2016 US Presidential Election Thread
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
2016 US Presidential Election Thread
Is Hillary Clinton inviting criticism by making gun control and race relations a central campaign issue?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-meet ... ction.html-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
But she has a huge lead. You would think the logical political strategy would be to coast in, and not invite unneeded attention. It's almost as if she can't help herself. What's really to gain by centralizing these issues? Democrats already are known to have a more populist position on guns and race than Republicans.-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Yes, but Bush won in 2000 and 2004 due to a supreme court decision, winning with a minority of the popular vote, a weak opponent in 2004 and a large wave of patriotism stemming from 9/11. You could argue that Obama got similar help due to the Anti-Bush sentiment in 2008, but I think any political analysis would say that the GOP has an uphill battle this election.-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
In post 10, SleepyKrew wrote:You used facts in a misleading way which prompted me to use a product that I've already got a better version of. You're a natural.
What was midleading?-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
In post 11, shaft.ed wrote:In post 3, MonkeyMan576 wrote:But she has a huge lead. You would think the logical political strategy would be to coast in, and not invite unneeded attention. It's almost as if she can't help herself. What's really to gain by centralizing these issues? Democrats already are known to have a more populist position on guns and race than Republicans.
were you alive in 2008?
Yes, barely.-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
In post 28, Vi wrote:
this this this this thisIn post 25, shaft.ed wrote:if you want lasting impact of a presidency, then you should be talking about SCOTUS
this is why 2016 is a fight that Dems/humanity can't afford to lose
This is pretty much a moot argument, it is said every election.-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
In post 30, shaft.ed wrote:In post 29, MonkeyMan576 wrote:In post 28, Vi wrote:
this this this this thisIn post 25, shaft.ed wrote:if you want lasting impact of a presidency, then you should be talking about SCOTUS
this is why 2016 is a fight that Dems/humanity can't afford to lose
This is pretty much a moot argument, it is said every election.
its only a moot argument when SCOTUS isnt ridiculously politicized
The current bench is just doing whatever the fuck it wants
Its also not a moot argument given the ages of some very key positions on the court
True, but SCOTUS judges do what they can to avoid retiring during an administration of the opposite ideology. Of course if they die there is nothing they can do.
And SCOTUS has always been politicized. This will happen when the president nominates the judges and the judges are a check and balance against the other branches as much as a judicial body.
For Example, the last 10 SCOTUS Retirees(as opposed to having died or resigned)
Justice - Nominating Prez - Retirement Prez
David Souter - Bush I - Obama
Sandra Day O Conner - Reagan - Bush II
John Paul Stevens - Ford - Bush II
Lewis F Powell Jr - Nixon - Clinton
Harry Blackmun - Nixon - Clinton
Thurghood Marshall - Johnson - Clinton
Byron White - Kennedy - Clinton
Potter Stewart - Eisenhower - Reagan
William J Brennan Jr - Eisenhower - Bush I
John Marshall Harlann II - Eisenhower - Nixon
So 7 of the last 10 justices to retire retired with a presidident of the same party of the president that elected them.
Also, never in US History has 4 consecutive presidents won reelection and finished both terms(Clinton>Bush>Obama>???), so history is against that happening this time.-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
In post 32, AniX wrote:In post 31, MonkeyMan576 wrote:In post 30, shaft.ed wrote:In post 29, MonkeyMan576 wrote:In post 28, Vi wrote:
this this this this thisIn post 25, shaft.ed wrote:if you want lasting impact of a presidency, then you should be talking about SCOTUS
this is why 2016 is a fight that Dems/humanity can't afford to lose
This is pretty much a moot argument, it is said every election.
its only a moot argument when SCOTUS isnt ridiculously politicized
The current bench is just doing whatever the fuck it wants
Its also not a moot argument given the ages of some very key positions on the court
True, but SCOTUS judges do what they can to avoid retiring during an administration of the opposite ideology. Of course if they die there is nothing they can do.
And SCOTUS has always been politicized. This will happen when the president nominates the judges and the judges are a check and balance against the other branches as much as a judicial body.
For Example, the last 10 SCOTUS Retirees(as opposed to having died or resigned)
Justice - Nominating Prez - Retirement Prez
David Souter - Bush I - Obama
Sandra Day O Conner - Reagan - Bush II
John Paul Stevens - Ford - Bush II
Lewis F Powell Jr - Nixon - Clinton
Harry Blackmun - Nixon - Clinton
Thurghood Marshall - Johnson - Clinton
Byron White - Kennedy - Clinton
Potter Stewart - Eisenhower - Reagan
William J Brennan Jr - Eisenhower - Bush I
John Marshall Harlann II - Eisenhower - Nixon
So 7 of the last 10 justices to retire retired with a presidident of the same party of the president that elected them.
Also, never in US History has 4 consecutive presidents won reelection and finished both terms(Clinton>Bush>Obama>???), so history is against that happening this time.
Are you really of the opinion Stevens and Brennan were rubbing their hands going "I better resign now or a LIBERAL might take my seat"?
I am of the opinion that justices don't want their retirement to cause a major shift of ideology on the court.
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/04/24/s ... retirement
YOUNG: But what about this idea that justices consider who their replacement might be? Ruth Marcus(ph) writes about the Washington Post, and she says of course justices can't be insensitive to the identity of their successors because they care about their work, and they want to care about who will pick up or, as she writes, dismantle it. The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist has said in the past that it's not 100 percent true that they calculate, but sometimes they do.
What about that calculation, thinking about who the president will be when they retire?
TOTENBERG: Well, I think that they must think about it, but they also think about themselves and their contributions and whether they want to stay and think they have something yet to contribute, perhaps even more to contribute.
Here is another article supporting my argument:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/poli ... reme-court
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer should soon retire. That would be the responsible thing for them to do. Both have served with distinction on the Supreme Court for a substantial period of time; Ginsburg for almost 18 years, Breyer for 17. Both are unlikely to be able to outlast a two-term Republican presidential administration, should one supersede the Obama administration following the 2012 election. What’s more, both are, well, old: Ginsburg is now 78, the senior sitting justice. Breyer is 72.
Is such a suggestion an illicit politicization of the Court? No. It is simply a plea for realism, which is often difficult to muster in the face of the idolatry that suffuses popular thinking about the justices and their role in American democracy. There is no question that the justices are often strategic in deciding when to depart the bench, even if they are quiet about their aims.
zoraster wrote:
This is kind of a nonsense stat for predictive purposes. Is it REALLY less likey? If I flip a coin 4 times, it is unlikely to end up heads every single time. But if I've flipped 3 heads it's still 50/50 i'll get a heads next time.
Unless you can come up with a cogent theory on WHY this is a phenomenon, given the small sample size (43 presidents [not counting Cleveland twice]) this isn't very convincing.
I'm not saying that it's less likely statistics wise, I'm saying that it's unlikely for it to have happened to 3 consecutive presidents, and I wouldn't be surprised for something to happen to the next sitting president from a historical perspective to cause them not to be reelected, especially considering Bush and Obama have had issues towards the end of their presidency.
The Republican party is stronger than the mainstream media makes them out to be, so, for example, if Hillary is elected, it all depends on the viability of the 2020 GOP candidate.-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
In post 37, AniX wrote:In post 36, MonkeyMan576 wrote:In post 32, AniX wrote:In post 31, MonkeyMan576 wrote:In post 30, shaft.ed wrote:In post 29, MonkeyMan576 wrote:In post 28, Vi wrote:
this this this this thisIn post 25, shaft.ed wrote:if you want lasting impact of a presidency, then you should be talking about SCOTUS
this is why 2016 is a fight that Dems/humanity can't afford to lose
This is pretty much a moot argument, it is said every election.
its only a moot argument when SCOTUS isnt ridiculously politicized
The current bench is just doing whatever the fuck it wants
Its also not a moot argument given the ages of some very key positions on the court
True, but SCOTUS judges do what they can to avoid retiring during an administration of the opposite ideology. Of course if they die there is nothing they can do.
And SCOTUS has always been politicized. This will happen when the president nominates the judges and the judges are a check and balance against the other branches as much as a judicial body.
For Example, the last 10 SCOTUS Retirees(as opposed to having died or resigned)
Justice - Nominating Prez - Retirement Prez
David Souter - Bush I - Obama
Sandra Day O Conner - Reagan - Bush II
John Paul Stevens - Ford - Bush II
Lewis F Powell Jr - Nixon - Clinton
Harry Blackmun - Nixon - Clinton
Thurghood Marshall - Johnson - Clinton
Byron White - Kennedy - Clinton
Potter Stewart - Eisenhower - Reagan
William J Brennan Jr - Eisenhower - Bush I
John Marshall Harlann II - Eisenhower - Nixon
So 7 of the last 10 justices to retire retired with a presidident of the same party of the president that elected them.
Also, never in US History has 4 consecutive presidents won reelection and finished both terms(Clinton>Bush>Obama>???), so history is against that happening this time.
Are you really of the opinion Stevens and Brennan were rubbing their hands going "I better resign now or a LIBERAL might take my seat"?
I am of the opinion that justices don't want their retirement to cause a major shift of ideology on the court.
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/04/24/s ... retirement
YOUNG: But what about this idea that justices consider who their replacement might be? Ruth Marcus(ph) writes about the Washington Post, and she says of course justices can't be insensitive to the identity of their successors because they care about their work, and they want to care about who will pick up or, as she writes, dismantle it. The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist has said in the past that it's not 100 percent true that they calculate, but sometimes they do.
What about that calculation, thinking about who the president will be when they retire?
TOTENBERG: Well, I think that they must think about it, but they also think about themselves and their contributions and whether they want to stay and think they have something yet to contribute, perhaps even more to contribute.
You misunderstand. I'm not saying the justices don't care about who replaces them, I'm saying that if those justices were basing their retirements off getting a President who agreed with them, those two were so exceedingly liberal they certainly wouldn't have done so during Bush II. Sometimes elderly people need to retire. Let's not mistake correlation with causation, especially given there are only two choices.
I was making a general statement, not saying it qualifies for every justice. Some obviously more so than others.-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Apparently Donald Trump is ahead in a GOP poll.
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/9/8924481/donald-trump-poll-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
My point is that yes, while the structure of society is unfair to blacks(wealth, justice, etc), while people should not tolerate it like they do, I think on the whole individuals understand minorities as people and are not as racist as in previous decades. It takes time to change an unfair system that's indoctrined in policy and government structure like it is.-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Also women typically have more work to do at home so they are less willing to go after promotions, etc. Also society gender roles make it difficult for women to be comfortable in leadership position, and men have traditionally held more leadership roles, which is why there are more male CEO's, no female presidents, etc.-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
In post 146, hiplop wrote:In post 127, MonkeyMan576 wrote:Racism will probably always exist, as long as race exists, but progress is obviously being made. 95% of people are not racist, probably, and social progressives are being more vocal than before, just as with gay marraige.
I don't think its fair to say it'll always exist.
it hasn't even always existed? ancient rome for example = not racist
That's because ethnicity was not an important part of social structure in ancient rome.-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
In post 148, AniX wrote:In post 142, Zachrulez wrote:Women are 8 times less likely to negotiate for higher wages. I think that's a pretty big contributing factor in why they get paid less. (Being averse to negotiating for wages myself, I can correlate this one.) Not sure how that kind of problem can possibly be addressed either, since an employer is content to pay you as low as they possibly can.
We're also never going to see a world where men and women are distributed completely evenly across every single industry. Because of that you can't really compare wages because you're comparing apples to oranges rather than apples to apples.
Well, I'm sure men who speak up being perceived as assertive and women doing the same being perceived as bitchy has nothing to do with it.
Just because we probably won't see equality doesn't mean we can't identify the SOURCES of why there is equality and see what we can do about them.
I'm sure this is true, but it's not evil corperations trying to save a buck by screwing women over.-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Trump is basically sabotaging him self with all the stupid crap he is saying. He doesn't look presidential at all and he is alienating (pardon the pun) two thirds of his constituancy. I don't know why the press feels obligated to take him seriously when he doesn't take himself or anything else seriously.-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Not really they are just infatuated with his celebrity and there is an anti Washington section of the voting block that will back anyone that's famous and non political. A majority of gop voters don't think trump will be the eventual nominee but he is still leading thevpolls. What does that tell you?-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
I think Clinton is too much of a product of Washington to have a female running mate. She will want a male running mate to help with the male vote. Probably a rising star like Al Gore was for her husband. Probably a governer. Maybe Hawaii's David Ige? He would help with the minority vote and male vote.-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
I think Rosie O'Donnell's responding to Donald Trumps comments as being indicative that a "war on women" is going on in the country is overestimating the importance of Donald Trump.
http://news.yahoo.com/rosie-odonnell-ad ... RzZWMDc2M--
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
In post 289, Cephrir wrote:In post 288, MonkeyMan576 wrote:Anything that reduces the role of government is a good thing
oh well i guess you won't be needing these police and fire departments then
We can keep those, just not the $18 Trillion debt.-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
I'm not an economist, so I'm not the best qualified to say specifically, but I would say foriegn aid, national defence, social security, and welfare need to be looked at closer. Sure hard choices need to be made, but if nothing is done, 100 years from now there won't be a United States.
We are paying $800 Billion a year in interest payments, thinjk how many peoiple that could help if we could control our spending and eliminate the debt?
Every family in America operates on a budget, their country should too, imho.Last edited by MonkeyMan576 on Wed Aug 19, 2015 6:54 am, edited 1 time in total.-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
In post 316, quadz08 wrote:What does that mean in practice?
It means there should be more incentive based programs rather than handouts.
In post 317, inte wrote:whaat? you mean its not actually helpful to spout idealism?
Not with an $18T defecit.-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Sanders is leading Clinton by 7 points in New Hampshire. But Trump is also running away with it so I guess you can take that with a grain of salt.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main ... d-the.html-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
In post 419, Brandi wrote:In post 417, AniX wrote:they would all vote Green.
I didn't know we could vote for colors! Man I've been doing things all wrong.
You're probably too young to remember this:).
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
In post 427, hiplop wrote:In post 405, T S O wrote:Kmd - speaking as someone who seems to share similar views to you - you're completely wasting your time trying to make a point here. The people who post in this thread are ultra-liberal to a point. They all vote Democrat, and in fact they don't even like centrist democrats, as evidenced by the heavy Sanders support. They all believe that all minorities are being discriminated against systematically, especially black people, women and transgenders, and if you don't agree it's because of your white privilege. There should definitely have been an indictment in Ferguson, welfare state is great, defund the military, down with cops. And so forth.
I agree with what you're saying, but I'll probably be the only one.
did you just call women minorities
Women are protected by the equal rights ammendment so by definition they have minority status.
There are two definitions for minority.
1) A group that has a numerical disadvantage.
or
2) Groups that have been supressed by a majority group. In this case, women have not enjoyed rights such as voting and land ownership in the past, and thus are given minority status.-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
It's not so much that poor people couldn't do the same things rich people could, or are less deserving of wealth, but a lot of poor people get trapped in a cycle of dependancy, where they feel like they don't have a say in their success. But many wealthy people in the United States are self made, so to speak, and deserve credit for the wealth they have built for themselves.
I feel for your situation, sthar8, but I disagree that most poor people don't have a chance to get out of being poor. Most employers will readily promote someone that works hard and shows dedication to their job and talent rather than someone that feels like they are there based on entitlement. Perhaps your own attitude is the reason for your lack of success, not the upper class pushing you down.-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
In post 438, sthar8 wrote:In post 435, MonkeyMan576 wrote:It's not so much that poor people couldn't do the same things rich people could, or are less deserving of wealth, but a lot of poor people get trapped in a cycle of dependancy, where they feel like they don't have a say in their success. But many wealthy people in the United States are self made, so to speak, and deserve credit for the wealth they have built for themselves.
I feel for your situation, sthar8, but I disagree that most poor people don't have a chance to get out of being poor. Most employers will readily promote someone that works hard and shows dedication to their job and talent rather than someone that feels like they are there based on entitlement. Perhaps your own attitude is the reason for your lack of success, not the upper class pushing you down.
So what exactly is it that I need to do to pull myself up by my bootstraps?
What about the kids? What are they supposed to do to just be less dependent?
This is me actively resisting the impulse to tell you to go fuck yourself for implying that my life would be better if I weren't so inferior.
Learn new skills, network at your job, avoid negative influences in your life, things like that.
Anyone who thinks they do every possible thing to better their lives is lying to themselves.
I would give you more detailed advice, but it probably wouldn't be appropriate for a public thread. And you probably wouldn't want it anyways.
You sound like the sort of person that blames other people for your problems rather than trying to work to improve your situation.
not trying to judge, but your attitude is completely wrong, and part of the issue with welfare.-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
If you are telling a kid that he has no chance at success in his life, no matter what his circumtances, then you are doing him a disservice. Sure, a homeless kid has less chance at success than a kid of a CEO of a fortune 500 company, but there are lots of rich kids that fail and lots of poor kids that succeed.
I'm not going to tell my kids they can't be doctors or lawyers because I make $10 per hour.
Moreover, two people that were childhood friends of mine were signifiantly less off than my parents were when we were growing up, but he ended up being a laywer and she is a medicial technician. I'm sure they make well over $100K while I am making less than $30K. I don't blame society for this, and I don't say it's luck. I have made some poor decisions at some points, and I have made a decision to put my family before my career. And I don't don't say that they don't deserve their success, because they worked hard to be where they are, I'm pretty sure it wasn't luck.
But it's wrong to look down on other people that have been successfull, or look down on other people that still believe in The American Dream, because you have had bad things happen to you. Sure, some people are lucky, but there are a lot of people that work hard for their success and deserve every penny of it.-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
I've never seen any evidence to suggest that success is really more about luck than hard work.
Everyone's situation is different, so there's no point in making generalizations like that.
The fact is if you want to succeed in your own life, and you're not born into wealth, you can either cry about how life is unfair or you can try to improve your situation. Some people may succeed, some people may not but I don't see how the existance of a class based society is evidence that the liberal economic view is the correct one. I am generally in favor of smaller government and more individual responsibility, but I have never said I want people to starve or that some government programs aren't necessary.
Surely some liberal economic programs have been successfull, such as the New Deal and Reconstruction, and I will be the first to admit conservatives are wrong on most social issues, but the amount of waste in government and the refusal to govern our own budget or adhere to any long term spending plan leads me to believe that the family model is a better financial system than defecit spending as a long term strategy. At some point, our country is going to pay for not living within our means.