President Trump & the USA

[MC Prussian]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yep, it was her assumption, and also that because these kids couldn't be the kids of the babysitter that they were somehow under duress and so she needed to ask about their welfare. I wonder if she's ever also thought or assumed that when seeing white kids with a white babysitter and subjected them to the same line of questioning?

 

I definitely agree that there were ways to talk this down and stop it from escalating, but really she had zero business getting involved in the first place and while it can't be certain the reason she started asking questions here was because of race it is pretty damn likely IMO.

She was asking a perfectly legitimate question.

 

The babysitter has been taking care of the older of the two siblings for two years now - and as far as we know, has only been asked about it once (now, following this story).

Not indicative that it was mainly down to race or that it touches upon "racism".

 

One swallow doesn't make a summer, as they tend to say.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

They're both dickheads imo. 

 

The woman is a nosey cow and should leave the dude alone, even if she is trying to check on these kids. 

 

The bloke is a bell because instead of just letting the nosey cow ask the kids if they knew who he was, he wanted to be unnecessarily difficult and escalate the situation. 

 

It's about time common sense made a comeback. Instead of this ridiculous tit for tat bullshit. 

That's a fair comment.

 

1 minute ago, MC Prussian said:

She was asking a perfectly legitimate question.

 

The babysitter has been taking care of the older of the two siblings for two years now - and as far as we know, has only been asked about it once (now, following this story).

Not indicative that it was mainly down to race or that it touches upon "racism".

 

One swallow doesn't make a summer, as they tend to say.

It's only a legitimate question if she's asked same to other babysitters of other skin colours, IMO. If she hasn't, that's reasonably obvious profiling.

 

However, I'm glad the guy has only had this happen to him once.

 

NB. As the original article shows, there are other examples of police callouts that show just how divided in terms of race the US can be.

[MC Prussian]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

It's only a legitimate question if she's asked same to other babysitters of other skin colours, IMO. If she hasn't, that's reasonably obvious profiling.

 

However, I'm glad the guy has only had this happen to him once.

 

NB. As the original article shows, there are other examples of police callouts that show just how divided in terms of race the US can be.

Or concern for the children - motherly instinct and whatnot.

 

Again, not denying that racism exists (in the US), I'm just tired of it being used by a certain political party as an instrument to mislead the masses or in order to curry favour with a certain voter clientele. That sickens me.

[Guest MattP]

18 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

They're both dickheads imo. 

 

The woman is a nosey cow and should leave the dude alone, even if she is trying to check on these kids. 

 

The bloke is a bell because instead of just letting the nosey cow ask the kids if they knew who he was, he wanted to be unnecessarily difficult and escalate the situation. 

 

It's about time common sense made a comeback. Instead of this ridiculous tit for tat bullshit. 

Spot on, both being ridiculous.

 

Back to politics, 52/48 polling indicates the Republicans will hold onto the senate, if that happens at this point in time (even with how loaded it is towards the them in this election with the seats up) Trump will be pretty pleased. I honestly thought that given we are nearly into 2019 the Democrats would actually now start to be producing policy and ideas that could defeat him, instead it just seems to be more and more identity politics and outrage.

 

Sadly. they are getting even worse, trying to use rape for political gain, becoming increasingly authoritarian with regards to free speech and showing us incompetence by voting into power idiots like Ocasio Cortez, I don't see them pulling this around anytime soon.

Edited 11 October 2018 by MattP

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

Or concern for the children - motherly instinct and whatnot.

 

Again, not denying that racism exists (in the US), I'm just tired of it being used by a certain political party as an instrument to mislead the masses or in order to curry favour with a certain voter clientele. That sickens me.

If that were the case, then this guy wouldn't have been the only babysitter she had approached in this manner IMO. But so it goes - what she was really thinking is only something she will ever know I guess.

 

Racism has always been a political football in the US (they fought a civil war over it, and more recently there's the general reaction to Obama getting elected "build the wall") and that's annoying, but quite frankly I'm all ears for a suggestion as to how it is reduced as a problem without being addressed in politics.

 

When the Repubs start proposing some proper legislation to help sort the current race divide in many different ways in the US, that will of course be worthy of support. (Though of course both parties play to their bases, as is normal.)

 

58 minutes ago, MattP said:

Spot on, both being ridiculous.

 

Back to politics, 52/48 polling indicates the Republicans will hold onto the senate, if that happens at this point in time (even with how loaded it is towards the them in this election with the seats up) Trump will be pretty pleased. I honestly thought that given we are nearly into 2019 the Democrats would actually now start to be producing policy and ideas that could defeat him, instead it just seems to be more and more identity politics and outrage.

 

Sadly. they are getting even worse, trying to use rape for political gain, becoming increasingly authoritarian with regards to free speech and showing us incompetence by voting into power idiots like Ocasio Cortez, I don't see them pulling this around anytime soon.

It was always going to be difficult for the Senate to flip (given the amount of Dems being up for re-election as opposed to Repubs), the House, however, is a different matter - the Dems stand a good chance of flipping that.

 

Right now the Dems don't really need to do much other than just let Trump do what he's doing and try to pick opportunities as they may; why nail policy to the mast now when you can let Trump be the centre of attention, making matters about the identity politics that folks seem to hold in contempt (as if identity isn't still a crucial issue socially in the US) and do the work for you? After all, it's still pretty unclear what the main focus of the 2020 election is going to be. (As said before, Trump really needs it to be economics.)

 

FWIW the Dems are also better than even money to win in 2020 at the present time with most betting markets, but a lot can happen in the two years between now and then.

Edited 11 October 2018 by leicsmac

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Right now the Dems don't really need to do much other than just let Trump do what he's doing and try to pick opportunities as they may; why nail policy to the mast now when you can let Trump be the centre of attention, making matters about the identity politics that folks seem to hold in contempt (as if identity isn't still a crucial issue socially in the US) and do the work for you? After all, it's still pretty unclear what the main focus of the 2020 election is going to be. (As said before, Trump really needs it to be economics.)

 

FWIW the Dems are also better than even money to win in 2020 at the present time with most betting markets, but a lot can happen in the two years between now and then.

The Dems should be winning the Senate though. They can't sit there and tell us he's the most hated US President in history and then tell us they can't beat him when it's possible to do so.

 

The odds on winning parry are 4/5 - 5/4 so it's almost 50/50 in the eyes of the oddsmakers - if this is the worst US president in history that's a shocking shocking inditement on the Democrat party.

 

They desperately need someone to step up, if they go with a Warren or Sanders yet again it will be an election both sides deserve to lose.

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, MattP said:

The Dems should be winning the Senate though. They can't sit there and tell us he's the most hated US President in history and then tell us they can't beat him when it's possible to do so.

 

The odds on winning parry are 4/5 - 5/4 so it's almost 50/50 in the eyes of the oddsmakers - if this is the worst US president in history that's a shocking shocking inditement on the Democrat party.

 

They desperately need someone to step up, if they go with a Warren or Sanders yet again it will be an election both sides deserve to lose.

It would be nice, but like I said, with the way things are laid out right now (6 year election cycles) and the way the state elections work (not to mention the gerrymandering) it's always going to be a tough ask this time round.

 

I do think the odds tend to normally favour the incumbent in most US elections for obvious reasons, but I am with you in that at some point the Dems do need to put someone up who is ready to challenge and go for 2020. I'm hoping it will be someone like Harris or Booker (preferably the former).

[Guest MattP]

Certainly one of them two or Warren.

 

Do you think a straight white man could get the job now or are they are off limits for the foreseeable future for the Democrats? 

[MC Prussian]

35 minutes ago, MattP said:

Certainly one of them two or Warren.

 

Do you think a straight white man could get the job now or are they are off limits for the foreseeable future for the Democrats? 

The Democrats will continue to push their agenda for women and minorities in office. No point in trying to irritate or lose more of their voters.

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, MattP said:

Certainly one of them two or Warren.

 

Do you think a straight white man could get the job now or are they are off limits for the foreseeable future for the Democrats? 

 

7 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

The Democrats will continue to push their agenda for women and minorities in office. No point in trying to irritate or lose more of their voters.

While the Dems are likely going to look to get wider representation in the legislature, tbh from what I can the voter base is more concerned with policy than identity - there's a load of people who wanted Biden to run and let's not forget those who liked Bernie too, so yes - I think it's possible that a straight white guy with the right policy credentials could get the nomination in due course.

[ealingfox]

7 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

The Democrats will continue to push their agenda for women and minorities in office. No point in trying to irritate or lose more of their voters.

 

Why is this a bad thing? You sound disgusted by the notion of a representative legislature.

[Guest MattP]

19 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

Why is this a bad thing? You sound disgusted by the notion of a representative legislature.

Maybe he just believes selection on merit trumps (sorry) identity politics. That's still the belief of most I believe. The left hardly have great form when it comes to delivering what you say as well, certainly in the UK - it's the right who had the first female MP, female PM and first Home Sec from an ethnic minority. The left still haven't even had a female leader nearly four decades after the Tories did. 

 

For all the drum beating of that side of the argument in terms of achievement they don't seem to have much to show for it. The identity politics of the Democrat politics is weird to me, surely Obama proved anything is possible? 

 

Got pregnant? Not your fault. 

Got an STD? Not your fault.

Take drugs? Not your fault.

 

Slavery 200 years ago by people of the same skin pigment? Yep. Your fault.

 

It's pretty warped to be honest. 

[ealingfox]

18 minutes ago, MattP said:

Maybe he just believes selection on merit trumps (sorry) identity politics. That's still the belief of most I believe. The left hardly have great form when it comes to delivering what you say as well, certainly in the UK - it's the right who had the first female MP, female PM and first Home Sec from an ethnic minority. The left still haven't even had a female leader nearly four decades after the Tories did. 

 

For all the drum beating of that side of the argument in terms of achievement they don't seem to have much to show for it. The identity politics of the Democrat politics is weird to me, surely Obama proved anything is possible? 

 

Got pregnant? Not your fault. 

Got an STD? Not your fault.

Take drugs? Not your fault.

 

Slavery 200 years ago by people of the same skin pigment? Yep. Your fault.

 

It's pretty warped to be honest. 

 

Why is the assumption that any woman or anyone from a minority group couldn't possibly be a selection on merit?

[MC Prussian]

56 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

Why is this a bad thing? You sound disgusted by the notion of a representative legislature.

Who said it‘s bad? I can‘t but repeat that I‘m all for more women and minorities in politics, as long as they‘ve earned it instead of being promoted through means of „diversity“.

 

After all, wouldn‘t you like to be represented by the smartest and/or most competent politicians?

[Guest MattP]

14 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

Why is the assumption that any woman or anyone from a minority group couldn't possibly be a selection on merit?

They can, that's why they don't need affirmative action or all women shortlists, things that are exclusive to the left.

 

I don't think that is necessary, look at Margaret Thatcher, Theresa May or Sajid Javid.

[Dr The Singh]

8 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

The Democrats will continue to push their agenda for women and minorities in office. No point in trying to irritate or lose more of their voters.

It's great one day I will be in power

[MC Prussian]

2 hours ago, Dr The Singh said:

It's great one day I will be in power

Nothing beats a bit of modest Sikh feudalism. 

[leicsmac]

9 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Who said it‘s bad? I can‘t but repeat that I‘m all for more women and minorities in politics, as long as they‘ve earned it instead of being promoted through means of „diversity“.

 

After all, wouldn‘t you like to be represented by the smartest and/or most competent politicians?

 

9 hours ago, MattP said:

They can, that's why they don't need affirmative action or all women shortlists, things that are exclusive to the left.

 

I don't think that is necessary, look at Margaret Thatcher, Theresa May or Sajid Javid.

This is assuming that such selection in the US (as opposed to the UK, which has its own issues with wealth/class etc) is based on straight meritocracy and so those women and minorities can make it in politics with an equal chance that a white guy can. Hasn't been the case throughout the history of the US, little bit better but still isn't the case now.

 

Is it really believed that equality of opportunity is actually a thing in the US now, that somehow all the barriers based on race and gender in politics are no longer an issue anywhere?

 

Obama proved that a black guy can make it to the presidency...only to have everything hamstrung while he was in office and then attempted to be undone when he was out of office because of attitudes towards his identity.

Edited 13 October 2018 by leicsmac

[leicsmac]

Rand Paul saying that he's worried "someone is going to be killed" because of the current political climate.

 

Someone already was, Mr Paul. Her name was Heather Heyer and she died at Charlottesville last year. Look it up.

Edited 13 October 2018 by leicsmac

[Guest MattP]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Obama proved that a black guy can make it to the presidency...only to have everything hamstrung while he was in office and then attempted to be undone when he was out of office because of attitudes towards his identity.

Towards his identity? Any evidence for that?

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

Towards his identity? Any evidence for that?

The dogs abuse he got from certain corners of the electorate through various media and the whole "birther" and "he's a Muslim" movement, really, which then coalesced into the Tea Party and the "alt-right".

 

Of course, the Repubs in the houses of Congress (likely) don't believe that rubbish, however they are acutely aware that a lot of the people who vote them into office do, and therefore being obstructionist when he's in power and seeking to dismantle what he did when out of office is, at the very least, playing to those who can and do judge Obama on his skin colour in order to ensure re-election.

 

Ergo, what they did and are doing was and is (at least partly) on account of his identity, or at least as a sop to the crowd who judge him by such.

 

Of course, there's a sizeable amount of it also because he's a Dem and the adversarial nature of politics in the US (of course you're going to try and negate what the other guy does and did), but I'm not having that his identity plays and played no part in the way other policymakers acted and act towards him (if not directly).

[Guest MattP]

Fair enough, some maybe did but I have a hard time believing that people were genuinely voting against his policy because of his skin colour.

 

Even if that was the case, is that any worse than what we have seen in reverse over the last few weeks, the amount of attention of Brett Kavanaugh's skin colour was ridiculous and this was being done openly to try and influence and block a political decision.

 

No one has the moral highground.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, MattP said:

Fair enough, some maybe did but I have a hard time believing that people were genuinely voting against his policy because of his skin colour.

 

Even if that was the case, is that any worse than what we have seen in reverse over the last few weeks, the amount of attention of Brett Kavanaugh's skin colour was ridiculous and this was being done openly to try and influence and block a political decision.

 

No one has the moral highground.

1

Given the history of race relations in the US, is that really so hard to believe?

 

FWIW I'd agree that two wrongs really don't make a right (though I'm not sure a few years worth of identity politics really equals a few centuries worth in the other direction previously) and I think references to Kauvanagh's skin colour are out of place too - that he's white shouldn't bother people nearly as much as his temperament displayed during the hearing.

[leicsmac]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whos-behaving-like-a-2020-presidential-candidate/

 

Further to earlier discussion, of the 20 Dem candidates fivethirtyeight thinks "most likely" to run in 2020, only three are women and over three-quarters are white.

 

Not exactly identity politics at play here, IMO.

[Lionator]

From what I've seen I think Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand are good potential candidates, Harris especially seems to be becoming more prominent.