• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Election: 2016

Thucydides said:
Reading speeches from Bernie Sanders or even Hillary Clinton certainly does not give me a sense of them being "centrists". The Democrat initiatives across Blue cities and states in everything from regulation to taxation to mandating minimum wages at $15/hr also are not "center", unless you are extremely off axis.

Refer to Pournlle's two axis theory of political alignment to map where everyone really is and you will be surprised:

http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm for an explanation

Right but you have to consider what has happened historically. "Regulation and taxation" compared to what? Chomsky's main point is that the entire spectrum has shifted right, so by comparison to today's standards, a Republican like Eisenhower resembles something closer to Bernie Sanders (in some ways) than this modern equivalents.

How do you define $15/hour as not being a centrist policy? It's well documented that wages have stagnated in comparison to GDP growth and once inflation is taken into account the buying power of someone on minimum wage is greatly reduced compared to even 20 years ago.

Again, the Republicans we're seeing now are on the extreme right, so yes by comparison Clinton and the Dems seem to be progressive. But that's the point.

I agree that Sanders is not centrist, he represents the furthest left the Democrats have been since the 70s, but Clinton is right of center.
 
Setting wages by fiat rather than allowing the market to dictate is a leftist/socialist/progressive trope, and setting minimum wages far above the market rate is doing this on steroids. You should educate yourself on the effects of this; places which have started instituting the program are already experiencing reduced levels of hiring for entry level (minimum wage) jobs, and replacements like robotic burger flippers and electronic ordering kiosks are making an appearance in places like New York.

Regulatrion and taxation compared to the past. When a person trying to open a small business like a food truck is jumping through hoops of fire today (including getting a GPS tracker for the truck and filling out paperwork for a mutitude of separate bureucracies) or children are fined for opening a lemonade stand, or church groups are enjoined not ot serve food to the homeless (becasue they are lacking the proper permits), then I think you are looking at symptoms of a much larger problem. WRT past examples, Kennedy ignited the "Go Go 60's" with a massive tax cut. Name any Democrat today who is calling for tax cutrs or regulatory streamlining? (True, only the TEA Party movement is calling for this from outside the political establishment, inside the Beltway the GOP is content with the status quo).

If anything, the growth of government and bureuacracy represents centralization and a drift towards the left, following the formulation “Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato”.
 
Thucydides said:
Setting wages by fiat rather than allowing the market to dictate is a leftist/socialist/progressive trope, and setting minimum wages far above the market rate is doing this on steroids. You should educate yourself on the effects of this; places which have started instituting the program are already experiencing reduced levels of hiring for entry level (minimum wage) jobs, and replacements like robotic burger flippers and electronic ordering kiosks are making an appearance in places like New York.

Regulatrion and taxation compared to the past. When a person trying to open a small business like a food truck is jumping through hoops of fire today (including getting a GPS tracker for the truck and filling out paperwork for a mutitude of separate bureucracies) or children are fined for opening a lemonade stand, or church groups are enjoined not ot serve food to the homeless (becasue they are lacking the proper permits), then I think you are looking at symptoms of a much larger problem. WRT past examples, Kennedy ignited the "Go Go 60's" with a massive tax cut. Name any Democrat today who is calling for tax cutrs or regulatory streamlining? (True, only the TEA Party movement is calling for this from outside the political establishment, inside the Beltway the GOP is content with the status quo).

If anything, the growth of government and bureuacracy represents centralization and a drift towards the left, following the formulation “Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato”.

I don't need to educate myself. The language you're using (socialist trope) is ideological. It is a fact that workers wages have been stagnant since the 1970s, and further, it is a fact that a capitalist economy cannot survive without consumers to buy things. The more people that are living precariously the less robust our economy is.

You've listed some great anecdotes, but here's some data on wages versus productivity:

http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

If you believe the market would correct for these things, why didn't it? The arguments you're making work in favour of corporate giants and the wealthy, no one else. Ironically though, as I mentioned above, our economy cannot keep growing with current levels of inequality. It's cannibalistic in nature. Without a middle class to consume value added items, we're left to rely on Wall Street, which is a basically a house of cards. So yes, raising the minimum wage to increase the buying power of those at the bottom of the ladder is essential for further growth. This is a capitalist idea believe it or not.
 
Kilo_302 said:
So yes, raising the minimum wage to increase the buying power of those at the bottom of the ladder is essential for further growth. This is a capitalist idea believe it or not.

Don't believe it.  What buying power do the unemployed have?  You should get a job working for Rachel Notley and enjoy all the wealth the communist government is creating in Alberta.  Not!
 
Rocky Mountains: Grow up!  ;) You know damn well that Rachel Notley has nothing to do with the current Albertan economy woes (she hasn't been in charge long enough to have any effect one way or the other, for gawd's sake).

The very capitalist, free market for oil - in which the equally greedy Albertan capitalist Oil industry has no real say or power - however is the clear culprit: Hey! The world's consumers doesn't want your $90.00 a barrel oil, so take 37$ and shut up, or just close down. That's the real culprit and you know it.

And by the way, this idea that you need consumer with a reasonable amount of money in their pockets to buy your product is a very "left" idea: It came from a very "socialist" guy called Henry Ford. He is the one that came up with the idea that the assembly line workers of the world should have reasonable salaries so they can afford to buy the "cars for every one" he was mass-producing.

So, cut some slack to K-302.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
The very capitalist, free market for oil - in which the equally greedy Albertan capitalist Oil industry has no real say or power - however is the clear culprit: Hey! The world's consumers doesn't want your $90.00 a barrel oil, so take 37$ and shut up, or just close down. That's the real culprit and you know it.

Canada Western Select was trading for $20 a barrel today BTW.

But it's the also same situation for the destruction of the US Coal Industry, not Obama's so called "War on Coal" but rather the huge drop in Natural Gas prices due to fracking technology improving access to gas and lowering the scost while increasing the supply. It became economic for plants to switch from coal fired equipment to more efficient and cleaner burning gas fired equipment.

And TransCanada has filed suit against the US Government for $15 Billion for damages when they killed the Keystone pipeline.
 
The capitalist idea is using the market to match supply of labour to demand for labour, and wages are set according to both demand and to productivity (Burger flippers are in high supply. Machinists get paid more because there are fewer of them and they add more value to a product). You refuse to look at the results of the policies of setting wages above market rates and also fail to see that the people taking the biggest hits are the small employers who with narrow operating margins who simply cannot pay workers that amount of money (there are multiple examples to look up on the net, restaurants are hard hit, but there was a memorable story about a book store owner who is essentially being forced to lay off his staff, despite being for the proposition. Reality has a way of doing that to you...). Since in a market ecosystem (or almost any system, according to power law scaling) there are far more small business than medium business, and far more medium business than large, you should be able to see where most of the damage is being done.

Indeed there is a school of thought that this is crony capitalism in action; large business with lobby power can afford to take a bit of a hit (shedding 10% of your employees is less stressful for a company with 1000 workers than for one with 10) in order to permanently hobble potential competitors. The other school of thought is by creating a permanently dependent underclass of unemployed, certain political factions can maintain a voter base by offering "free stuff" to the affected (since few people seem to be able to connect the dots between regulatory failure and their diminishing standards of living or unemployment, this con job has been wildly successful).

In more socialistic nations, where the process is farther advanced, the GDP/Capita is much lower (most European nations have GDP/Capita than all but the poorest US States) or the economy has totally unravelled (Venezuela is a good current example).
 
Thucydides said:
The capitalist idea is using the market to match supply of labour to demand for labour, and wages are set according to both demand and to productivity (Burger flippers are in high supply. Machinists get paid more because there are fewer of them and they add more value to a product). You refuse to look at the results of the policies of setting wages above market rates and also fail to see that the people taking the biggest hits are the small employers who with narrow operating margins who simply cannot pay workers that amount of money (there are multiple examples to look up on the net, restaurants are hard hit, but there was a memorable story about a book store owner who is essentially being forced to lay off his staff, despite being for the proposition. Reality has a way of doing that to you...). Since in a market ecosystem (or almost any system, according to power law scaling) there are far more small business than medium business, and far more medium business than large, you should be able to see where most of the damage is being done.

Indeed there is a school of thought that this is crony capitalism in action; large business with lobby power can afford to take a bit of a hit (shedding 10% of your employees is less stressful for a company with 1000 workers than for one with 10) in order to permanently hobble potential competitors. The other school of thought is by creating a permanently dependent underclass of unemployed, certain political factions can maintain a voter base by offering "free stuff" to the affected (since few people seem to be able to connect the dots between regulatory failure and their diminishing standards of living or unemployment, this con job has been wildly successful).

In more socialistic nations, where the process is farther advanced, the GDP/Capita is much lower (most European nations have GDP/Capita than all but the poorest US States) or the economy has totally unravelled (Venezuela is a good current example).

2 points. I think we differ on what markets can do and what they can't do. I would argue that history has shown us that "free markets" simply aren't and the harmonious self-regulating market is a myth. Intervention is required to maintain balance. The inherent tendency in capitalism is to consolidate and monopolize. I agree that we need to protect small businesses, but their main problem is large corporations beating them on economies of scale. Your average mom and pop general store can't compete with Walmart. This is why we need intervention to even the playing field. Increasing wages will no doubt cause some short term pain for small businesses, but in the long run it's better for all of us if we don't have people requiring aid because they live hand to mouth.

Second, if you're suggesting that liberal politicians purposely create poverty in order to gain votes through social programs designed to address said poverty, this is simply way off base. Nor is "Regulatory failure" is not the cause of poverty. The cause of poverty is a shortage of stable employment and low wages. A certain level of unemployment is desirable to some interests, as it drives wages down. This is by design, and it has nothing to do with regulations failing OR succeeding.
 
:facepalm:

Yahoo News

Does Donald Trump Think Paris Is In Germany?
[Yahoo News]

January 7, 2016

Presidential hopeful Donald Trump seemingly flunked geography if his latest Twitter gaffe is anything to go by.

The Republican candidate for America’s top job was reacting to the news that a man wearing a fake suicide belt was shot dead in Paris while running towards a police station.

But his rant seemed to mistake the capital of France was found in another country altogether.

He tweeted: “Man shot inside Paris police station. Just announced that terror threat is at highest level.

“Germany is a total mess - big crime. GET SMART!”


(...SNIPPED)
 
The "Big crime - GET SMART!" portion ain't much better.

Whether Germany or France, all the crime statistics are orders of magnitude lower than the USA's.

If that is your view, Mr. Trump, look in the mirror: America: Big crime - GET SMART!"
 
What is being called a major speech from Bernie Sanders. He's channelling the anger a lot of American are feeling like Trump, but in a far more productive way in that he's actually addressing issues rather than relying on fear mongering and xenophobia.

Definitely worth a watch as the full speech is too long to post here:

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_bernie_sanders_inveighs_against_wall_street_in_major_address_20160106

The American people are catching on. They understand that something is profoundly wrong when, in our country today, the top one-tenth of 1 percent own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent and when the 20 richest people own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans – half of our population. They know that the system is rigged when the average person is working longer hours for lower wages, while 58 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent.

They also know that a handful of people on Wall Street have extraordinary power over the economic and political life of our country. As most people know, in the 1990s and later, the financial interests spent billions of dollars in lobbying and campaign contributions to force through Congress the deregulation of Wall Street, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and the weakening of consumer protection laws in states.

They spent this money in order to get the government off their backs and to show the American people what they could do with that new-won freedom. Well, they sure showed the American people. In 2008, the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street nearly destroyed the U.S. and global economy.

Advertisement


Millions of Americans lost their jobs, their homes and their life savings.
While Wall Street received the largest taxpayer bailout in the history of the world with no strings attached, the American middle class continues to disappear, poverty is increasing and the gap between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider and wider. And Wall Street executives still receive huge compensation packages as if the financial crisis they created never happened.

Greed, fraud, dishonesty and arrogance, these are the words that best describe the reality of Wall Street today.

So, to those on Wall Street who may be listening today, let me be very clear. Greed is not good. In fact, the greed of Wall Street and corporate America is destroying the fabric of our nation. And, here is a New Year’s Resolution that I will keep if elected president. If you do not end your greed, we will end it for you.

We will no longer tolerate an economy and a political system that has been rigged by Wall Street to benefit the wealthiest Americans in this country at the expense of everyone else.

While President Obama deserves credit for improving this economy after the Wall Street crash, the reality is that a lot of unfinished business remains to be done.

Our goal must be to create a financial system and an economy that works for all Americans, not just a handful of billionaires

ENDING “TOO BIG TO FAIL”

That means we have got to end, once and for all, the scheme that is nothing more than a free insurance policy for Wall Street, the policy of “too big to fail.”

We need a banking system that is part of the productive economy – making loans at affordable rates to small- and medium-sized businesses so that we create decent-paying jobs. Wall Street cannot continue to be an island unto itself, gambling trillions in risky financial instruments, making huge profits and assured that, if their schemes fail, the taxpayers will be there to bail them out.

In 2008, the taxpayers of this country bailed out Wall Street because we were told they were “too big to fail.” Yet, today, 3 out of the 4 largest financial institutions (JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo) are nearly 80 percent bigger than before we bailed them out. Incredibly, the six largest banks in this country issue more than two-thirds of all credit cards and more than 35 percent of all mortgages. They control more than 95 percent of all financial derivatives and hold more than 40 percent of all bank deposits. Their assets are equivalent to nearly 60 percent of our GDP. Enough is enough.

If a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. When it comes to Wall Street reform that must be our bottom line. This is true not just from a risk perspective and the fear of another bailout. It is also true from the reality that a handful of huge financial institutions simply have too much economic and political power over this country.

If Teddy Roosevelt, the Republican trust-buster, were alive today, he would say “break ‘em up.” And he would be right.

And, here’s how I will accomplish that.
 
Interesting story on how SuperPAC's are not showing the effectiveness that they have had in the past, and the theory that big money influences the outcome is being thrown on it's head in this cycle, and Trump is the reason.

SuperPACs Are Not So Super In 2016

http://www.npr.org/2016/01/07/462211790/superpacs-are-not-so-super-in-2016

When this presidential campaign got underway last spring, the buzz was that a candidate would be propelled by passing off the heavy costs of TV advertising to a friendly superPAC. But now the opposite is true.

Donald Trump, leading the Republican field, has no superPAC. Some other superPACs are pouring cash into TV, but their candidates are stuck low in the polls.

Trump just recently started buying TV time, after months of depending on news coverage to promote his campaign.


Meanwhile, Jeb Bush's superPAC, Right To Rise USA, has spent $47.5 million on TV, according to NBC News and the media firm SMG/Delta. Bush has been stuck in the lower tiers of polls for months.

SMG/Delta and NBC News calculate that Right To Rise accounts for 97 percent of Bush's TV spending and more than one-third of TV spending by all presidential candidates in both parties.

SuperPACs are so super because they take unlimited contributions from wealthy donors, which the candidate's campaign cannot accept. That's why Democrat Bernie Sanders refuses to have one.

But John Feehery, a veteran Republican adviser, cited Right To Rise USA as an example of how superPACs sometimes are counterproductive.

Feehery said, "If you put all of your most creative thinkers at the superPAC — [longtime Bush family political strategist] Mike Murphy for example, is at the Bush superPAC — that has actually kept him out of the day-to-day decision-making of the campaign, which I do think has hurt the Bush campaign. They really do miss his creative thinking."

This is just the second presidential election since superPACs became legal. In 2012 they were attack dogs. Most notably, the Mitt Romney superPAC ripped into Newt Gingrich in the Republican primaries.

This cycle, superPACs have been doing positive messages about their own candidates. But the Republicans with the biggest outside spending — Christie and John Kasich, along with Bush — are barely breaking 10 percent in the polls.

SuperPACs also can keep candidates afloat when the campaign money runs low, although last year Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal discovered that couldn't go on indefinitely.

"It might help us understand why there are still so many people in the Republican primary," said Diana Dwyre, a political scientist at California State University, Chico.

She suggested that might be because superPAC donors aren't always in sync with the voters.

"I mean if they were picking horses at the track, they'd probably be more strategic about it than the way some of them are picking where to throw their dollars," she said.

And so, except for advertising, nobody's figured out what a superPAC can do that truly helps a presidential hopeful.

Jindal and Carly Fiorina had superPACs running their campaign events; the candidate was essentially a guest. Jindal dropped out in November. Fiorina is barely hanging on.

The most unlikely superPAC success of 2016 may turn out to be a Democratic group from 2013 and 2014. Long before Hillary Clinton launched her campaign, Ready For Hillary built an email list of nearly 4 million Clinton supporters. The Clinton campaign now has that list.

Democratic consultant Phil Singer said, "The Ready for Hillary operation created a significant amount of data, and might prove to be a classic model for how to use an outside group to propel a candidacy."

Dwyre said superPACs can do only so much. "If you're not a good candidate, if you don't have the other ingredients there, it's not going to matter whether you have a big superPAC behind you," she said.

But that's a factor unlikely to deter any White House hopeful from setting one up.
 
Mark Styne on Donald Trump. (Imagine the team those two would make!) Instapundit has a few words as well. go to link and from there you can follow the other links. Donald Trump has a way of looking and seeming natural, and saying what is on people's minds, which is why he is doing so well compared to the scripted and carefully handled "professional" political class. Reagan had that quality as well:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/223533

BROADWAY BABIES SAY IT’S MORNING IN AMERICA: Mark Steyn, who knows a thing or two about theater and stagecraft, reviews Donald Trump’s rally in Steyn’s backyard, the perilously blue (David Brooks dubbed it “latte town” 20 years ago) Burlington, Vermont:


Trump has no prompters. He walks out, pulls a couple of pieces of folded paper from his pocket, and then starts talking. Somewhere in there is the germ of a stump speech, but it would bore him to do the same poll-tested focus-grouped thing night after night, so he basically riffs on whatever’s on his mind. This can lead to some odd juxtapositions: One minute he’s talking about the Iran deal, the next he detours into how Macy’s stock is in the toilet since they dumped Trump ties. But in a strange way it all hangs together: It’s both a political speech, and a simultaneous running commentary on his own campaign.

It’s also hilarious. I’ve seen no end of really mediocre shows at the Flynn in the last quarter-century, and I would have to account this the best night’s entertainment I’ve had there with the exception of the great jazz singer Dianne Reeves a few years back. He’s way funnier than half the stand-up acts I’ve seen at the Juste pour rires comedy festival a couple of hours north in Montreal. And I can guarantee that he was funnier than any of the guys trying their hand at Trump Improv night at the Vermont Comedy Club a couple of blocks away. He has a natural comic timing.

Just to be non-partisan about this, the other day I was listening to Obama’s gun-control photo-op at the White House, and he thanked Gabby Giffords, by explaining that her husband Mark’s brother is an astronaut in outer space and he’d called just before Mark’s last meeting at the White House but, not wishing to disturb the President, Mark didn’t pick up. “Which made me feel kind of bad,” said the President. “That’s a long-distance call.” As I was driving along, I remember thinking how brilliantly Obama delivered that line. He’s not usually generous to others and he’s too thin-skinned to be self-deprecating with respect to himself, but, when he wants to get laughs, he knows how to do it. Trump’s is a different style: He’s looser, and more freewheeling. He’s not like Jeb – he doesn’t need writers, and scripted lines; he has a natural instinct for where the comedy lies. He has a zest for the comedy of life.

To be sure, some of the gags can be a little – what’s the word? – mean-spirited. The performance was interrupted by knots of protesters. “Throw ‘em out!” barked Trump, after the first chants broke out. The second time it happened, he watched one of the security guys carefully picking up the heckler’s coat. “Confiscate their coats,” deadpanned Trump. “It’s ten below zero outside.” Third time it happened, he extended his coat riff: “We’ll mail them back to them in a couple of weeks.” On MSNBC, they apparently had a discussion on how Trump could be so outrageous as to demand the confiscation of private property. But in showbusiness this is what is known as a “joke”. And in the theatre it lands: everyone’s laughing and having a ball.

Plus this:


The headline in Friday’s local paper read: “BURLINGTON TRUMPED”. That’s what his fans liked. In the liberal heart of a liberal state, the supporters streaming out of the Flynn Theatre, waving genially to the social-justice doofuses across the way, couldn’t recall a night like it. Not in Vermont. In New Hampshire, sure. In South Carolina. But not in Vermont. It felt good to be taking it to the other side’s turf. And they’d like a lot more of it between now and November.

As Kathy Shaidle writes in her link to Steyn’s article, “I’d add ‘read the whole thing’ but you won’t be able to stop anyhow…”
 
And you know just who this program is pandering to and why it was enacted, despite (or even becasue of) the massive risks it poses to the banking industry and economy as a whole:

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/010716-788747-government-wants-to-lend-more-to-high-risk-immigrants.htm?p=full

Fannie Mae Rolls Out Easy Mortgage, Catering To High-Risk Immigrants
01/07/2016 06:52 PM ET

Signs of the times in 2007 may return along with easier Fannie Mae loans to higher-risk immigrants. View Enlarged Image

Subprime 2.0: The White House is rolling out a new low-income mortgage program that for the first time lets lenders qualify borrowers by counting income from nonborrowers living in the household. What could go wrong?

The HomeReady program is offered through Fannie Mae, which is now controlled by Obama's old Congressional Black Caucus pal Mel Watt. It replaces the bankrupted mortgage giant's notorious old subprime program, MyCommunityMortgage.

In case renaming the subprime product fails to fool anybody, the affordable-housing geniuses in the administration have re-termed "subprime," a dirty word since the mortgage bust, "alternative."

So HomeReady isn't a subprime mortgage program, you see, it's an "alternative" mortgage program.

But it might was well be called DefaultReady, because it is just as risky as the subprime junk Fannie was peddling on the eve of the crisis.

At least before the crisis, your income had to be your own. But now, as a renter, you can get a conventional home loan backed by Fannie by claiming other people's income. That's right: You can use your apartment roommate's paycheck to augment your qualifying income. Or your abuela.

You can even claim the earnings of people who are not occupants, such as your parents, under this program.

You don't have to bring much financial wherewithal to the table. You can even live in government-subsidized housing.

Just as long as you round up enough income-earners and pool finances to help meet the debt-to-income ratio of 43%.

You don't need good credit either. You can qualify with a FICO credit score as low as 620, which is subprime. And you can put as little as 3% down.

It's available for first-time homebuyers and repeat deadbeats. It will also expand to include refinancings.

It's all part of a government campaign to ease access to home loans for Hispanic immigrants who tend to live in groups and pool finances.

Fannie says that 1 in 4 Hispanic households share dwellings — and finances — with extended families. It says this is a large "underserved" market.

The program actually targets properties "in high-minority census tracts."

The National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals, a liberal trade group, is praising the move, arguing it will bring tens of thousands of Hispanic families into the home market who have been "skipped over" by stingy (meaning prudent and responsible) lenders.


"It's very encouraging," NAHREP Chief Executive Gary Acosta said. "It demonstrates that Fannie has done a lot of work on the issue of identifying ways to qualify more people."

Fannie and its regulators say, don't worry — this new program won't introduce any undue risk into the mortgage-finance system.

Gee, where have we heard that before?

Fact is, outside income is hard to verify and seldom stable. And low down payment and credit scores are the two most reliable indicators of default risk.

To assure such high-risk borrowers understand the importance of making their monthly mortgage payments, Fannie requires mortgage lenders to ask HomeReady applicants to take a four-hour online course on homeownership.

Well, there you go. Good as gold.

Most troubling, Wells Fargo and other big mortgage lenders have already signed on. More will soon follow as the program rolls out in a big way through Fannie's automated underwriting system later this year.

We've seen this movie before, and it does not end well. Like MyCommunityMortgage, HomeReady will simply expand into lower and lower income markets while slashing requirements and burning lending standards even more.

Eventually it will become a no-income, no-job, nothing-down giveaway.

That is, NINJA loans (but with pro-forma official documentation to satisfy the bogus Qualified Mortgage rule).

Here we go again. Full circle back to mortgage hell.


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/010716-788747-government-wants-to-lend-more-to-high-risk-immigrants.htm#ixzz3wmtie9oE
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
 
recceguy said:
You've been told about and been put on warning before for pulling out that huge all encompassing 'racist and xenophobic' paint brush. There's only one step left on the warning ladder, so you might want to be careful with your wording from now on.

---Staff---

He's made banning Muslims from immigrating into the US a central part of his campaign, he's suggested that he would introduce legislation to have them wear name tags, he's called Mexicans "rapists," and said a host of other openly racist things. This video shows supporters of his yelling racist insults to a Muslim woman who is being removed from one of this rallies.

If someone supports a candidate who has made racism such a big part of his campaign, I believe they are supporting racist ideas. I believe that it follows that they are also racist. You promote what you permit and all that. I'm not understanding how this revelatory or controversial.

What other wording should I use? This is a serious question I am asking. Are we discussing whether or not this policies/ideas are racist in the first place?  Is it possible for someone to support racist policies or ideas and NOT be racist themselves? Should we start with defining racism?  Again, not being facetious here at all. Racism and xenophobia are crucial issues in this election.
 
Back
Top