

Race does have nothing to do with it - discrimination based on race has everything to do with it. I know it seems a fine distinction but it is a critical difference.

Nice way of saying, but not supported by reality.
As a matter of fact prioritizing based on the race, not on the family history.
People who's ancestors were discriminated based on their skin color, people who's ancestors had nothing to do with discrimination, and people who's ancestors were on another side of discrimination (benefited from slave trades) are treated exactly the same according that policy.
People of different skin color who's ancestors were discriminated based on their nationality do not get prioritized by that policy.

[y66]

Thank you Janet Yellen from Edward Luce at FT:

Quote

Should we thank Donald Trump for the US stock market boom? No, say Democrats: Trump inherited Obama’s handiwork. Yes, say Republicans: America is finally winning again.

The first is certainly truer than the second. But the real answer is Janet Yellen. It is something of an injustice that one of the most successful Fed chairs in US history is retiring without getting her full credit (no pun intended). Worse, she only had one term. There are few things more needlessly harmful than a boss firing someone in the middle of doing a great job. Why fix what ain’t broke? But Trump is Trump. Merit is the last thing on his mind.

I have nothing against Jay Powell. The fact that he doesn’t have a PhD in economics counts in his favour in my book. But he fails the first rule of jobs: always follow an under-performer. Yellen also failed that test – her predecessor, Ben Bernanke, did “what it takes”,as the saying went, to stop financial meltdown from triggering a depression. But while Bernanke is still widely lauded, Yellen is slipping quietly away. Both will forever be hated by the gold bugs, who have been predicting hyper-inflation since late 2008. A decade and several trillion dollars in Fed asset purchases later, inflation is still considerably below the Fed’s 2 per cent target. But it was not for want of trying.

That said, Yellen has come closer than any of her predecessors at fulfilling the Fed’s dual mandate – full employment (now at 4.1 per cent) and stable low inflation (1.8 per cent). And she was the first woman to hold the job. My column this week, America’s political descent into tribalism looks at the US public’s cratering mistrust for every public institution, barring the military.

Even the Fed has suffered from waning public confidence, though far less than the media and politicians. Yet it has been performing better than any of them. Unlike the Pentagon, which is still trying to win a 16-year-old war on the Taliban, the Fed can reasonably declare victory. True, there has been collateral damage, including an overvalued stock market. But it was a price worth paying. Under most of Yellen’s stewardship, the Fed was the “only game in town”. She deserves applause as she leaves it.

[barmar]

olegru, on 2018-January-25, 08:20, said:

Nice way of saying, but not supported by reality.
As a matter of fact prioritizing based on the race, not on the family history.
People who's ancestors were discriminated based on their skin color, people who's ancestors had nothing to do with discrimination, and people who's ancestors were on another side of discrimination (benefited from slave trades) are treated exactly the same according that policy.
People of different skin color who's ancestors were discriminated based on their nationality do not get prioritized by that policy.

Are you saying that affirmative action policies distinguish black people who were descended from slaves from black people whose families came to the US after slavery was ended? I wasn't aware that college applications asked for this level of detail in family histories.

And evern after slavery ended, African-Americans were still heavily disadvantaged, due to Jim Crow laws, being relegated to ghettos and slums with poor schools and high crime, etc. Affirmative action is an attempt to make up for all these things. Getting out of the cycle of poverty on one's own is extremely difficult, AA is a leg-up.

[Winstonm]

olegru, on 2018-January-25, 08:20, said:

Nice way of saying, but not supported by reality.
As a matter of fact prioritizing based on the race, not on the family history.
People who's ancestors were discriminated based on their skin color, people who's ancestors had nothing to do with discrimination, and people who's ancestors were on another side of discrimination (benefited from slave trades) are treated exactly the same according that policy.
People of different skin color who's ancestors were discriminated based on their nationality do not get prioritized by that policy.

So your argument is that the harm of upsetting white privilege outweighs whatever good is created by an attempt to address generational bigotry? Quaint position, as there is no basis of which I am aware for any race to have a privileged position over another.

[jjbrr]

olegru, on 2018-January-25, 08:20, said:

Nice way of saying, but not supported by reality.
As a matter of fact prioritizing based on the race, not on the family history.
People who's ancestors were discriminated based on their skin color, people who's ancestors had nothing to do with discrimination, and people who's ancestors were on another side of discrimination (benefited from slave trades) are treated exactly the same according that policy.
People of different skin color who's ancestors were discriminated based on their nationality do not get prioritized by that policy.

Who’s vs. Whose

- Both who’s and whose come from the pronoun who (shocking, right?).
- Who’s is a contraction, meaning it’s two words stuck together. The formula: who + is, or who + has.
- For example: who’s hungry?
- Whose is a possessive pronoun. Use it when you’re asking (or telling) whom something belongs to.
- For example: whose sandwich is this?

You're welcome!

[olegru]

barmar, on 2018-January-25, 10:29, said:

Are you saying that affirmative action policies distinguish black people who were descended from slaves from black people whose families came to the US after slavery was ended? I wasn't aware that college applications asked for this level of detail in family histories.

No, I am saying the exactly reversed way.
I am saying that affirmative action policies are polices based on race of the person and applied unrelated to when person's family entered to USA and was it actually discriminated or not.
Please read the message I replied to understand my point.

I am not arguing it is good or bad, I am just asking "to call a spade a spade" not more not less.

[olegru]

Winstonm, on 2018-January-25, 10:56, said:

So your argument is that the harm of upsetting white privilege outweighs whatever good is created by an attempt to address generational bigotry? Quaint position, as there is no basis of which I am aware for any race to have a privileged position over another.

Please quote where I wrote anything like that?
No, my argument is just a plea to be honest in discussions and do not camouflage trues to make it looks better.
Sorry asking for too much.

[olegru]

jjbrr, on 2018-January-25, 11:10, said:

Who’s vs. Whose

- Both who’s and whose come from the pronoun who (shocking, right?).
- Who’s is a contraction, meaning it’s two words stuck together. The formula: who + is, or who + has.
- For example: who’s hungry?
- Whose is a possessive pronoun. Use it when you’re asking (or telling) whom something belongs to.
- For example: whose sandwich is this?

You're welcome!

Thanks, I was actually wandering during the writing that sentence. What I wrote did not feel grammatically right, but the correct syntax did not come to mind.

[Winstonm]

olegru, on 2018-January-25, 11:29, said:

No, I am saying the exactly reversed way.
I am saying that affirmative action policies are polices based on race of the person and applied unrelated to when person's family entered to USA and was it actually discriminated or not.
Please read the message I replied to understand my point.

I am not arguing it is good or bad, I am just asking "to call a spade a spade" not more not less.

Here is where I think you are mistaken. Affirmative Action is not based on race but rather based on racial discrimination. The original problem that the law tries to correct is based on race; the fix is based on a correction of the discrimination.