"A Nation Divided, Sports United" ~ The Equality & Other Issues Thread

[ParticleMan]

I agree, but the democrat side is no better: See Clinton. Just give it time, and there will be more on both sides. The dam has been broken.

agree about clinton but there's a lot to like about the rest of the party. a lot of dems i know are even more pissed at clinton and the DNC now that more dirt is coming out on how sanders got robbed. but that old guard is dying. meanwhile there are some sharp young up and comers in the dems like tulsi gabbard and cory booker, more obama centrist than sanders/warren leftists. still a bit young for the presidency but you can see a bright future. on the other side i don't see many reasonable moderate young repubs who could take the mantle, all the young guys seem to be rabid tea party/trump/bannon disciples.

I hope you're right but I see a different picture. Looks like Warren will be the DNC 202 presidential candidate and many millennials embrace socialism.

ugh, i really hope not. the dems need to move past dinosaurs like hillary, warren, and even sanders. the obama lesson was that young/minority dems are only engaged by people who they feel like they have some connection to. and it's the turnout of young+minority voters that's the key. surely the DNC is smart enough to realize that after the hillary fiasco.

millenials like socialism because they're young, a lot of em will get over that. but tbh, what many americans call socialism is what a lot of capitalist countries call sensible investments in society. like universal health care, and affordable college education, things that many of our free world allies like the UK and Germany have implemented very effectively. i don't think anyone outside of right-wing US folks would call those countries socialist.

[Curmudgeon]

The other big lie is that high taxes stifle innovation. Countries like Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands have booming economies, never mind Germany and Japan.

Universal health care would pass in a heartbeat in California, which just surpassed France as the world's 6th largest economy. It's the crummy red states, most of whose economies are in the toilet (Kansas is Exhibit A), that yell and scream about "socialism."

[Andrew McCeltic]

agree about clinton but there's a lot to like about the rest of the party. a lot of dems i know are even more pissed at clinton and the DNC now that more dirt is coming out on how sanders got robbed. but that old guard is dying. meanwhile there are some sharp young up and comers in the dems like tulsi gabbard and cory booker, more obama centrist than sanders/warren leftists. still a bit young for the presidency but you can see a bright future. on the other side i don't see many reasonable moderate young repubs who could take the mantle, all the young guys seem to be rabid tea party/trump/bannon disciples.

I hope you're right but I see a different picture. Looks like Warren will be the DNC 202 presidential candidate and many millennials embrace socialism.

ugh, i really hope not. the dems need to move past dinosaurs like hillary, warren, and even sanders. the obama lesson was that young/minority dems are only engaged by people who they feel like they have some connection to. and it's the turnout of young+minority voters that's the key. surely the DNC is smart enough to realize that after the hillary fiasco.

millenials like socialism because they're young, a lot of em will get over that. but tbh, what many americans call socialism is what a lot of capitalist countries call sensible investments in society. like universal health care, and affordable college education, things that many of our free world allies like the UK and Germany have implemented very effectively. i don't think anyone outside of right-wing US folks would call those countries socialist.

Yup, hard to know what young people are saying "yes" to when they're polled. Democratic socialism in the Bernie Sanders sense, I'm totally on board. But the word "socialism" still gets a Pavlovian response out of a lot of conservatives, because totalitarian socialism is genuinely disastrous. I'm not against "capitalism" in general, it has some features that are vital, that a centrally planned economy could never reproduce - but having guard rails and buffers against the volatile energies of a free market system, providing a social safety net, those things are vital, too, and without them, everyone's miserable.

[Andrew McCeltic]

I think another big question is the future of globalization - in some ways it's probably irreversible, it allows goods like iPhones to be produced at lower cost... but the big promise I remember from the 90s, when call center jobs were disappearing, was that "capitalism" would create new, better jobs because it's an innovative and dynamic system, ta-da. It actually hasn't - good low-skill jobs have gone to developing economies, where they're cheaper, and all we've had for the last 20 years are bad low-skill jobs, in retail and fast-food.

[fallguy]

Maybe a good time for a check in:

Anyone *not* think Trump has colluded/is colluding with the Russians?

[Curmudgeon]

Media: lying
Mueller: lying
Comey: lying
Obama: lying
Clinton: lying
Judges: lying
Sex assault accusers: lying
Scientists re: climate change: lying
Doctors re: ACA: lying
Mother of slain U.S. soldier: lying
Intelligence services: lying
Putin: "He means it. I believe him.”

[jmr07019]

NY Times released an article titled "Can my children be friends with white people". What a joke. Might as well print "only racism will beat racism" and tell everyone to hate each other.

[fallguy]

NY Times released an article titled "Can my children be friends with white people". What a joke. Might as well print "only racism will beat racism" and tell everyone to hate each other.

What were your thoughts on the article itself rather than just the headline?

[jmr07019]

NY Times released an article titled "Can my children be friends with white people". What a joke. Might as well print "only racism will beat racism" and tell everyone to hate each other.

What were your thoughts on the article itself rather than just the headline?

A bunch of racist crap.

[CavemanDoctor]

Good article by Stan Van.

http://amp.timeinc.net/time/5016104/stan-van-gundy-nfl-protests

[Cyclical]

NY Times released an article titled "Can my children be friends with white people". What a joke. Might as well print "only racism will beat racism" and tell everyone to hate each other.

What were your thoughts on the article itself rather than just the headline?

A bunch of racist crap.

Eh, Fox "News" just made it into a big deal to trigger its readers and viewers. Seems like it worked. This was an Op Ed article, meaning opinion section by a writer, who's a black professor, who simply wrote an essay which you and I can argue about, but the NY Times did not release it as a divisive news piece - something the Fox is an expert at.

[jmr07019]

What were your thoughts on the article itself rather than just the headline?

A bunch of racist crap.

Eh, Fox "News" just made it into a big deal to trigger its readers and viewers. Seems like it worked. This was an Op Ed article, meaning opinion section by a writer, who's a black professor, who simply wrote an essay which you and I can argue about, but the NY Times did not release it as a divisive news piece - something the Fox is an expert at.

Ya and Trump's not devise either. He's just something for people to argue about I can't be friends with someone because of the color of their skin is as racist as it gets. If you want to delude yourself into thinking otherwise have at it.

[OFWGKTA]

A bunch of racist crap.

Eh, Fox "News" just made it into a big deal to trigger its readers and viewers. Seems like it worked. This was an Op Ed article, meaning opinion section by a writer, who's a black professor, who simply wrote an essay which you and I can argue about, but the NY Times did not release it as a divisive news piece - something the Fox is an expert at.

Ya and Trump's not devise either. He's just something for people to argue about I can't be friends with someone because of the color of their skin is as racist as it gets. If you want to delude yourself into thinking otherwise have at it.

I read the article when you first posted it so it's not fresh in my head, but the author seems to be saying they can't be friends with Trump supporters in the actual article, which is perfectly valid.

[Cyclical]

A bunch of racist crap.

Eh, Fox "News" just made it into a big deal to trigger its readers and viewers. Seems like it worked. This was an Op Ed article, meaning opinion section by a writer, who's a black professor, who simply wrote an essay which you and I can argue about, but the NY Times did not release it as a divisive news piece - something the Fox is an expert at.

Ya and Trump's not devise either. He's just something for people to argue about I can't be friends with someone because of the color of their skin is as racist as it gets. If you want to delude yourself into thinking otherwise have at it.

Are you seriously comparing this op ed piece to Trump's behavior? Trump is the president of the United States. The most powerful man in the world. This is a opinion essay by an individual who cannot affect my life, who is stating an opinion as a minority who feels betrayed and threatened by the system. Look, I personally do not fully agree with his points but my feelings don't matter in this case. I'm not in his shoes. I can read, say hmmm... interesting, take a couple of lessons from it, be an empathetic human being and move on.

False equivalency.

[jmr07019]

Eh, Fox "News" just made it into a big deal to trigger its readers and viewers. Seems like it worked. This was an Op Ed article, meaning opinion section by a writer, who's a black professor, who simply wrote an essay which you and I can argue about, but the NY Times did not release it as a divisive news piece - something the Fox is an expert at.

Ya and Trump's not devise either. He's just something for people to argue about I can't be friends with someone because of the color of their skin is as racist as it gets. If you want to delude yourself into thinking otherwise have at it.

Are you seriously comparing this op ed piece to Trump's behavior? Trump is the president of the United States. The most powerful man in the world. This is a opinion essay by an individual who cannot affect my life, who is stating an opinion as a minority who feels betrayed and threatened by the system. Look, I personally do not fully agree with his points but my feelings don't matter in this case. I'm not in his shoes. I can read, say hmmm... interesting, take a couple of lessons from it, be an empathetic human being and move on.

False equivalency.

I think the media has faaaar more power than you let on in your post. The NYT reaches millions of people and influences their thoughts with the material they publish. To publish racist, divisive content is an absolutely awful thing. (Whether you agree with my take on the article is a separate issue). I feel strongly that the media should be held accountable for their actions and just because it's an op ed piece does not absolve their guilt. You wouldn't be ok with David Duke writing an op ed piece and having it be published by the NYT.

I agree Trump has more power than the NYT or that particular writer. My point was that just because you say something isn't divisive doesn't make it true.

[Cyclical]

Ya and Trump's not devise either. He's just something for people to argue about I can't be friends with someone because of the color of their skin is as racist as it gets. If you want to delude yourself into thinking otherwise have at it.

Are you seriously comparing this op ed piece to Trump's behavior? Trump is the president of the United States. The most powerful man in the world. This is a opinion essay by an individual who cannot affect my life, who is stating an opinion as a minority who feels betrayed and threatened by the system. Look, I personally do not fully agree with his points but my feelings don't matter in this case. I'm not in his shoes. I can read, say hmmm... interesting, take a couple of lessons from it, be an empathetic human being and move on.

False equivalency.

I think the media has faaaar more power than you let on in your post. The NYT reaches millions of people and influences their thoughts with the material they publish. To publish racist, divisive content is an absolutely awful thing. (Whether you agree with my take on the article is a separate issue). I feel strongly that the media should be held accountable for their actions and just because it's an op ed piece does not absolve their guilt. You wouldn't be ok with David Duke writing an op ed piece and having it be published by the NYT.

I agree Trump has more power than the NYT or that particular writer. My point was that just because you say something isn't divisive doesn't make it true.

I'd absolutely be OK with that. That's the whole point of an op ed section. Read, think, debate, agree, disagree. Of course it needs to be curated so it doesn't become a YouTube comment section but it's not news, it's an opinion, which the publication does not necessarily stand behind.

[GuyClinch]

Yup, hard to know what young people are saying "yes" to when they're polled. Democratic socialism in the Bernie Sanders sense, I'm totally on board. But the word "socialism" still gets a Pavlovian response out of a lot of conservatives, because totalitarian socialism is genuinely disastrous. I'm not against "capitalism" in general, it has some features that are vital, that a centrally planned economy could never reproduce - but having guard rails and buffers against the volatile energies of a free market system, providing a social safety net, those things are vital, too, and without them, everyone's miserable.

Young people like socialism because they think it gets them free stuff. Soon as they figure out it doesn't aka the government is taking a slice of what they worked for - they freak the hell out.

1) They either stop working as hard
2) They move somewhere else.
3) They vote for someone different..

Socialism is great - until you run out of other people's money. People are inherently selfish - and socialism always fails. Always. And please STOP with the 'it works for finland' stuff. Sure higher personal taxes - but LOWER business taxes - less regulation..

Here is a good list of actual socialism/capitalism countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom

US already is there with many of the countries Sanders cites in terms of socialism levels. The real question is will 'more' socialism boost the lower class or the economy. And the answer is of course not..

Socialism rewards the non-producers and punishes the producers. This always have a negative effect on your economy and your welfare over all. Just ask Cuba, Russia, Venezuela etc.

If you favour equality over prosperity socialism is the ticket. If you want prosperity - you can't beat capitalisim. Hong Kong for example is one of the most prosperous places on earth and is composed of almost entirely Chinese people who are super capitalistic.

[ParticleMan]

^^ what you're describing is communism not socialism. yeah, communism is a fail. i think we've all seen that.

i now live in the UK and we have a lot of things that right-wing americans call socialist. national health care. highly subsidized college education. a strong social welfare system. the UK is plenty prosperous (well, at least until the Brexit buffoons took over), and nobody thinks of the UK as being socialist. and people in the UK completely scratch their heads at the US's crazy notion that these things would somehow harm prosperity. it's just fiscally sound social policy.

health care is a good example. the trouble with a free-market health care system is that health care is simply not conducive to that system. here is the first main problem: doctors only get paid *when you get sick*. this goes against the primary tenet of the free market, that the provider should aim to provide the best service. you might say well an auto mechanic doesn't get paid until your car breaks. sure, but in that case if you have a major repair you go to a couple of places, get quotes, and shop around to see who is the most reliable. otoh when you get really sick or break a bone, you aren't gonna pick up the weekly paper and see who's got a sale on fixing broken bones, you go to the nearest effin hospital as fast as possible. health care isn't "optional" in the free market sense, and it isn't going to end well if you pretend it is. a free market does not equal better product in any and all circumstances. in most cases, yes, but not in this case.

another thing is low-cost college education. as a parent of two teenage daughters this hits home for me. in the US, it's a free market gone completely awry. colleges are charging ridiculous tuitions, so that students can spend at least 4 usually 5 years and end up with a degree that in many cases they barely use. in the UK and much of Europe, college is almost free, but it is much more focused. an undergrad degree in the UK is 3 years, and you don't spend any time farting around with "breath requirements" which, while I appreciate the sentiment, in practice involves taking 300-person classes that the profs don't care about and the students barely try in. there is no farting around in the UK or Europe, you declare your major from Day 1 and it is not easy to change it. yes the Govt is helping you out but they aren't gonna pay for you to fart around. instead, they are paying for you because they realize an educated home-grown workforce is absolutely key to staying competitive in the global market. gone are the days when you can just get a HS diploma and work 40 years in the liverpool (or west virginia) coal mines. the UK realizes that paying for such an educated work force is just smart economics.

a counter example here in the UK is the privatization of the railroad system in the mid-90's under thatcher. the success of this is still hotly debated, and not at all evident. things were so horrid at first that what it did ironically spawn was a fleet of new low-cost airlines like EasyJet that realized we can beat these incompetent private railway companies by offering cheaper and faster travel within the UK (which has since expanded to europe). privatization did lower rail subsidies, naturally, since that was the whole point, but it certainly didn't do what the right wingers claimed, in reducing costs and improving service. instead there is now a complex network of operators that was a complete nightmare of confusion. things have settled down now, especially in the internet age where one can search and buy tickets online. but the idea that the system is altogether better for privatization is far from obvious, again because trying to privatize what is inherently a national resource (rail infrastructure) is fraught with difficulties.

socialism doesn't mean everyone works in a factory building the same product and getting paid the same wage and living in the same kind of house. that's communism, and hell even communism doesn't work that way. look at china, they are pretty damn capitalist at the community level. there are even KFCs at every street corner.

unfortunately some Americans just seem to have no clue what socialism actually is. let alone how effective it is.

[sam_I_am]

Yup, hard to know what young people are saying "yes" to when they're polled. Democratic socialism in the Bernie Sanders sense, I'm totally on board. But the word "socialism" still gets a Pavlovian response out of a lot of conservatives, because totalitarian socialism is genuinely disastrous. I'm not against "capitalism" in general, it has some features that are vital, that a centrally planned economy could never reproduce - but having guard rails and buffers against the volatile energies of a free market system, providing a social safety net, those things are vital, too, and without them, everyone's miserable.

Young people like socialism because they think it gets them free stuff. Soon as they figure out it doesn't aka the government is taking a slice of what they worked for - they freak the hell out.

1) They either stop working as hard
2) They move somewhere else.
3) They vote for someone different..

Socialism is great - until you run out of other people's money. People are inherently selfish - and socialism always fails. Always. And please STOP with the 'it works for finland' stuff. Sure higher personal taxes - but LOWER business taxes - less regulation..

Here is a good list of actual socialism/capitalism countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom

US already is there with many of the countries Sanders cites in terms of socialism levels. The real question is will 'more' socialism boost the lower class or the economy. And the answer is of course not..

Socialism rewards the non-producers and punishes the producers. This always have a negative effect on your economy and your welfare over all. Just ask Cuba, Russia, Venezuela etc.

If you favour equality over prosperity socialism is the ticket. If you want prosperity - you can't beat capitalisim. Hong Kong for example is one of the most prosperous places on earth and is composed of almost entirely Chinese people who are super capitalistic.

I think that when the government works for the wealthy at the expense of the many that it Isn’t really capitalism either and is just as bad as socialism. Allowing corporations with privileged positions like Wall Street (where lots of money is made but little of anything beneficial to society is produced) to cheat their way to billions and then have the tax payer cover the expenses when things fail is just one example. Allowing insurance companies to get rich on young healthy people who hardly ever get sick and then let the government take over after retirement when it is highly likely you get sick is another example.

Most working class people don’t realize the cost of their “benefits” and how much salary goes to pay for health insurance which can be 18-25k per year for a family. All that money being paid into health insurance and then at age 65 you retire and “poof” you have nothing but Medicare. Might as well let the government benefit from 40 years of healthy people to decrease overall cost. That is what they do in so called socialist countries and they have better health and it costs those countries a whole lot less.

But doing that would hurt the rich profiteers and what about the dozens of CEOs running HMOs and their 30 million a year salaries? Do we really need to stop overtaxing their estates to boost the economy?

[GuyClinch]

I think that when the government works for the wealthy at the expense of the many that it Isn’t really capitalism either and is just as bad as socialism. Allowing corporations with privileged positions like Wall Street (where lots of money is made but little of anything beneficial to society is produced) to cheat their way to billions and then have the tax payer cover the expenses when things fail is just one example. Allowing insurance companies to get rich on young healthy people who hardly ever get sick and then let the government take over after retirement when it is highly likely you get sick is another example.

Crony Capitalisim is bad - and it works for no one. A good example is our Obama healthcare system. No price pressure on Doctors, or Insurance companies. They get money from the consumers -and if that runs out they get kick backs from the government. Having a disinterested third party negotiate prices on your behalf is a disaster. What's amusing is that its so bad that even groups that should profit from it fail - like the insurance companies!

If we allowed anyone to get coverage from insurance companies -and let the insurance companies come up with any plan they wanted based on the consumer - coverage is much cheaper. I know. I looked at individual coverage before Obama care became a thing - cheaper and better coverage.