Individuals getting back the $800 or so doesn’t give them a job. It doesn’t work that way. Jobs are created when the economy grows.
So the only way your idea is plausible is of the repeal worked as a stimulus to generate job opportunities for everyone (but AAs especially).
In 2015, about 8% of all tax returns in the income bracket of 25k to 50k paid the mandate. 8%. So, when the mandate was repealed, 8% of that group got the money back.
You seriously think that functioned as an economic stimulus that sent record numbers of AAs into the workforce?
Agree. I am not sure there is always a way to fix them, without swinging the other direction to far (racism again). I do think in some instances there are things to be done to improve outcomes in a fair way, and that we shouldn’t avoid those things.
IMO, this is just correlation. Black people tend to vote democrat and live in cities, so they end up living in democrat run cities. I don’t think if they all of a sudden moved rural, that it would be a whole lot better, but that’s just opinion.
I think the image (two parents, suburbs, good schools) that comes to mind when many people think “white privilege” is what all people should have (not privilege). I think it is more accurate to say those that don’t have these things are under privileged (and it shouldn’t have to do with race, as their are people like this in every race).
I am not convinced that data supports a conclusion of a racist police force. To me it lines up fairly well to what is expected when we look at white police encounters and black police encounters.
I will say I think police reform to match current society makes sense to me. I think enforcing stuff like marijuana laws causes more issues than it solves. I think we should just let people go with a tail light out (sure pull people over if it is dangerous, but I don’t see that being the majority of incidents).
Well, it is my opinion that government helping people out specifically by race is racist. I think the best approach is to help poor people out which will disproportionally help POC. I am okay with doing stuff like this, and I do think the political party that has pushed for helping the poor more is the Dems. Just my opinion.
They are the ones who talk about it and sell their policies as an antidote. That’s been keeping them in power for generations in many jurisdictions with terrible outcomes for people of all races and AAs in particular.
The argument seems to be that Republican policies and evil racist intent that can’t be detected is the reason that the massive social experiments haven’t cured poverty in the decades these programs have had to play out.
This is a hard sell for me. We don’t know what the outcome would be for AAs without Democrat policy. It might be worse for them (look at some Native American tribes in GoP controlled states like SD).
I can agree that this works on some, but IMO, I think many people see more nuance than this. Many see cultural shortcomings, many see that it is really hard even over generations to catch up, and many believe that there are some disadvantages still present in society that make up part of the issue.
I don’t disagree that it does sell to a lot of people (we will call them idiots), but I also think many see more nuance.
Let me start off by saying I would never vote for Trump unless he was running against Jimmy Fallon. And only because he’s way funnier.
Now, Trump was clearly referring to Mexicans who were crossing the border illegally, which already, by definition, makes them criminals.
And he said:
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best”.
You can easily see here that he’s referencing the events that happened before involving the Cuban government, which were depicted in the movie Scarface, which was brought up earlier, by implying that it’s the Mexican government throwing over their criminals, because normal Mexican crossing the border legally clearly aren’t doing so at the behest of the government.
“They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists…”
Of course, this is bullshit and clearly meant to rile up the crowd regarding illegal immigration and trying to convince them that he will get back at the Mexican government by making them “pay for the wall”, which he’s obviously never going to do.
So if he knows it’s bullshit, and he knows that people will believe him, he is spreading racist ideas even if he isn’t racist. His motive is riling up the crowd.
I will say that with Trump he is good at stopping just short of not being defendable. I just don’t think one can say so many borderline (implying without directly saying it) things on accident.
To me it comes down to that fact that he called them out as Mexican. Then he attributed a bunch of unsupported claims (drugs, rape) to them.
For example, if some politician were to comment on a crime committed (say a robbery) by black people for example, and then went on to say that they were into drugs, that they were rapists (all unsupported), would you conclude that that was a racist comment?
How about if this politician had previously said “why would we want these people from shit hole counties, why can’t we get the Norwegians”, “Good people on both sides” after a white supremist ran someone else over.
Trump is good at having his statements have a bit of deniability baked in. I just don’t buy that someone who has said so many questionable things isn’t trying to motivate a group of people with those thoughts, or holds those thoughts.
What else would you call people crossing the border from Mexico? And he didn’t say “Mexicans”. He said the “Mexican government”.
The difference here is there is a large number of illegals and limited manpower capable of dealing with each and everyone indivually, and all of which are committing an illegal act, and some are bringing drugs(which would most likely be true) and raping women.
You are using an example of a couple of people which would already have been identified and had proper background checks.
EDIT:
This is the general immigration policy of lots of countries. Perhaps it goes against the culture of the US(I really don’t know) but it is what it is in other places. It’s basically a call for more selectiveness in quality when taking in new immigrants. Forgive my un-PCness, but India is generally a shit hole country but we take in lots of the highly educated immigrants and give them very high salaries. The man just says stupid shit but it’s easy to get what he’s saying if you look at the broader context.
Taking in too many low skilled workers can also screw up the wages for current citizens. Go look up the pay for construction workers in Singapore and compare them to the US. Right now, 99% of those in construction are foreign workers from Bangladesh or India because locals won’t accept that kind of pay.
And what does the government do? They make them stay in specifically constructed worker dormitories which are almost unfit for human living and far away from local communities since assimilation would be pointless as they will never qualify for citizenship or even permanent residence given their educational backgrounds and vocations.
This also resulted in them developing over 99% of the total COVID cases in the country.
See my posts above involving the entire transcript of his interview where he said this.
He doesn’t say some of them may be these things, he says they’re rapists.
I’ll admit that this one individual statement can be viewed many ways. I’m taking what he has said on the whole about different races as part of the context. We may not agree, that’s okay.
He also said that they’re bringing drugs and crime, and that he still assumes some are good people. Since he was obviously saying that all of them are bringing drugs, crime, and are rapists, why isn’t the big issue that he thinks drug dealing rapist criminals are good people?
Edit: I may just lack Wokeness, but that would seem like a bigger issue than #daracism
I did say above it is possible he just sucks at speaking. The way it was said, he implied that he did think that rapists, drug dealers and criminals had good people. He probably meant it that way, his cabinet was mostly comprised of criminals.
I could talk about a lot of Trumps policies, most of which seem to be rather sensible things that will grease the wheels of business. I’ll leave it up to you to read between the lines and explain his true motives and how they actually benefit the Kremlin. Eliminating what may have been the most regressive tax of my lifetime is obviously going to help grease some economic wheels. Your 8 percent figure also ignores the many people who will now choose to keep (and likely spend) their money in the ways that help them the most, not by spending a massive percentage of their disposable income on garbage insurance they wouldn’t have bought if not for a regressive penalty tax targeting the working poor.
Energy policy is huge as well. YOOOGE. There’s all kinds of reasons that people are (or at least were, and seem eager to resume) hiring more now than they were before, and some of it has to due with business-friendly policies. I’m sure you’re ready to explain all of that away too, all without explaining why Obama deserves any credit or explaining how his policies were helpful. Or maybe not…
I don’t think Presidents make or break economies by themselves, but they can sure grease the wheels. Unfortunately for Democrats, a boom just so happened to coincide with Republicans taking power. I know, I know, this outcome can easily be explained by the time-deferred butterfly effects of Obama-era policy, just as how the sub-prime mortgage crisis can be explained away without getting into Democrats awful lending policies, often race-based, that got us there.
That’s why narratives are so great. You don’t need any specifics, and it’s often best to avoid them. You keep repeating the lie over and over, whether it is blaming un-named white supremacists and playing “gotcha” with a president to paint him as one or lying about gun control statistics, you just need to keep at it. Enough people will buy it to off-set the ones who wise up. That’s why there’s been a serious effort by mainstream Democrats to lower the voting age, so all of the high-information, good-judgement 16 year-olds can weigh in with all of their valuable life experience.
They may as well, because the Democrat Presidential policy platform looks like a list of wishful fantasies a 16 year-old girl might dream up.
If I become the Queen I’ll make a law that says everyone has to be nice to each other. Racism will be over at last!
A little off-topic, but here’s a fun and open challenge. It will keep us busy while Trump uses up his sick days.
Who is the most influential white supremacist you can name in the last 20 years?
My pick is the late Senator Robert Byrd, a lifelong Democrat who Joe Biden counted as a very close friend. Obama had high praises for the man as well.
“I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side … Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”
— Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS)
When Lyndon B. Johnson was in the House of Representatives, he said that President Harry Truman’s civil rights program was “a farce and a sham – an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty.”
He continued: “I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill. … I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill.” When Johnson had become senator, he observed, “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness.”
Senator Byrd did, of course, deeply apologize for being racist scum whenever it was required for him to retain power as a Democrat. That took a lot of courage for a former Grand Wizard of the KKK who served as a Democrat Senator for West Virginia until his tragic death in 2010 at the age of 92.
Okay. Let’s open up the challenge to the forum. Can anyone in recent memory out-racist Byrd?
You’ll have to quantify this though. Rental outcomes can be different for a variety of reasons. I haven’t looked into this topic so definitely not saying you’re wrong, just that it needs to be more concrete than “rental laws”, which is very wide.