Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

311 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      99
    • No
      129
    • Maybe
      83
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      57
    • No
      133
    • Indifferent
      50


Recommended Posts

It seems like the more modern views of racial equality did not really take hold in the White House until Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration, at least according to this article. Teddy Roosevelt was openly racist, but so were most people at the time. I am not sure how much of that racism offsets his achievements, but he does seem more progressive than most for his time.

Edited by XRay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Integrity said:

what's your point

 

Posing  an ethnic minority next to an fearless leader is racist, apparently.

 

Honestly, it could work of all three of them were on horseback. But the thing about the Rough Riders, only Roosevelt had an horse due to logistical issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Integrity said:

what's your point

 

Sorry!

I was just afraid you might have thought I was at all saying something wrong. I was trying to correct for any mistake I might have made which I had missed. I was walking on eggshells afraid I hadn't thought things through and proofread enough and had put my foot in my mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're very close to the point, yes

 

EDIT: this is at the guy above the guy above me, armchair talking about how 'apparently' it's just racist to put minorities next to white guys like that's a racism itself

EDIT2: you're cool guy above me

Edited by Integrity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so what's your point op

 

EDIT: if your point is that the statue is historically accurate lmao

Edited by Integrity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Integrity said:

so what's your point op

 

Make a new statue, give his companions some rifles, maybe an holstered revolver. Have Teddy waving his hat to inspire them to charge a hill. And give them their uniforms if you want to show Roosevelt on horseback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, XRay said:

It seems like the more modern views of racial equality did not really take hold in the White House until Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration, at least according to this article. Teddy Roosevelt was openly racist, but so were most people at the time. I am not sure how much of that racism offsets his achievements, but he does seem more progressive than most for his time.

Ehh, let's not forget what FDR did to Japanese Americans though. It's a shame that even our best presidents have terrible actions/decisions as part of their history, but the important thing is to learn about that fuckery and if/how the impacts persist, in order to resolve them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, let's regard the racism of the various times and note it and not let it define things. columbus was an uncomfortable fellow who enslaved and disregarded native americans to a level that got him prosecuted by the spanish government of the time. fdr did a single problematic action that should be remembered, but also did good things and should be conditionally well-liked for that. we shouldn't pursue a strategy of cancelling all of our past heroes for their problematic views, we should take them and acknowledge their shit moves and if the good outweighs the bad talk about them well but not unconditionally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

should probably give the proposed second bill of rights by fdr a read over again as well

I read over it in the past and thought it was radical even for todays standards (not in a bad way)

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Integrity said:

no, let's regard the racism of the various times and note it and not let it define things. columbus was an uncomfortable fellow who enslaved and disregarded native americans to a level that got him prosecuted by the spanish government of the time. fdr did a single problematic action that should be remembered, but also did good things and should be conditionally well-liked for that. we shouldn't pursue a strategy of cancelling all of our past heroes for their problematic views, we should take them and acknowledge their shit moves and if the good outweighs the bad talk about them well but not unconditionally

Who said anything about cancelling FDR? It's not about applying a binary metric of whether they did overall more good or bad, or how their racism compared to others of their time. It's about not giving into hero worship and using their good deeds to dismiss criticisms, which stifle discussions about any ensuing problems from their legacy. It's about the impacts of their actions, especially any impacts that linger to this day. The presidency the highest office in the nation and should be subjected to the highest level of scrutiny. It's not hard to be inspired by the genuine successes of someone like FDR, while at the same time condemning whatever dumb fuckery they did.

Columbus was a straight up monster though, nothing about him is worth celebrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

should probably give the proposed second bill of rights by fdr a read over again as well

I read over it in the past and thought it was radical even for todays standards (not in a bad way)

It sounds radical, but it is also getting into more mainstream attention now, and some of it are not really radical anymore, like education and social security.

Quote

Employment, food, clothing and leisure with enough income to support them

I am not really sure what that means. I assume that means some combination of minimum wage, more robust employment help programs, and some other stuff? I do like the sound of it and it is nice to have, but I am not sure how crucial this is in my opinion and it sounds vague. While employment is being denied to some people due to discrimination, that is being worked on right now. I do not think anyone is denied food, clothing, and leisure, although being able to comfortably afford them is another matter though.

Quote

Farmers' rights to a fair income

I agree with this part. A lot of farmers are under the thumb of large corporations and they are basically economic slaves to them, like a lot of chicken farmers. I think food security is one of the foundations of national security, and we need our farmers to do well.

Quote

Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies

I agree with freedom from unfair competition, but I disagree with the part about monopolies. In general, yes, monopolies are bad, but I think monopolies are a good solution if regulated and handled properly for some industries, such as utility companies.

Quote

Housing

Not sure why this is separate from the "employment, food, clothing and leisure" part. But yeah, this is nice to have, but I am not sure how crucial this is.

Quote

Medical care

I think this is important. If shit hits the fan and we need a draft, we need strong healthy soldiers. I am not sure what the hell Republicans are thinking, but medical care is an important part of national security, just like food security.

Quote

Social security

I would lump this part into "employment, food, clothing and leisure" part too along with "housing."

Quote

Education

Like medical care and agriculture, this is paramount for national security in my opinion. We need scientists and engineers to work on and develop various research and technologies, and not just strictly for the military. Also, a soldier with a reasonable level of knowledge and problem solving skills would be much more effective on the battlefield than some dumb idiot.

Edited by XRay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, XRay said:

It sounds radical, but it is also getting into more mainstream attention now, and some of it are not really radical anymore, like education and social security.

I am not really sure what that means. I assume that means some combination of minimum wage, more robust employment help programs, and some other stuff? I do like the sound of it and it is nice to have, but I am not sure how crucial this is in my opinion and it sounds vague. While employment is being denied to some people due to discrimination, that is being worked on right now. I do not think anyone is denied food, clothing, and leisure, although being able to comfortably afford them is another matter though.

What do you call it when someone is starving in the streets then? I would definitely call it denying food when grocery stores throw away food and lock 'waste' in bins. A lot of the times simply because they much rather let food go to waste than potentially hurt the market by giving food away for free to those who desperately need it but can't afford it.

I personally think leisure time is important as well, about as much as employment. And quite honestly, I think people are too infatuated with the idea of a super productive human to the point that it is detrimental to their well-being. The amount of times I see people at work continue working despite having some form of injury or illness is kind of insane. Yet a lot of them feel proud and colleagues often praise that attitude to boot.

Quote

Not sure why this is separate from the "employment, food, clothing and leisure" part. But yeah, this is nice to have, but I am not sure how crucial this is.

Shelter, like food, is a basic human necessity.

Having these rights guaranteed sounds really good to me. I do think there is a lot of discussion to be had as to how far these rights should go. For example, there is definitely a need to discuss and set minimums such as how much living space does a person need. But I would not agree with the current system of "If you don't have it too bad. Maybe you will be lucky with shelters and food banks". I think the option to have more should be available, in case people want to go for it, but that isn't guaranteed. Only a minimum standard of living is guaranteed.

Implementation and other logistics is a whole other game. But I think studies and inquiries could and should certainly be done to try and find if this is a better plan than the current status quo and also what might be the best way to do this. Kinda like Ontario has tried to do with a universal basic income study (except it got cancelled before it finished due to a change in political party rule)

Edited by Zanarkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zanarkin said:

What do you call it when someone is starving in the streets then? I would definitely call it denying food when grocery stores throw away food and lock 'waste' in bins. A lot of the times simply because they much rather let food go to waste than potentially hurt the market by giving food away for free to those who desperately need it but can't afford it.

Grocery stores throw away food that is nearing the end of its shelf life because it costs money to send that food elsewhere. It is cheaper to just dump it in the trash than to pack the products back into a box and deliver it somewhere. If customers are willing to pay a higher price for food, then stores can use that money to redistribute that food elsewhere. Doing charity is not cheap.

I also would not fault businesses for locking up their trash cans either. I helped my uncle do basic janitorial duties for one of his small office buildings when I was young, and cleaning up after people is NOT pleasant. I am not going to fault people for dumpster diving in itself, but if they do not clean up afterwards and leave trash everywhere, then that is a problem. And that is just regular trash. I also had to deal with used condoms and poop, and those are just super nasty. Sometimes, it is just easier to hose down an entire area than trying to sweep everything up.

25 minutes ago, Zanarkin said:

What do you call it when someone is starving in the streets then? I would definitely call it denying food when grocery stores throw away food and lock 'waste' in bins. A lot of the times simply because they much rather let food go to waste than potentially hurt the market by giving food away for free to those who desperately need it but can't afford it.

A living wage solves all those issues, and I do not support having these things be guaranteed freely.

31 minutes ago, Zanarkin said:

I wonder if there is some correlation between education and following instructions blindly. My guess is yes, and the less educated you are the less likely you would be to question orders. But i haven't looked anything up.

There is a difference between obeying orders blindly and obeying orders effectively. There is also a difference between questioning orders and refusing orders. You can still question orders and obey them effectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Integrity said:

no, let's regard the racism of the various times and note it and not let it define things. columbus was an uncomfortable fellow who enslaved and disregarded native americans to a level that got him prosecuted by the spanish government of the time. fdr did a single problematic action that should be remembered, but also did good things and should be conditionally well-liked for that. we shouldn't pursue a strategy of cancelling all of our past heroes for their problematic views, we should take them and acknowledge their shit moves and if the good outweighs the bad talk about them well but not unconditionally

FDR definitely has one big black mark on his record with his internment camps. I also heard him opposing anti lynching laws at one time. 

But ultimately he is the father of America as a superpower and one of the most influential people in stopping Nazi Germany. The good massively outweighs the bad especially if you're American. Churchill is a more shady and nasty fellow with a lot more skeletons in his closet, but the same applies. If you stopped Nazi Germany then the good outweighs the bad almost by default. Unless you're Stalin and spend your entire life being just as bad as Hitler.  

Edited by Etrurian emperor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Etrurian emperor said:

FDR definitely has one big black mark on his record with his internment camps. I also heard him opposing anti lynching laws at one time. 

But ultimately he is the father of America as a superpower and one of the most influential people in stopping Nazi Germany. The good massively outweighs the bad especially if you're American. Churchill is a more shady and nasty fellow with a lot more skeletons in his closet, but the same applies. If you stopped Nazi Germany then the good outweighs the bad almost by default. Unless you're Stalin and spend your entire life being just as bad as Hitler.  

Churchill is heavily romanticised for being a good war-time leader, and he was. But he was pretty terrible outside of that and was voted out in a pretty landslide victory immediately following WW2.

He also didn't really have anything against fascism in particular. He just fought for geopolitical and imperial reasons, not because he had moral issues with the Nazi regime (in fact Hitler and fascism was quite popular in Britain prior to the outbreak of WW2)

At least I can say he did one thing good for the wrong reasons. Columbus not so much. He wasn't even the first European on North American soil, Leif Erikson did it 500 years prior.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6,200 in attendance at the Trump rally in Tulsa. (Arena Capacity = 19,000)

TikTok users, K-pop fans take credit for inflating expectations to ...


Candid Shot of Trump Caught After the Event:

Coronavirus Updates: Trump Says He Ordered Slowdown Of COVID-19 ...

^^^
Tfw you make when you can't fill a venue that sold out for Nickleback and The Wiggles.  (that is the look of a crushed and defeated human being) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

6,200 in attendance at the Trump rally in Tulsa. (Arena Capacity = 19,000)

I think everyone should be able to smell Trump's fear and weakness now. If hiding in a bunker and building a wall is not a sign of fear and weakness, then this arena that is not even filled a third of the way is definitely a strong indicator of patheticness.

I hope Trump voters remain scared of the virus and stay home and not vote, and hope they do not use mail ballots either cause Trump says they are fraudulent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, XRay said:

A living wage solves all those issues, and I do not support having these things be guaranteed freely.

A few problems with relying on wages:

  • What about people who can't work, for whatever reason?
  • How do you define the criteria or metric that determines where the cutoff is for, say, how impaired a person has to be for them to get government support?
  • What about people unable to get work because of market conditions? If they need to train for another line of work, how are they supposed to support themselves while they train?
  • What about issues involving exploitative markets? For example, you might be getting a livable wage, but you're relying on overtime and you're not getting any benefits. You are also almost certainly getting ripped off if you're a renter.

Housing and food are prime examples of basic human rights that, despite how much of both we have (or can potentially have), there are a considerable number of people without/struggling to get one or both. Those are probably the most immediate things that a government should be providing or in some way ensuring to their people. The failure to provide these things for people is because we're relying on wages and markets to handle them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Johann said:
  • What about people who can't work, for whatever reason?

That is true. I do not mind giving help to these people without requiring them to work.

19 minutes ago, Johann said:
  • How do you define the criteria or metric that determines where the cutoff is for, say, how impaired a person has to be for them to get government support?

For people with disabilities, I would lower the amount they have to earn to qualify for government help. Depends on the severity of disability. If a person is heavily disabled I do not think it is a good idea to make them work. If a person only has a minor disability, then they should not need too much help.

19 minutes ago, Johann said:
  • What about people unable to get work because of market conditions? If they need to train for another line of work, how are they supposed to support themselves while they train?

If they are training, I would still consider that as working and they should be compensated, at least if they are training under a government program. I am less sure about forcing private companies to pay their interns though.

19 minutes ago, Johann said:
  • What about issues involving exploitative markets? For example, you might be getting a livable wage, but you're relying on overtime and you're not getting any benefits. You are also almost certainly getting ripped off if you're a renter.

I should have been more specific. I meant living wage without relying on overtime, and benefits should be included in the living wage portion since benefits is still a type of compensation/payment. If you have to rely on overtime, that significantly eats into your leisure time.

19 minutes ago, Johann said:

Housing and food are prime examples of basic human rights that, despite how much of both we have (or can potentially have), there are a considerable number of people without/struggling to get one or both. Those are probably the most immediate things that a government should be providing or in some way ensuring to their people. The failure to provide these things for people is because we're relying on wages and markets to handle them.

I like subsidized housing and food stamps, but I am not sure about giving them away unconditionally. I agree with giving those things freely to people who are not able to work, but for people who can work, I am hesitant on providing those things without some form of condition that they are looking for a job or training for one.

As for the recent pandemic, I do support measures that stop landlords from evicting their tenants and giving people stimulus checks, but those are for during national emergencies.

Edited by XRay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Johann said:

What about issues involving exploitative markets? For example, you might be getting a livable wage, but you're relying on overtime and you're not getting any benefits. You are also almost certainly getting ripped off if you're a renter.

This reminds me, I was reading an interview (it's a New Yorker article so I can't reread it now) a while ago about a guy who said "Well, I never said that exact phrase, but my message is exactly that". His phrase? "Let it (the restaurant industry) die".

His argument was:

  • The American restaurant industry is racist.
  • It is so racist, reforming it is impossible.
  • Therefore, let it die.

I remember he said as part of his greater critique "the restaurant industry is seen as an American socio-economic safety net". But it appeared to me his problem was it was a lousy safety net not worth praising. He I distinctly remember said "not having money" in America is a problem, but "having money" is not the solution.

He may have valid points on community destruction, racism, and environmental concerns, I'm plenty willing to listen to his arguments. But, I do hope he has considered whether an inevitably reborn restaurant industry will have learned anything he sees as terribly bad. If COVID19 killed it, I don't readily see reasons why culinary entrepreneurs would've considered their effects on minorities. -But I guess if you're so cynical about the current state of affairs, the remotest light of hope after destruction is better than what exists now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, XRay said:

That is true. I do not mind giving help to these people without requiring them to work.

Ok, off to a good start

9 minutes ago, XRay said:

For people with disabilities, I would lower the amount they have to earn to qualify for government help. Depends on the severity of disability. If a person is heavily disabled I do not think it is a good idea to make them work. If a person only has a minor disability, then they should not need too much help.

Again, the problem is "how to do you define that?" What's a "minor disability" and who's going to hire them? For instance, if a person has, let's say, a permanent limp that makes it possible for them to still do most things, albeit slower than most and they can't continue for long stretches of time, are they gonna get support, and if not, what kinds of work are they going to struggle to get? There are so many kinds of disabilities, limitations, etc and a system that draws a line at what deserves support and what doesn't effectively has to address all of them or else it's going to fail many people.

9 minutes ago, XRay said:

If they are training, I would still consider that as working and they should be compensated, at least if they are training under a government program. I am less sure about forcing private companies to pay their interns though.

Why shouldn't private companies pay interns? Experience and training don't even ensure a job/paycheck once you've finished, and if people can't afford spend time to train or go to school (not even counting the cost of education itself), then it's not really an option.

9 minutes ago, XRay said:

I should have been more specific. I meant living wage without relying on overtime, and benefits should be included in the living wage portion since benefits is still a type of compensation/payment. If you have to rely on overtime, that significantly eats into your leisure time.

The thing is, companies are always looking for ways to get around paying their workers and giving them support. This is why, for instance, Uber is fighting to keep their workers designated as contractors and not employees. The only people who end up being effectively taxed by this are landlords (who are making money by simply owning something and charging considerable rates for it) and food corporations (who are exploiting farmers and ranchers everywhere).

9 minutes ago, XRay said:

I like subsidized housing and food stamps, but I am not sure about giving them away unconditionally. I agree with giving those things freely to people who are not able to work, but for people who can work, I am hesitant on providing those things without some form of condition that they are looking for a job or training for one.

Ah, but if you give them out freely, even universally, you don't have to worry about people not getting the support due to bungled paperwork, or if a person has a sudden emergency and needs that support immediately. Additionally, it allows people to pursue different careers (like say, entrepreneurship) if they aren't dependent on an employer to get by. It's also worth mentioning that the stress of job insecurity (and this food/housing insecurity) takes a toll on people.

Most people have been conditioned to believe that everyone 1) should be working as much as they can and 2) need to earn their share. But how many jobs out there are superfluous, exploitative, or the result of an out of control market? And why should anyone have to be employed to get anything essential for basic survival in a world where we throw out a large portion of our food?

9 minutes ago, XRay said:

As for the recent pandemic, I do support measures that stop landlords from evicting their tenants and giving people stimulus checks, but those are for during national emergencies.

Most landlord/tenant relationships are super exploitative though. Rent is costs far more than it should, and eviction for not being able to afford it is fucked up. The housing market is a disaster because it's a loosely regulated market for a basic human need, and so people can "choose" to either pay most of their income, or go homeless. Nobody should be getting rich from the housing market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...