Political Roundtable Part XVII

[dckingsfan]

And this board keeps looking at unemployment - look instead at labor participation rates 25 to 54. This is not a good trend especially given our demographics. And this spans both D and R administrations (figure below).

1900 4% of the population was over 65
1980 11%
2002 14%
2050 20% (projection)

So, clearly our broken immigration policy + our incarceration rates + low birthrates are a problem.

[Ruzious]

You want higher birthrates, so we can help over-populate the world and over-use it's resources more? Sometimes the answer to one problem creates much bigger problems.

Here's a link to an article you might appreciate. https://qz.com/286213/the-chart-obama-haters-love-most-and-the-truth-behind-it/

[I_Like_Dirt]

You want higher birthrates, so we can help over-populate the world and over-use it's resources more? Sometimes the answer to one problem creates much bigger problems.

For much of the developed world, their populations are shrinking once immigration is factored out of the equation. The issue of population increase is absolutely an issue in many parts of the world, and really, the world. The real issue for much of the developed world, however, is one of consumption. Perhaps automation solves all that? What generation is the one that finally says they don't need kids because they have robots? Japan is kind of the canary in the coal mine here, with far less immigration than other places, and a population that largely opposes immigration, but also a population that is starting to admit that maybe they actually can accept some immigration even if they don't like the idea because without it they're in big trouble economically.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[Ruzious]

Read on Twitter

It's somewhat similar to when he took a question from a black journalist and then he suggested she set up a meeting with the Congressional black caucus for him. And he followed that by asking if they were friends of hers. He's like the classic racist uncle that all his relatives are embarrassed about. Except his relatives are apparently too stupid or too complicit to show any embarrasment.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

It's somewhat similar to when he took a question from a black journalist and then he suggested she set up a meeting with the Congressional black caucus for him. And he followed that by asking if they were friends of hers. He's like the classic racist uncle that all his relatives are embarrassed about. Except his relatives are apparently too stupid or too complicit to show any embarrasment.

I had forgotten all about that.

Even if you don't think he's a full blown racist, at the very least he's racially insensitive.

Extremely...

[dckingsfan]

You want higher birthrates, so we can help over-populate the world and over-use it's resources more? Sometimes the answer to one problem creates much bigger problems.

Here's a link to an article you might appreciate. https://qz.com/286213/the-chart-obama-haters-love-most-and-the-truth-behind-it/

You read me wrong I want greater immigration not up our birthrate... and (if I was the supreme ruler) the immigration policy would be skewed to bringing in 25 to 40 year old educated workers; female more than male; and with a notion that we would bring them from as many countries as possible (clearly won't happen in the Trump administration). That would mean terminating familial priority and birthright citizenship (clearly won't happen with the current D leadership).

And yes, good article AND Labor participation rates didn't just start falling in the Obama administration as my chart clearly shows. Zonk pointed out a long time ago that this is partially do to the stupid "war on crime" and "war on drugs". I would also add that our poor K12 education process is also to blame.

This is a problem that has spanned many administrations. Pinning it on one President is absurd.

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

It's somewhat similar to when he took a question from a black journalist and then he suggested she set up a meeting with the Congressional black caucus for him. And he followed that by asking if they were friends of hers. He's like the classic racist uncle that all his relatives are embarrassed about. Except his relatives are apparently too stupid or too complicit to show any embarrasment.

I had forgotten all about that.

Even if you don't think he's a full blown racist, at the very least he's racially insensitive.

Extremely...

I have encountered white acquaintances through the years. business associates of some sort. Mainly Contractors and some of them patients. some of them are flat out racists. and they dont realize that i'm half native american and hispanic nor that my ex-wife was puerto rican.

and they flat out said and did severely racial slurs and would not hire black people nor mexicans. They obviously didn't last long working for me once i saw this type of behavior. They were lucky to finish the day.

Then I have other contractor acquaintances...that are just socially awkward. They don't know how to even order food at a restaurant. I personally was often embarrassed by their immaturity and awkwardness if we all went to lunch as a group. and they would sometimes say things to me like "get the mexicans to do that job." which made my ears perk up. Because they too didn't know I was part hispanic/native. But then i would find out that they were just as awkward with everything and therefore just racially awkward/insensitive. But these same guys were also just as "insensitive" to white people. And in fact way more insensitive to white people than to minorities. And Most of these WHITE contractors would then hire mexicans and mexican-americans on their own jobs that I brought to my job sites. same for african-americans. and pay them the fair and going wage and treat them the same as everyone else. So their words may have been racially insensitive. But when they order a beer at the bar from a white waitress they are just as equally insensitive. Thats is just who they are . Jackazzes. I guess? Or just unpolished? But their policy? its fair. Its honest. Its based in equality. And that is what matters to me from our politicians and people i meet in the street. Is their policy fair? Does it benefit everyone and give equal opportunity to everyone. Thats what really matters. to me. Are they fair?

So. I personally stopped "reading into intention" and stopped being overly sensitive to remarks with a racial component decades ago. But again. Being mixed races, Ive been dealing with this for over 40 years. So i have a lot of practice. It was more difficult in my teens. I'll take this time to add that other hispanics have been just as difficult to deal with at times. Not Brown enough apparently.

So for me, being mixed. and dealing with this since i was 7-8 years old...literally since i can remember white people always thought i was 100% white. So some awkward situation would come up from time to time...been dealing with this forever. I feel sorry for minorities or part minorities that are fully grown adults and have not learned how to negotiate these waters without flaming the racial wars. Like when trump said, "look at my african-american." My ears perked up!! I never felt any malice in that statement but i certainly paid closer attention. the same way i never felt any malice in the way trump talks about mexicans crossing the border and some of them are rapists, etc. It may very well be racially insensitive...for those that are extremely sensitive and therefore unable to have a real discussion on issues that have a race component. But we have a real problem with immigration. With gangs. With Drugs. That tie into unemployment and other costly entitlements that require difficult conversations. Conversations that we need to have. and need to be HONEST about. and stop crying "racist" because it halts the conversation. It kills the conversation. And thats what the left wants. they actually dont want the right to be able make sense and use logic. Instead, the conversation devolves down into an emotional rabbit hole where we cant use logic because have "we" have not learned how to discuss issues that have a race component without being overly emotional. Again, i feel sorry for those adult minorities that are awkward in this regard. In a way, those minorities are no less awkward than those white contractors i discussed above. it's actually quite surprising to me how similar they actually are. and many adults suffer from anxiety of sorts and this social awkwardness that prevent real adult-like conversations before someone is "triggered."

[Wizardspride]

Guilty as charged.

When someone allegedly makes comments about all haitians having AIDS, Nigerians not leaving their huts etc. yeah, I'm triggered.

[stilldropin20]

You want higher birthrates, so we can help over-populate the world and over-use it's resources more? Sometimes the answer to one problem creates much bigger problems.

Here's a link to an article you might appreciate. https://qz.com/286213/the-chart-obama-haters-love-most-and-the-truth-behind-it/

You read me wrong I want greater immigration not up our birthrate... and (if I was the supreme ruler) the immigration policy would be skewed to bringing in 25 to 40 year old educated workers; female more than male; and with a notion that we would bring them from as many countries as possible (clearly won't happen in the Trump administration). That would mean terminating familial priority and birthright citizenship (clearly won't happen with the current D leadership).

And yes, good article AND Labor participation rates didn't just start falling in the Obama administration as my chart clearly shows. Zonk pointed out a long time ago that this is partially do to the stupid "war on crime" and "war on drugs". I would also add that our poor K12 education process is also to blame.

This is a problem that has spanned many administrations. Pinning it on one President is absurd.

there are many things that are dropping the participation rate which was pretty firm in the 66-68% range for a long time. I will define it simply as coddling our young.


This rate consideres 16 year-olds. Sure. 40 years ago 16 year-old sought work. Not so much anymore. Even 20 years ago they began to focus much less on working and nowadays? often living at home during college and even after college???

we have 22, 23, 24 year old that are just now getting their first job. and often unemployed for a solid 1-2 years after college.

this "coddling of the young" could explain at least 2% and possibly 3-4% of that participation rate. So a 63% participation rate today is similar to a 66% rate in 1965.

[dckingsfan]

You want higher birthrates, so we can help over-populate the world and over-use it's resources more? Sometimes the answer to one problem creates much bigger problems.

Here's a link to an article you might appreciate. https://qz.com/286213/the-chart-obama-haters-love-most-and-the-truth-behind-it/

You read me wrong I want greater immigration not up our birthrate... and (if I was the supreme ruler) the immigration policy would be skewed to bringing in 25 to 40 year old educated workers; female more than male; and with a notion that we would bring them from as many countries as possible (clearly won't happen in the Trump administration). That would mean terminating familial priority and birthright citizenship (clearly won't happen with the current D leadership).

And yes, good article AND Labor participation rates didn't just start falling in the Obama administration as my chart clearly shows. Zonk pointed out a long time ago that this is partially do to the stupid "war on crime" and "war on drugs". I would also add that our poor K12 education process is also to blame.

This is a problem that has spanned many administrations. Pinning it on one President is absurd.

there are many things that are dropping the participation rate which was pretty firm in the 66-68% range for a long time. I will define it simply as coddling our young.

This rate consideres 16 year-olds. Sure. 40 years ago 16 year-old sought work. Not so much anymore. Even 20 years ago they began to focus much less on working and nowadays? often living at home during college and even after college???

we have 22, 23, 24 year old that are just now getting their first job. and often unemployed for a solid 1-2 years after college.

this "coddling of the young" could explain at least 2% and possibly 3-4% of that participation rate. So a 63% participation rate today is similar to a 66% rate in 1965.

That is one possibility and may be a factor. But I would guess/posit our incarceration rates and subsequent employment rates, education misalignment and opioid epidemic would dwarf those numbers.

Regardless - even if the labor participation rates held steady, we still have a demographic problem.

[stilldropin20]

You read me wrong I want greater immigration not up our birthrate... and (if I was the supreme ruler) the immigration policy would be skewed to bringing in 25 to 40 year old educated workers; female more than male; and with a notion that we would bring them from as many countries as possible (clearly won't happen in the Trump administration). That would mean terminating familial priority and birthright citizenship (clearly won't happen with the current D leadership).

And yes, good article AND Labor participation rates didn't just start falling in the Obama administration as my chart clearly shows. Zonk pointed out a long time ago that this is partially do to the stupid "war on crime" and "war on drugs". I would also add that our poor K12 education process is also to blame.

This is a problem that has spanned many administrations. Pinning it on one President is absurd.

there are many things that are dropping the participation rate which was pretty firm in the 66-68% range for a long time. I will define it simply as coddling our young.

This rate consideres 16 year-olds. Sure. 40 years ago 16 year-old sought work. Not so much anymore. Even 20 years ago they began to focus much less on working and nowadays? often living at home during college and even after college???

we have 22, 23, 24 year old that are just now getting their first job. and often unemployed for a solid 1-2 years after college.

this "coddling of the young" could explain at least 2% and possibly 3-4% of that participation rate. So a 63% participation rate today is similar to a 66% rate in 1965.

That is one possibility and may be a factor. But I would guess/posit our incarceration rates and subsequent employment rates, education misalignment and opioid epidemic would dwarf those numbers.

Regardless - even if the labor participation rates held steady, we still have a demographic problem.

agree. I meant to state that "coddling" was just one of the issues.

not sure about incarcerated people? do they qualify? Not sure? But maybe you meant "felony record" and therefore employment risk?

I'll add entitlement syndrome as a cause. Total Entitlement benefits for a single mom with one child used to be 30-50% below the poverty level in the 80's. Today is is set at the poverty level or 30-50% higher than it was then. And these entitlements last the entire 18 years of the child's life in most states.

[stilldropin20]

Guilty as charged.

When someone allegedly makes comments about all haitians having AIDS, Nigerians not leaving their huts etc. yeah, I'm triggered.

Only laughing cuz i think you were making a joke in there.

But addressing your point. I agree. And understand. Like i said, plenty of things made my ears perk up.

But I consider Trump a bean counter. using this analogy. The US is a defunct corporation that is bleeding losses and trump the ultimate CEO bean counter brought in to make it "healthy" strictly from a financial perspective. So it can work for all americans.

So in a "sustainable government" type of discussion. and in terms of poor white, black, and brown americans that already live here...should we not limit our low end labor supply??

In terms of health care costs, should we not accept people with aids and accept healthy people?

In terms of costs in general? should we not accept mostly people 24-40 perhaps even with an education so they dont take jobs from the poor??? Why take children that we need to pay to educate? Why accept old people that are not going to be working and paying taxes?

Basically. I am american first and foremost. So I personally find it "more healthy" to worry about my fellow mexican-americans and white-americans and african-americans vs mexicans from mexico, African from africa, Spaniards, italians, etc? And I'm only 3rd generation on my non native-american sides.

I mean I could spend the rest of my life being appalled and mad as hell about what white people did to my native ancestors. But why?

I'll take this time to remind everyone that we are all african. Human beings first evolved in Africa. FACT!! So, we all come from africa. its scientifically proven. So we are all african-americans. Literally. But in my mind, we are now Americans first and foremost. That is how I see it. But perhaps my time in the military made me more patriotic? Perhaps being part native american makes me love this country more? I personally just love my fellow americans(all of them...even the jackazzes) more than those people and those countries from which part of my family emigrated. I dont hate non-americans. At all. But they dont help pay the taxes to pay my military and my local school districts so I can live a safe and comfortable life. Americans do!

[Ruzious]

SD, this is completely off-topic, but what do you think of the Washington football team's name? It's a sore subject between my father and my sister. My father gets very angry that people are trying to get the name changed, while my sister is the opposite. She works with several Indian tribes and is a curator for a museum in Contoocook, NH and says it is hurtful to some of the tribes she knows. I made the mistake of giving her daughter a Washington jersey and was quickly told to return it.

[stilldropin20]

SD, this is completely off-topic, but what do you think of the Washington football team's name? It's a sore subject between my father and my sister. My father gets very angry that people are trying to get the name changed, while my sister is the opposite. She works with several Indian tribes and is a curator for a museum in Contoocook, NH and says it is hurtful to some of the tribes she knows. I made the mistake of giving her daughter a Washington jersey and was quickly told to return it.

Totally understand both your sister and father's point of view. I think your sister is being overly sensitive on behalf of native americans. That is very cool that she does that work and takes pride in protecting native ancestry. We are almost forgotten. And like the african-americans, the reparations to both races have not been enough.

As for my personal feelings? This may be weird in "modern times" but as a child, my entire family were illini fans and we never quite understood the uproar over "chief illini" that began to work its way into the public discourse in the late 80'-90s. But I think "chief illini" did something stupid. Like dance in inappropriate ways or something. and I think they had a white person dressed up. So like an actor in "black face." I did understand and agree with the uproar in that regard. But i personally never felt any kind of animosity over chief illini(other than they should hire a native american to be the mascot). same for the redskins name or logo. Same for the chicago black hawks. In fact as a child I took extreme pride in all those teams. darrel green was one of my favorite players. Until he killed the bears twice in the 80's.

So count me in the group that didn't care then, doesn't care now, and likely never will care unless there is actual harm and ridicule intended. (Just being selfish for me and my family) I care more about financial policies that will benefit native-americans, mexican-americans, puerto-ricans(by marriage), african-americans(by marriage), as well as white-americans.

[Ruzious]

SD, this is completely off-topic, but what do you think of the Washington football team's name? It's a sore subject between my father and my sister. My father gets very angry that people are trying to get the name changed, while my sister is the opposite. She works with several Indian tribes and is a curator for a museum in Contoocook, NH and says it is hurtful to some of the tribes she knows. I made the mistake of giving her daughter a Washington jersey and was quickly told to return it.

Totally understand both your sister and father's point of view. I think your sister is being overly sensitive on behalf of native americans. That is very cool that she does that work and takes pride in protecting native ancestry. We are almost forgotten. And like the african-americans, the reparations to both races have not been enough.

As for my personal feelings? This may be weird in "modern times" but as a child, my entire family were illini fans and we never quite understood the uproar over "chief illini" that began to work its way into the public discourse in the late 80'-90s. But I think "chief illini" did something stupid. Like dance in inappropriate ways or something. and I think they had a white person dressed up. So like an actor in "black face." I did understand and agree with the uproar in that regard. But i personally never felt any kind of animosity over chief illini(other than they should hire a native american to be the mascot). same for the redskins name or logo. Same for the chicago black hawks. In fact as a child I took extreme pride in all those teams. darrel green was one of my favorite players. Until he killed the bears twice in the 80's.

So count me in the group that didn't care then, doesn't care now, and likely never will care unless there is actual harm and ridicule intended. (Just being selfish for me and my family) I care more about financial policies that will benefit native-americans, mexican-americans, puerto-ricans(by marriage), african-americans(by marriage), as well as white-americans.

Thanks for that point of view. If I could step in your shoes (which I can't), I'd probably feel that way, though I could see how it would logically negatively effect others. I loved that name growing up - and the fight song that praised the Redskins, so how could it be a bad name. But then I did some digging and found out the man who gave them that name was George Preston Marshall, who was a shameless racist and made Washington the last team in the NFL to integrate. I guess learning that was the end of the innocence - as Don Henley put it. And I'd be happy to change it. I respect that most Indian groups have come out saying they're fine with it, but really, if we respect them... we should step up and find another name, because there are logical reasons for some to find it offensive. Agreed, there are more important issues, but it shouldn't be an either/or situation. Just my 2 cents. And like you said in another post, we are all Africans.

[montestewart]

SD, this is completely off-topic, but what do you think of the Washington football team's name? It's a sore subject between my father and my sister. My father gets very angry that people are trying to get the name changed, while my sister is the opposite. She works with several Indian tribes and is a curator for a museum in Contoocook, NH and says it is hurtful to some of the tribes she knows. I made the mistake of giving her daughter a Washington jersey and was quickly told to return it.

Totally understand both your sister and father's point of view. I think your sister is being overly sensitive on behalf of native americans. That is very cool that she does that work and takes pride in protecting native ancestry. We are almost forgotten. And like the african-americans, the reparations to both races have not been enough.

As for my personal feelings? This may be weird in "modern times" but as a child, my entire family were illini fans and we never quite understood the uproar over "chief illini" that began to work its way into the public discourse in the late 80'-90s. But I think "chief illini" did something stupid. Like dance in inappropriate ways or something. and I think they had a white person dressed up. So like an actor in "black face." I did understand and agree with the uproar in that regard. But i personally never felt any kind of animosity over chief illini(other than they should hire a native american to be the mascot). same for the redskins name or logo. Same for the chicago black hawks. In fact as a child I took extreme pride in all those teams. darrel green was one of my favorite players. Until he killed the bears twice in the 80's.

So count me in the group that didn't care then, doesn't care now, and likely never will care unless there is actual harm and ridicule intended. (Just being selfish for me and my family) I care more about financial policies that will benefit native-americans, mexican-americans, puerto-ricans(by marriage), african-americans(by marriage), as well as white-americans.

Thanks for that point of view. If I could step in your shoes (which I can't), I'd probably feel that way, though I could see how it would logically negatively effect others. I loved that name growing up - and the fight song that praised the Redskins, so how could it be a bad name. But then I did some digging and found out the man who gave them that name was George Preston Marshall, who was a shameless racist and made Washington the last team in the NFL to integrate. I guess learning that was the end of the innocence - as Don Henley put it. And I'd be happy to change it. I respect that most Indian groups have come out saying they're fine with it, but really, if we respect them... we should step up and find another name, because there are logical reasons for some to find it offensive. Agreed, there are more important issues, but it shouldn't be an either/or situation. Just my 2 cents. And like you said in another post, we are all Africans.

I recall some Native Americans speaking out around the time of the hogs, when the Hogettes would combine feathered war bonnets and other Native American-looking regalia with pig snouts and cross dressing. Not exactly a proud tradition-honoring look. Most Native Americans I've heard quoted say similar to what STD says; they may not like such mascots, but it's pretty low on their list of concerns vs. health, employment, and other more pressing issues.

Personally, I don't like it and don't think it was originally intended to honor Native Americans but appropriate a marketable symbol. Images can evolve, so maybe someday such mascots will be more universally embraced. The Redskins logo seems much less offensive than the Cleveland Indians cartoonish caricature logo, and at least there's no Chief Nok-a-homa (or whatever that guy's name is)!

Sort of an aside, years ago, Sherman Alexie was giving a talk about the Native Americans' place in modern literature, and his talk was filled with anecdotes both funny and insightful, including him giving Native American-sounding names to non-Native Americans he met in college, like Drinks-and-Pukes and Never-Study-Well.

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

Sent from my SM-N920T using RealGM mobile app

[Pointgod]

Read on Twitter

It's somewhat similar to when he took a question from a black journalist and then he suggested she set up a meeting with the Congressional black caucus for him. And he followed that by asking if they were friends of hers. He's like the classic racist uncle that all his relatives are embarrassed about. Except his relatives are apparently too stupid or too complicit to show any embarrasment.

I had forgotten all about that.

Even if you don't think he's a full blown racist, at the very least he's racially insensitive.

Extremely...

The answer to is yes! The problem is that every time you excuse Trump he just sinks to a new bottom. You’d think that his comments on Charlottesville would have been made his position on race crystal clear. Frankly the voters should have disqualified him based on his comments during the election. People don’t want to call him a racist because they think that automatically means he’s on the same level as the KKK, but the reality is racism is on a spectrum. You don’t have to be burning crosses on lawns to be a racist. Don’t wait until he drops the n word to call him for what it is. People need to listen more to minorities because they know the signals.

[Wizardspride]

It's somewhat similar to when he took a question from a black journalist and then he suggested she set up a meeting with the Congressional black caucus for him. And he followed that by asking if they were friends of hers. He's like the classic racist uncle that all his relatives are embarrassed about. Except his relatives are apparently too stupid or too complicit to show any embarrasment.

I had forgotten all about that.

Even if you don't think he's a full blown racist, at the very least he's racially insensitive.

Extremely...

The answer to is yes! The problem is that every time you excuse Trump he just sinks to a new bottom. You’d think that his comments on Charlottesville would have been made his position on race crystal clear. Frankly the voters should have disqualified him based on his comments during the election. People don’t want to call him a racist because they think that automatically means he’s on the same level as the KKK, but the reality is racism is on a spectrum. You don’t have to be burning crosses on lawns to be a racist. Don’t wait until he drops the n word to call him for what it is. People need to listen more to minorities because they know the signals.

Oh,I know what Trump is. Trust me.

I'm under no illusions.