A tidy summary of the bullshit that Republicans will be saying no matter who wins the nomination
As terrible a human being as he is, Dana actually provided us with a service in laying out the Fox News talking points about the eventual Democratic candidate that will face Donald Trump. I’ve trimmed out his ponderous nonsense and foppery.
The Democrat running against Trump is “pushing for reparations for slavery”
The Democrat running against Trump will “create a federal program to aid black, and only black, applicants to buy homes.”
In other words, the government might help the wrong people. This is a real fear that informs many on the right. The idea that an unworthy black person might get some benefit from the government really keeps them up at night.
The Democrat running against Trump will increase “illegal immigration”
Again. This is the zero-sum game fine-tuned with the racism directed at Latino rather than black Americans. Dana stopped short of articulating all the benefits he worries that illegal immigrants will get, but the list is long. Free college, free health care, outright subsidies, allowing asylum seekers to not be treated as criminals. etc.
The Democrat running against Trump will impose “a single-payer (health insurance) system.”
Trump voters like to imagine that the “the economy” is great and they are benefiting from it. They clearly aren’t. But they’ve convinced themselves that their economic interests are aligned with millionaires and billionaires, and they will fight like hell to make sure millionaire and billionaires are protected from policies intended to make millionaire and billionaires pay their fair share in taxes.
The Democrat running against Trump will “(nominate judges) who can’t even tell the difference between males and females”
Like all Republicans Dana, is pretty fucked up sex-wise. I’m not sure what specific neurosis is peeking out from under the covers with the “can’t even tell the difference between males and females” comment, but he rightly points to court stacking as the mechanism the GOP is using to lock in their dark, paranoid vision of America.
Taken together you can see that big-picture project for this election on locking in Minority White Rule. These are the talking points that Trump will use to try and increase base turnout.
If a Democratic candidate (Biden for example) tries to find middle ground on these points it will only serve to validate them and depress Democratic turnout.
In the comment of mine from which our host drew the above, I did not provide hyperlinks; apparently I should have.
Concerning reparations for slavery, this site has a tidy list. Several, including Cory Booker, Julian Castro, Elizabeth Warren, and Kirsten Gillibrand, have supported a ‘commission’ to study the best way in which to consider reparations and make proposals. Amy Klobuchar was less specific, but was speaking in those terms. Beta O’Rourke was less supportive of reparations, but goes along with the commissions idea, while Bernie Sanders statements have been all over the place.
That is exactly what Kamala Harris has proposed. She could have said that her program was for poor Americans rather than specifically black Americans, but said the opposite.
I would guess that more than two hyperlinks would send this comment into moderation, so I’ll break it off here.
Our host claimed that I meant:
What I oppose is the government classifying people by race and awarding, or punishing, people based on those classifications.
In Grutter v Bollinger, the Supreme Court stated very specifically that allowing even the “narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest” is an “exception” to the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and that all such programs must have a termination point:
Justice O’Connor wrote the opinion of the Court, and specified that end date:
Twenty-five years from then will be June 23, 2028.
At some point, the law must treat everyone the same, regardless of his race or ethnicity. I would think that, as a liberal, you would approve of that, but you appear to be very opposed to that politically. Has it occurred to you that Democratic Party proposals which continue to rely on racial classifications, with differing government ‘rewards’ based on skin color, might be rather racially divisive, and maybe that’s why Hillary Clinton is a private citizen today? And even Mrs Clinton soft=pedaled such ideas far more than today’s Democratic candidates.
Ah yes, the aggrieved white man who’s always victimized defense.
Kentucky hasn’t done anything good for your biases, my friend.
“She could have said that her program was for poor Americans rather than specifically black Americans, but said the opposite.”
Read Ta-Nehisi Coates on the history of red-lining. By not allowing blacks to take part in the post-WW II economic expansion in real estate, people who were alive in our lifetimes were screwed out of participation in the greatest real-estate boom in history.
Read and learn:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
That’s why it’s for blacks, and not for poor people generally. The majority of blacks aren’t poor. They just don’t have the wealth white people do because they were kept out of the game.
Right here in Delaware, most of the 1950s suburbs had deed restrictions. In Fairfax, the sprawling development just north of Wilmington, neither blacks nor Jews could apply.
These are the conditions that existed before the government stepped in. Do you want to return to them? Would you want to return to them if you weren’t white?
Alby wrote:
And you cannot see why some people might think that having different rewards based upon the color of someone’s skin is wrong?
I noted the case of Grutter v Bollinger above, in which the Supreme Court — mistakenly, in my view — allowed the Law School at the University of Michigan to continue to use race as part of the process of admission, and held that such approval could only be temporary. In the companion case, Gratz v Bollinger, the University’s undergraduate school’s policy of simply assigning points based on race was found to be unconstitutional as not narrowly tailored.
Senator Harris’ proposal would, under the same logic, be unconstitutional, because it would simply give poorer blacks a benefit; no one else need apply.
Yes, redlining existed, and my mother’s house, which she bought in 1967, had that same restrictive covenant attached. But that restrictive covenant was unenforceable, which, as a mortgage banker, my mother noted to me.
And no, I don’t want to see them return; it is wholly wrong for someone to restrict someone else’s economic activity. (That’s the reason I find HOAs so repugnant, and no, I am not now, nor ever have been, bound by an HOA.)
We do, however, have a great deal of self-segregation in housing patterns. Unlike public school attendance, in which the government forced integration, integration could not be somehow enforced in people’s private decisions about where to live. The obvious question is: is this segregation the result of some evil discrimination, or simply the result of the personal choices of homebuyers.
My friend Hube tells me that Hockessin is more racially integrated than when I lived there. When I was there — 2000 to 2002 — there were plenty of whites and plenty of Asians but I don’t think I ever saw a black person there who wasn’t there for work.
“And you cannot see why some people might think that having different rewards based upon the color of someone’s skin is wrong”
Of course I can see why. Because they’re whiners. Their position high on the ladder depended upon others being kept off the ladder — sort of like how baseball players before Jackie Robinson never had to worry about competition from blacks.
“it is wholly wrong for someone to restrict someone else’s economic activity.”
Jesus, you greedy fucksticks just can’t get over not making every possible buck, can you? Black people are being gunned down in the streets — ever hear about the right to your own life? — but you’re all worked up about encumbrances on people’s economic activity.
I hate to say this, Dana, but this makes you an asshole.
“The obvious question is: is this segregation the result of some evil discrimination, or simply the result of the personal choices of homebuyers.”
The obvious answer is easily found if researched. But you’d prefer to base your opinions — about things that don’t affect you, I point out yet again — on an aggrieved sense of fairness.
Your position boils down to, “Sure, they got screwed, but I’m not under any obligation to do anything about it.”
This makes you a selfish ass, but I suppose you already knew that.
Our host continued:
What I actually wrote was:
You know, many of those legal immigrants “who have the education, skills and ability to support themselves and contribute to the American economy” turn out to be Indian or Asian in ethnicity, hardly the white Northern Europeans you seem to assume I favor. And those people, not white as they might be, have proven to be an asset to our country, not only with the skills they have, but with the work ethic they brought with them. They have improved our country.
The illegal immigrants also seem to have that work ethic; they come here looking for jobs. But their lack of skills — if they had good economic skills, they would be prospering in their home countries, and wouldn’t be coming here — has prevented them from being an asset to our economy, but more of a drag. They cost our economy in higher education, infrastructure and welfare costs, and their presence drives down wages. The programs that you want to see happen will be weighed down with the costs of the illegal immigrants.
You, of course, see that as just racism, but what I have not seen you do is argue against it concerning the costs they have imposed on our society.
“But their lack of skills — if they had good economic skills, they would be prospering in their home countries, and wouldn’t be coming here — has prevented them from being an asset to our economy, but more of a drag.”
Don’t know where you studied economics, but that’s just plain wrong. A person is a “drag on the economy” only if they take in benefits more than they give in taxes. Since the entire reason most are here is to earn money, your formulation makes no sense. By being in the economy, they participate in the economy.
“They cost our economy in higher education, infrastructure and welfare costs, ”
What? Evidence, please. This canard is taken for granted among the conservative, but it is unsupported by reality.
“and their presence drives down wages.”
Which is why we’re pushing for a $15 and hour minimum wage.
You’re going to have to provide evidence of these “costs to our society.” You’ll find precious little evidence of these costs from any but your biased sources. Try finding one that’s peer-reviewed.
These grievances you have are just that — free-floating grievances about things that most emphatically do not affect your daily life.
In short, you’ve turned into another cranky conservative white guy, a product line that’s already been vastly overproduced in this country. Sad.
One of the things I laugh about when seeing the proposals for “Medicare for All” is that few who support have ever actually been on Medicare!
Well, I’m an old fart, and I am on Medicare. After 45 years of paying Medicare taxes, I am charged $130 a month by the Federal government for Parts A & B, and A & B not only don’t cover everything, but pay only 80% of what they do cover. Given that a hospitalization could wipe us out, I have to buy a Medicare supplement plan, for which Aetna charges me $134.50 per month, and that does not include prescription drugs — I opted out of that coverage since I am not on any prescription drugs and am pretty healthy — or dental (which I get through my wife’s insurance) or vision.
When the Veterans’ Administration scandals were made public — and that was under our 44th President, not our 45th — I recognized what was being done, because that is exactly what the United Kingdom and Canada were doing, delaying treatments in order to save money. The VA is a single-payer system as far as its clientele are concerned, and there’s no reason to believe that a single-payer system which covers the entire country won’t be doing the same thing.
On January 1, 2010, Sachi ab Hugh wrote about the care her father received under Japan’s single-payer health care system. Mrs ab Hugh’s family back in Japan was well-to-do and connected, so when her father got sick, he got the best of care . . . because her family had three private insurance policies as well, had connections and made “gifts” to health care providers.
And Japan isn’t exactly ruled by us wicked Republicans! That’s what a liberal democracy with extremely low military spending can provide.
Yet you want our health care to be run by the same people who have brought us the DMV?
The DMV in Delaware is well-run and efficient. I never even have to leave the car.
You conservatives love to attach great meaning to individual anecdotes. The one you posted is from 2010 and can hardly be considered typical, as the writer herself notes. This is no substitute for actually knowing what you’re talking about. Anecdotes are not data.
I have relatives in the medical field. They could fill this blog every day with anecdotal horrors if they weren’t busy working.
Under our system, hospitals in rural areas are closing because they can’t survive without government footing much of the bill for their patients. That’s something that will actually affect your life, and you’re naturally on the wrong side of it.
Attaches great meaning to an anecdote…promptly calls out conservatives for…. attaching great meaning to an anecdote.
On your A game today, Alby.
Which anecdote do you think I was attaching great meaning to? I mentioned the DMV because Dana brought it up. Duh.
I brought up my relatives’ anecdotes specifically to point out that anecdotes don’t stand for the situation. Horror story anecdotes in particular.
Are you going to engage or troll? Because under the second option you won’t be here long.
Basically you said, in response to his point, here’s an anecdote.
When he did the exact same thing, you called him out on it.
C’mon Alby, this is batting practice stuff. Jason330 level posting from you.
Which anecdote? DMV? As I said, direct response to him.
I wasn’t citing any anecdotes otherwise.
What part of this are you missing?
If playing gotcha and slinging insults is all you here for, you’re gone again. Last chance. I don’t have to waste time with onanists. Start you own blog if that’s what you’re here for.
Can we agree that the DMV here in Delaware used to suck? I agree with you that it’s fantastic. Now. But it wasn’t always. And that’s where I wish we could be having this health care debate – How to improve our level of care and how to make our health care dollars and taxes go the farthest. But instead what I seem to be hearing from opponents is that they want to push forward with a private health INSURANCE model instead of a public health CARE model. Which seems to me like having people who can afford it decide between going to a good DMV vs. a shitty DMV while those who can’t afford it just don’t get to drive cars legally at all.
I’m not going so far as to say that health care is a human right. But neither is driving a car. Or having your burning home extinguished. But at least in those cases we collectively agree that the government should provide for those things to be taken care of with our pooled funds. So instead of telling me how expensive it WOULD be or how poor the care is somewhere else, explain to me why some people get to have it and some don’t.
If you oppose Universal Health Care – make that case. Please. Stop nickel and diming me the way you are likely to do about the climate change you know damn well we are causing and experiencing. We can argue about money later. We always do. But unless I hear a convincing case that explains why some people just get to suffer and die when care is an option for others then you’re going to lose this one. Sooner or later. I vote for sooner.
You see the GOP theme in Dana’s remarks. Everything is zero-sum to them. If one unworthy black or brown person from an anecdote gets one dollar, they think it is taking one dollar from them.
It never occurs to them that maybe collectively fixing some things for poor people early on could pay dividends, or that it isn’t a given that easing someone’s pain will increase their pain.
can you frigging ban him again.
I’m guessing (and hoping) that you are joking. I mean the guy has been civil, made some decent points and he was basically asked to jump in and offer his opinion. It’s not a crime to be wrong.
Nobody is prosecuting him. Therefore it’s not being treated as a crime. Hyperbole much?
The reason people like this get banned is because nobody here is interested in trying to counter the “decent points.” Nobody who contributes here gets paid, so there’s absolutely no interest in putting up with thick-headed people who are intent on wasting our time. If they want to air their views, it’s a wide-open internet. They should buy their own site instead of freeloading here.
If you’re looking for tolerance, this ain’t the place for it. Life’s too short to tolerate dipshits.
The request was to ban him. Which is the most severe consequence that can be imposed here. So I disagree that my comment was hyperbole. And while I have no idea how one would “freeload” here, you’d need to work pretty hard to craft a definition that fits in this case – he was THE topic of conversation and was then engaged repeatedly.
I clearly didn’t come here looking for tolerance. As I’ve stated repeatedly, I came in search of discussion. It seems that all you want is an echo chamber. I should have learned my lesson the first couple of times – this is your sand box and you’re the cool kids here. Have fun with it.
Peace out.
“You’re the cool kids here.”
No, we’re the ones who pay for the site. “Cool” has nothing to do with it.
One freeloads by using our platform to air their views. Surely you can understand that.
Well, I do pay for my own site, which you are most certainly welcome to visit and comment. I do have comment moderation activated, so a first time commenter goes into moderation; after his first comment is approved, subsequent ones appear immediately. I do this to fight spam, and always approve real discussion comments.
It was just a few weeks ago that Jason was complaining that DL was just the same four commenters. Perhaps a bit of variety would help that?
“Jason was complaining that DL was just the same four commenters. ”
Wrong. As usual.
Yeah, I wasn’t talking about you specifically, and I can’t speak for Jason.
I don’t mind talking with you because you make rational points. You just use the wrong inputs sometimes, which leads to wrong conclusions.
It isn’t a crime to be stupid either, but he might as well have a maga-ot hat as his signature