[billw55]

 gwnn, on 2015-September-24, 04:05, said:

Could we talk about this instead?

http://elections.huf...ocratic-primary

I wonder what Biden's "supporters" will do when he drops out. Somehow I think they are more anti-Clinton than pro-Biden so their votes might be predominantly going to Bernie.

And Bernie is perhaps leading in the first two states (Iowa and New Hampshire) already.

#feelthebern

Biden has not even announced a candidacy or started a campaign. And I don't think he is going to. Pollsters can poll any names they want, including noncandidates, and evidently they do so.

[cherdano]

 kenberg, on 2015-September-23, 10:56, said:

I guess it comes to this:

If Dems accept that the struggling middle class that votes Republican consists of a bunch of racists, then it has to write off their vote. I doubt that a campaign speech along the lines of "You are all a bunch of racists and don't forget to vote for me in the next election" will work well.

I am not a Democrat, in fact I am not even a politician. I am just answering a question on an internet forum.

Yes if I was trying to win votes, I wouldn't point out that Trump has made many racist statements, and that he is probably doing well in polls partly because he is racist. But that doesn't make it any less truthful!

Meanwhile, denying that racism plays a big role can also become disrespectful - disrespectful to those who are the target of such racism.

[Trinidad]

 cherdano, on 2015-September-24, 10:58, said:

Yes if I was trying to win votes, I wouldn't point out that Trump has made many racist statements, and that he is probably doing well in polls partly because he is racist.

Does the racist nature of Trump's statements need to be pointed out? I would think that most people, and at least those who follow the campaign at this stage of the election process, would know that these statements are racist.

So, as a candidate or any other person, you can do with those statements what you think is best. You can respond to them with the obvious "Ooooh, those statements are racist!". But I am fairly sure that Mr. Trump is prepared for such a response. Alternatively, you can ignore those statements and not give them any attention. The best you could possibly do is to address potential Trump voters and make it crystal clear why Trumps opinions are bad for them. This is what Carly Fiorina did: She didn't ignore his statement about her face, she didn't go "Ooooh, you can't say that!", and she didn't make it personal about herself. Instead, she made it personal for the female part of the voters (which includes quite a few potential Trump voters) and made it crystal clear what Trump thought about them. (And Mr. Trump was not prepared for that.)

Unfortunately, when it comes to racism, you cannot do the equivalent of what Carly Fiorina did. There are few non-whites who will vote for Trump. And Trump isn't seeking their votes.

Rik

[billw55]

 Trinidad, on 2015-September-24, 13:10, said:

Unfortunately, when it comes to racism, you cannot do the equivalent of what Carly Fiorina did. There are few non-whites who will vote for Trump. And Trump isn't seeking their votes.

I still think he isn't actually seeking any votes. Rather, he is trolling the voters. And the media, and the candidates. Fiorina was not successfully trolled, which he was not expecting.

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2015-September-24, 10:58, said:

I am not a Democrat, in fact I am not even a politician. I am just answering a question on an internet forum.

Yes if I was trying to win votes, I wouldn't point out that Trump has made many racist statements, and that he is probably doing well in polls partly because he is racist. But that doesn't make it any less truthful!

Meanwhile, denying that racism plays a big role can also become disrespectful - disrespectful to those who are the target of such racism.

It seems to me that Mr. Trump is insulting in a large number of ways. Carly Fiorina's face. Something about Rand Paul's looks, I didn't quite get it. Bush's lack of, well, something. Bush's wife. He simply enjoys being insulting. Some people like to watch that.

I truly found the second debate beyond appalling, and I blame the moderator, Tapper, for a lot of it. His basic question format was along the lines of "Candidate X, candidate Y says that you are unfit for office. How do you respond to that?".

I never understood the whole Trump phenomenon. I don't go to casinos and I don't understand why people do. I did not watch The Apprentice and I don't understand why people did. I cannot stand to watch the man onstage and why anyone favors him for anything is completely beyond me. If he never said another racist thing in his life I still could not stand him.

There are thing I just don't get, and Trump is one of them.

Nonetheless, I don't like it when people of the sort I grew up with are all lumped together as racists. You don't know them, you just insult them. I don't like it when Trump does it, I don't like it when you do it. Of course you could say that you suppose that some of them might be good people

[cherdano]

 kenberg, on 2015-September-24, 15:11, said:

Nonetheless, I don't like it when people of the sort I grew up with are all lumped together as racists. You don't know them, you just insult them. I don't like it when Trump does it, I don't like it when you do it. Of course you could say that you suppose that some of them might be good people

I never "all lumped them together". My point was that a discussion about "Why do so many poor Americans vote Republican?" is incomplete without addressing racism. I mean, the question doesn't even make sense without inserting "white" before "voters"! But that does not imply that a single of your Republican-voting friends is a racist.

Meanwhile, imagine a world where you had more African-American friends than white Republican-voting friends. Would you be similarly insistent on keeping "race" out of this discussion?

You all should read more TNC.

[cherdano]

 Trinidad, on 2015-September-24, 13:10, said:

Does the racist nature of Trump's statements need to be pointed out? I would think that most people, and at least those who follow the campaign at this stage of the election process, would know that these statements are racist.

But it is rarely pointed out that it is probably part of his appeal!

Meanwhile, what Fiorina did only works because there is a consensus that such remarks are misogynistic. But such a consensus only exists because others before her have pointed out that such remarks are misogynistic!

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2015-September-25, 02:38, said:

I never "all lumped them together". My point was that a discussion about "Why do so many poor Americans vote Republican?" is incomplete without addressing racism. I mean, the question doesn't even make sense without inserting "white" before "voters"! But that does not imply that a single of your Republican-voting friends is a racist.

Meanwhile, imagine a world where you had more African-American friends than white Republican-voting friends. Would you be similarly insistent on keeping "race" out of this discussion?

You all should read more TNC.

I don't know what TNC is. I am more than willing to acknowledge, in fact I would probably insist, that if I had different life experiences I would think differently. As would most people.

My general experience is that people are not racists, they are not communists, they are really not any sort of ists. They are trying to live their lives as well as possible., Name calling puts people in a bag and labels them. I resist being ut in a bag and labeled, and it does not surprise me that others do as well.

[hrothgar]

 kenberg, on 2015-September-25, 04:40, said:

I don't know what TNC is.

He's writing the new Black Panther comic for Marvel.

He's done a few other things that have gotten some good press. Most recently

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/0812993543

(Outstanding author IMHO)

[kenberg]

Thanks

[gwnn]

 billw55, on 2015-September-24, 10:30, said:

Biden has not even announced a candidacy or started a campaign. And I don't think he is going to. Pollsters can poll any names they want, including noncandidates, and evidently they do so.

By 'drop out' I mainly meant officially announce he's not running and especially drop out of the polls, sorry for the confusion. I know that he has not announced his candidacy.

[cherdano]

 kenberg, on 2015-September-25, 04:40, said:

I don't know what TNC is.

Sorry about doing this, but this was partly my point.

One of the privileges of being the majority race is that you are not forced to think about race relations very much. (If you are a minority race, you have to think about them, in order to put many unpleasant experiences in your life into context.) Coates is inarguably the most influential writer on this topic in the US, and personally I find his pieces always among the most interesting ones I come across on the web.

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2015-September-25, 14:21, said:

Sorry about doing this, but this was partly my point.

One of the privileges of being the majority race is that you are not forced to think about race relations very much. (If you are a minority race, you have to think about them, in order to put many unpleasant experiences in your life into context.) Coates is inarguably the most influential writer on this topic in the US, and personally I find his pieces always among the most interesting ones I come across on the web.

You are correct. I am not forced to think about race relations very much.

I used to read the Atlantic, I am pretty sure I even had a subscription back long ago when it was called the Atlantic Monthly. I don't much read it any more. I had heard of this article of his about reparations but I probably would not have placed the name and I certainly didn't place the initials.

As I recall, when I heard about the reparations article my reaction was "Why should I read this, there isn't a chance in hell we would ever do this so it sounds like an argument for intellectuals only". But I didn't read it, so you are right, I don't know.

I am not ruling out reading something of his. Between the World and Me seems more promising than the reparations article. I was reading some of the book excerpt on Amazon (I followed the link above). He says he wants to confront American claims of exceptionalism with the reality of our history. OK. But I have always thought claiming exceptionalism to be a mistake. He seems to think in terms of extreme opposites. I don't so much think that way, and I can tire quickly of people who do.

Anyway, not today.

Mostly I have, in recent posts, been giving my thoughts on why the Ds are having trouble getting the votes, or getting as many votes, as would be expected, from the white struggling middle class. I feel I can draw on my experience and I regard it as an important question. I don't know much about Coates' world, either the tough world he grew up in nor the intellectual world he now inhabits, and I have never claimed that I do.

[akwoo]

I'm not really so convinced that the policies of the Democratic party are so good for the average person.

Suppose you're an average unemployed person. The Democrats will create jobs, but what kind of jobs will they create? Government jobs like teaching or social work require a good deal of education and intelligence you don't have. Non-profit sector jobs like health care are the same. Even an industry job, especially in a high-tech factory, mostly means controlling robots to do the job, and you might not be smart enough to manage that. Maybe you'll go on welfare or "disability" permanently, but how reliable is that? Will it survive the next Congress?

In contrast, the Republicans say that, if the government stopped regulating businesses so much, the local rich guy could hire you to screw toothpaste caps on toothpaste tubes for a dollar an hour. That's not much, but if you can shoot your own meat and grow some vegetables, it might be enough. Also, if the local rich guy fires you, you could at least egg his house, shoot out his tires, and arrange to drop dead on his front porch. What can you do if the government stops giving you the welfare check?

Here's the point: If you don't have First World skills, you are actually better off in a Third World economy, because your skills only command Third World wages, and it's much easier to live on Third World wages in a Third World economy than in a First World economy.

[mike777]

 akwoo, on 2015-September-25, 21:40, said:

I'm not really so convinced that the policies of the Democratic party are so good for the average person.

Suppose you're an average unemployed person. The Democrats will create jobs, but what kind of jobs will they create? Government jobs like teaching or social work require a good deal of education and intelligence you don't have. Non-profit sector jobs like health care are the same. Even an industry job, especially in a high-tech factory, mostly means controlling robots to do the job, and you might not be smart enough to manage that. Maybe you'll go on welfare or "disability" permanently, but how reliable is that? Will it survive the next Congress?

In contrast, the Republicans say that, if the government stopped regulating businesses so much, the local rich guy could hire you to screw toothpaste caps on toothpaste tubes for a dollar an hour. That's not much, but if you can shoot your own meat and grow some vegetables, it might be enough. Also, if the local rich guy fires you, you could at least egg his house, shoot out his tires, and arrange to drop dead on his front porch. What can you do if the government stops giving you the welfare check?

Here's the point: If you don't have First World skills, you are actually better off in a Third World economy, because your skills only command Third World wages, and it's much easier to live on Third World wages in a Third World economy than in a First World economy.

I strongly disagree, the poor in the USA have a much higher standard of living than the poor or many others in say India or Pakistan, etc

With that said it seems in the last 7 years under a Dem Pres incomes have gone down on average, not up. The 1% have done much much better.

[hrothgar]

 mike777, on 2015-September-25, 22:32, said:

I strongly disagree, the poor in the USA have a much higher standard of living than the poor or many others in say India or Pakistan, etc

With that said it seems in the last 7 years under a Dem Pres incomes have gone down on average, not up. The 1% have done much much better.

Median real household income over time

Date US
2013 $52,250
2012 $52,117
2011 $52,306
2010 $53,469
2009 $54,541
2008 $56,290
2007 $57,006
2006 $55,978
2005 $55,178

[kenberg]

 hrothgar, on 2015-September-26, 04:25, said:

Median real household income over time

Date US
2013 $52,250
2012 $52,117
2011 $52,306
2010 $53,469
2009 $54,541
2008 $56,290
2007 $57,006
2006 $55,978
2005 $55,178

These are seriously depressing figures. Just after the problems of 2008 we would exect decline and it is there. But it seems stuck.

We have had discussions about median incomes before and of course there are a lot of subtleties. Still, however these figures came about, they do not seem to represent progress.

Now if we ask: How good or bad is it to live on 50+K household income, I imagine it is easier in Tulsa than in NYC or Anchorage, and it depends on whether it's a household of one or of five. A retired couple living in a house with the mortgage paid off won't be flying to Paris but they won't be starving either.

I was going to say that if living in the US was not a fairly good deal then we would not have a problem with illegal immigration but then I remembered that illegal immigration has sharply dropped, so scratch that argument. And I think some retired folks do move to Mexico, or mabe Costa Rica, where the cost of living is cheaper. Still, on balance, if I were poor I would rather be poor here than poor in a Third World country.

Incidentally, do we still have Second World countries? Or First World? It would seem that Third World pre-supposes a First World and a Second World. I guess that historically we, NATO and such, were First World, Russia and friends were Second World, everyone else was Third World. Maybe the language needs some updating.

[Trinidad]

 kenberg, on 2015-September-25, 04:40, said:

My general experience is that people are not racists, they are not communists, they are really not any sort of ists.

That may be true, but meanwhile there is a lot of racism going around... and it is not the dogs, the cars, the houses, or the daisies that are racist. It is people.

Does that mean that racist people are bad people? Not necessarily.

I was an innocent Dutch guy when I started my PhD work in Chemical Engineering at Michigan State a long time ago. About two weeks after I came there our research group went on a conference. It meant that I had to share a hotel room (and a king size bed) with a fellow student... from India. I was pretty apprehensive.

What made it difficult for me to share a room with an Indian guy? I didn't know:
what Indian people do before they sleep
whether they wear pijamas
what they will do when they wake up
how they would react if we by accident happened to touch each other

And this apprehension existed, despite the fact that my first impressions with this guy had only been good: He had been giving me rides home and we had had coffee at his place. It was a strange kind of coffee, but his intentions were clearly good.

Now, I don't consider myself a racist, and currently some of my very best friends are from India (easy when you study Engineering ) and meanwhile I have had the honor to visit India a few times. But at the time I was as xenophobic as anybody else. This fear of the unknown is fairly normal. So, if you have an isolated community with a 100% WASP population, it doesn't surprise me at all if Joe and Jane Smith are somewhat apprehensive when someone named LeSean Abdullah comes into town to start a bakery. (Nor does it surprise me that LeSean decides to open his bakery in the city instead.)

The key to combat racism is not to say that this natural apprehension for the unknown is racist and bad. It is to recognize that this apprehension is natural and then to overcome it, by climbing over the barrier to look what is on the other side. And there you will find ... a person. That takes courage, but it makes life a lot nicer.

Rik

[Winstonm]

 akwoo, on 2015-September-25, 21:40, said:

I'm not really so convinced that the policies of the Democratic party are so good for the average person.

Suppose you're an average unemployed person. The Democrats will create jobs, but what kind of jobs will they create? Government jobs like teaching or social work require a good deal of education and intelligence you don't have. Non-profit sector jobs like health care are the same. Even an industry job, especially in a high-tech factory, mostly means controlling robots to do the job, and you might not be smart enough to manage that. Maybe you'll go on welfare or "disability" permanently, but how reliable is that? Will it survive the next Congress?

In contrast, the Republicans say that, if the government stopped regulating businesses so much, the local rich guy could hire you to screw toothpaste caps on toothpaste tubes for a dollar an hour. That's not much, but if you can shoot your own meat and grow some vegetables, it might be enough. Also, if the local rich guy fires you, you could at least egg his house, shoot out his tires, and arrange to drop dead on his front porch. What can you do if the government stops giving you the welfare check?

Here's the point: If you don't have First World skills, you are actually better off in a Third World economy, because your skills only command Third World wages, and it's much easier to live on Third World wages in a Third World economy than in a First World economy.

Sarcasm, right?

[kenberg]

 Trinidad, on 2015-September-26, 07:18, said:

That may be true, but meanwhile there is a lot of racism going around... and it is not the dogs, the cars, the houses, or the daisies that are racist. It is people.

Does that mean that racist people are bad people? Not necessarily.

I was an innocent Dutch guy when I started my PhD work in Chemical Engineering at Michigan State a long time ago. About two weeks after I came there our research group went on a conference. It meant that I had to share a hotel room (and a king size bed) with a fellow student... from India. I was pretty apprehensive.

What made it difficult for me to share a room with an Indian guy? I didn't know:
what Indian people do before they sleep
whether they wear pijamas
what they will do when they wake up
how they would react if we by accident happened to touch each other

And this apprehension existed, despite the fact that my first impressions with this guy had only been good: He had been giving me rides home and we had had coffee at his place. It was a strange kind of coffee, but his intentions were clearly good.

Now, I don't consider myself a racist, and currently some of my very best friends are from India (easy when you study Engineering ) and meanwhile I have had the honor to visit India a few times. But at the time I was as xenophobic as anybody else. This fear of the unknown is fairly normal. So, if you have an isolated community with a 100% WASP population, it doesn't surprise me at all if Joe and Jane Smith are somewhat apprehensive when someone named LeSean Abdullah comes into town to start a bakery. (Nor does it surprise me that LeSean decides to open his bakery in the city instead.)

The key to combat racism is not to say that this natural apprehension for the unknown is racist and bad. It is to recognize that this apprehension is natural and then to overcome it, by climbing over the barrier to look what is on the other side. And there you will find ... a person. That takes courage, but it makes life a lot nicer.

Rik

Yes, indeed.

There are many aspects to this. No doubt some of this will be repetition:

Story 1: I started at an undergrad at the University of Minnesota in 1956. After a year or so a coffee shop opened (The Ten O'Clock Scholar, I think it is still there.) . One of those places where you drink coffee, play chess, discuss Sartre, etc. I am playing chess, a black guy is second guessing my every move, and after a bit of this I say something like "Look, you can play the winner, until then buzz off". Reflecting on this later, I felt very good. My neighborhood where I grew up was white, all white. My high school was white, all white. I did not want to be a racist. When I realized that I had treated this guy exactly the same as I would have treated a white guy who commented on my every move, and I felt a sense of relief.


Story 2: I started grad school, also at Minnesota, in 1960. There were many many Indians and many, many Pakistanis. This was a time when India and Pakistan were expected to go to war at any moment. Indian grad students and Pakistani grad students got along just fine. Very interesting to see. But the Indian caste system seemed to survive the trip over, and it led to the following. Some grad student group was having a gathering at a park. Alcohol was in plentiful supply. . I had borrowed a car (at the time my finances were tight and I was carless) and I was bringing two Indians with me. One sat in front, the other in back. As it was time to leave, the one who had been in back made a mad dash to get a front seat. This led to great consternation. The previous front-seater said the front-seat was his. The new front-seater explained that they were now in the US and the fact that the previous front-seater was of a higher caste made no difference now. Chances of working this out were about as good as if the two were Ted Cruz and Barack Obama. I finally announced that I didn't care who sat where but it was 2 in the morning and I was about to leave. Eventually I did, leaving the previous front-seater behind. He called upon the police and in the spirit of international cooperation they gave him a ride home. I don't know what seat he sat in in the police car. Perhaps surprisingly, the next time I saw him he said that I had behave very irrationally but that was no reason we could not still be friends, so we were.

Anyway, personal interaction is the key. I take this to be your point, and I absolutely agree. Other things are needed as well, no doubt about it, but getting to know each other is a fine start.

It is just so easy for things to go sideways. Quite a few years back I was in a bar, owned by a black guy I knew. Most, maybe all, of the other customers were black. I was sitting at the bar and ordered another drink. As the owner started making my drink someone, I think a couple of someones, remarked about how he was moving very promptly to get what the white guy wanted. He set them straight.

There is a lot of history, and we will not easily get past it all. There are times that I am very pessimistic. People are just people, I really believe that, but we all come with a lot of baggage. Last night I caught the last part of Sea of Love (I have seen it more than once or twice before) and Pacino is saying to Goodman, "People are work". Yep.