A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:

[yossarian22c]

Well, this is out his own mouth.

Wallace asked Trump “can you give a direct answer that you will accept the election?”

“I have to see,” Trump said of accepting the result in November. “I have to see. No, I’m not going to just say yes. I’m not going to say no, and I didn’t last time either.”

You tell me how to interpret that as Trump saying he'd accept the results.

When Trump was a challenger from the party out of power, "not accepting the results" is bad for the political climate  of the country. The sitting president not accepting the results of an election he lost is a constitutional crisis with the potential for massive civil unrest and conflict.

[wmLambert]

Well, this is out his own mouth.

Wallace asked Trump “can you give a direct answer that you will accept the election?”

“I have to see,” Trump said of accepting the result in November. “I have to see. No, I’m not going to just say yes. I’m not going to say no, and I didn’t last time either.”

You tell me how to interpret that as Trump saying he'd accept the results.

When Trump was a challenger from the party out of power, "not accepting the results" is bad for the political climate  of the country. The sitting president not accepting the results of an election he lost is a constitutional crisis with the potential for massive civil unrest and conflict.

Absolutely the correct approach to take. The Democrats have screamed about Russia and other malevolent nations compromising our elections, yet are trying to craft a system very easy to corrupt. Most of that will be their own vote scamming, but even more is the opportunity for foreign intrigue. The UPSP has stated that they lose up to five percent of the mail. Mail-in voting is not absentee voting, which is tightly controlled and verified. Trump has made the distinction. If Democrats try to steal the election and get caught at it, should anyone accept the skewed results? It's not a hard question. The only persons to oppose this approach would be those using the voting process to scam.

In New York the local election held on a mail-in basis is still uncalled going on four weeks. The national election could be uncalled going into four months. We've already seen documented mail-in ballots being sent to deceased and persons who have moved. There is zero ability to monitor and check on correct balloting. The best approach is to hold the voting for election day and safeguard the voting centers as best we can. There is no reason not to allow local precincts to do this. Many events change the voting decisions before the election, and latest possible decision-making is required.

Absentee voting is available to anyone who wants it and can't get to the voting centers. Of course the Dems want to force ballots onto those who don't vote - or make it easy for their henchmen to vote in their stead. For my POV, I prefer only those who know what they are doing vote. I see the interviews on the street of idiots who are clueless, and can't name their own Senators and Representatives, or even the name of the VP. Why fight to get their clueless voting? Poll taxes and other Deep South Democrat techniques for blocking Black votes were reprehensible, yet the opposite process to steal votes is even worse. That is Democrat voting design - to steal the vote. If they do, and if Trump does not try to save the election, there may well be a civil war. Here again, Trump is on the correct side.

[wmLambert]

Ben Franklin had the right opinion on this. He noted that if you allow a vote based on a poll tax - for instance - if he owned a mule, them if he lost the mule, he also lost the franchise. IOW it wasn't the voter who had the vote, but the mule. Democrats are pushing the idea again - but instead of a poll tax, it is receiving a ballot in the mail. In places totally run by Democrats, there will be no stopping the fake ballots. BTW, China and Russia are already printing up bogus ballots to scam our votes. I'm sure they would select Biden, the shill for the Obama-Clinton reset machine.

If Biden could shut down fracking, offshore drilling, pipelines, and drilling at Anwar, the Russia's Gazprom would be the beneficiary, and then Biden's family could get richer.

[TheDeamon]

Well, this is out his own mouth.

Wallace asked Trump “can you give a direct answer that you will accept the election?”

“I have to see,” Trump said of accepting the result in November. “I have to see. No, I’m not going to just say yes. I’m not going to say no, and I didn’t last time either.”

You tell me how to interpret that as Trump saying he'd accept the results.

The non-nefarious answer to that is we know mail-in voting is rife for all kinds of abuse and "systemic issues" as witnessed with the whole 20% vote disqualification rate in one (local) race.

His answer is completely valid in the context of a scenario where the margin of victory in a small number of states is less than a 4 percentage points if there are wide spread reports of ballots either being "held" due to verification concerns, or other anomalies like more people voting in a precinct than live within its borders.

If there is a "clear decision" by the voters, the answer is obvious. But if the result is ambiguous, or takes longer than overnight to suss out than "we'll see" is the correct and only valid response he can give.

Do you really think Biden is going to give a clear cut answer on "Accepting the results" at this stage of the game? But of course, Biden isn't the one you're worried about.

[DonaldD]

The non-nefarious answer to that is we know mail-in voting is rife for all kinds of abuse and "systemic issues" as witnessed with the whole 20% vote disqualification rate in one (local) race.

Actually - we really do not know this.

[TheDeamon]

The non-nefarious answer to that is we know mail-in voting is rife for all kinds of abuse and "systemic issues" as witnessed with the whole 20% vote disqualification rate in one (local) race.

Actually - we really do not know this.

It is reasonable to conclude the story is likely to play out in a lot of the country if most votes are done by mail.

https://thefulcrum.us/fact-check/paterson-election-fraud

If it has already happened once this year, it can happen again.
And given what the process is for challenging ballots you can be reasonably certain that both sides will likely be challenging any error on an absentee ballot cast from a district they know to not be likely to swing their way when it comes to the known swing states in particular.

We're going to be setting records for "set aside" ballots, and both parties on their own would likely be able to pull off shattering that record, never mind the combined stat.

[DonaldD]

Ramping up mail in voting without proper controls will be a challenge.

Evidence of fraud in the states that use mail-in-voting exclusively is almost non-existent.

CBS News

[Wayward Son]

“We’re going to be doing a health-care plan. We’re going to be doing a very inclusive health-care plan. I’ll be signing it sometime very soon...Might be Sunday. But it’s going to be very soon.”--Donald Trump, July 19, 2020.

Of course, it could have been anytime in the past four years.  Once you've decided not to worry about delivering on your promises, it really doesn't matter when you say you'll do it.

[DonaldD]

Technically, he said it would be signed within two weeks:

Bloomberg News Wire - July 19, 2020:

We’re signing a health-care plan within two weeks, a full and complete health care-plan,” Trump said. “We’re going to sign an immigration plan, a health-care plan, and various other plans.”

Trump on Thursday suggested that the administration would soon be “going into the world of health-care - very complete health-care, and we have a lot of very exciting things to discuss.”

Two weeks is up... today (well,, yesterday, but that was a Sunday...)

[yossarian22c]

And on capital hill they can't even settle on a new coronavirus relief package.

That being said I do support a modification to the $600 per week unemployment insurance. Keep a boost but transition to a more European model of 70%-80% of income pre-covid. Its a little absurd long term to pay people more to stay home than they were making working, and more than a lot of people who are still having to go to work. But the other Democratic points of giving states, cities, schools, and hospitals lots of money is a good idea. We don't want to start a great depression by having the virus do what politicians aren't really ready to do; defund the police, schools, prisons, etc because all the states and cities ran out of money.

[TheDrake]

Yossarian is right, there are a number of problems with the simplistic unemployment fixed boost. There are regional inequities, because of cost of living difference between states and regions. They used the mean rather than the median. And there isn't any real relationship to true wages.

Two nits to pick, remember that the European model is based on having a much higher minimum wage that can allow people to better survive on 70-80%. They also don't have to worry about paying for healthcare out of that share. There are significant additional problems with trying to compare the two, including the fact that in the UK, the government was paying the 80% while the employer was paying the additional 20%.

Second, is that it doesn't matter how much incentive you have to work if there are no available jobs. Some people might apply for essential worker jobs - janitors as an example, one of the jobs most likely to have this disparity. The ones that are left over, how long are they going to be able to live on 70%? Did you think they had 30% of discretionary spending they can cut back on?

I'll add a third, that the withdrawal of support will add political fuel to opening up in an unsafe way so that all those people can survive economically. It creates an incentive for people to agitate and file lawsuits so they can get back their bartending gigs.

I'd like the idea of a 100% cap for these reasons, but I don't know how easy that is to implement logistically.

[DonaldD]

In response to Deborah Birx observing that COVID-19 is widespread throughout the country, a not exactly controversial point to make, the whinger in chief once again calls the Twitter wambulance:

So Crazy Nancy Pelosi said horrible things about Dr. Deborah Birx, going after her because she was too positive on the very good job we are doing on combatting the China Virus, including Vaccines & Therapeutics. In order to counter Nancy, Deborah took the bait & hit us. Pathetic!

What exactly did Birx say to trigger president snowflake?

"What we are seeing today is different from March and April. It is extraordinarily widespread. It's into the rural as equal urban areas," she said, suggesting that some Americans in multi-generational families should start wearing masks inside their homes.
She did not reject a warning by former Federal Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb that there could be 300,000 coronavirus deaths by the end of the year, saying, "Anything is possible."

It's almost impressive how he can make concern about the spread of a virus all about himself, or that he believes admitting even the most mundane fact must somehow be a personal attack against himself.

[DonaldD]

Looking back at other things that didn't age well, from the Vice President's opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal on June 16: Mike Pence claimed "There Isn’t a Coronavirus ‘Second Wave’" and admonished the media for (accurately, it turned out) "sounding the alarm bells over" for a growing catastrophe in the southern states.

In recent days, the media has taken to sounding the alarm bells over a “second wave” of coronavirus infections. Such panic is overblown. Thanks to the leadership of President Trump and the courage and compassion of the American people, our public health system is far stronger than it was four months ago, and we are winning the fight against the invisible enemy.

I can only imagine the state of the country absent all of this "winning".

[DonaldD]

You really have to listen to this. It is so cringe-worthy it is physically painful to watch.

Axios on HBO: Swan interviews Trump

We're lower than... the world. We're lower than... Europe. Take a look - right here. Here's case/death.

Look, here is the United States. You have to go by the cases; the people that live from those cases.

This man is literally the head of state of a country.

[yossarian22c]

https://www.axios.com/full-axios-hbo-interview-donald-trump-cd5a67e1-6ba1-46c8-bb3d-8717ab9f3cc5.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=1100

I listen to the things Trump brags about. Its pathetic. Please stop supporting this narcissistic sociopath.

[DonaldD]

Trump, realizing his geriatric voting block in Florida might be dissuaded from exercising their franchise:

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

Whether you call it Vote by Mail or Absentee Voting, in Florida the election system is Safe and Secure, Tried and True. Florida’s Voting system has been cleaned up (we defeated Democrats attempts at change), so in Florida I encourage all to request a Ballot & Vote by Mail! #MAGA

[DonaldD]

Donald J. Trump, the statesman:

Swan: John Lewis is lying in state in the US Capital.  How do you think history will remember John Lewis?

Trump: I don’t know...  I really don’t know.  I don’t know.  I don’t know John Lewis.  He chose not to come to my inauguration…. he chose - I never met John Lewis, actually.

It was hard to see how Trump could make such a question all about himself, but bravo, sir, I tip my hat to you.  That was exceptionally smooth.

[DonaldD]

The Russian bounty story has been in the public consciousness since at least June - so at the very least, even if he didn't read his briefings at the time, and even if he had managed to avoid being spoken to about the bounties, there's no longer an excuse for NOT having enquired about the possibility that Russia was paying to kill US soldiers, never mind opening a thorough intelligence review on the subject, and making it a priority.

Suggesting that "it didn't reach his desk" is no longer even remotely an excuse - it requires him to have actively decided not to investigate a hugely public issue.  This is rising to the level of dereliction of duty.  If he was anybody's employee, he would have been fired for cause.

Jonathan Swan: (16:28)
Mr. President, different subject, it’s been widely reported that the U.S. has intelligence indicating that Russia paid bounties or offered to pay bounties to Taliban fighters to kill American soldiers.
…
You had a phone call with Vladimir Putin on July 23rd. Did you bring up this issue?

President Donald J. Trump: (16:42)
No. That was a phone call to discuss other things. And frankly, that’s an issue that many people said was fake news.
...
Jonathan Swan: (17:14)
And you’ve never discussed it with him.

President Donald J. Trump: (17:15)
I have never discussed it with him. No. I would. I’d have no problem with it.
---
President Donald J. Trump: (17:36)
A much bigger problem than global warming in terms of the real world, that would be a great thing. No. It never reached my desk.
You know why? Because intelligence, they didn’t think it was real.

Jonathan Swan: (17:48)
It was in your written brief though about it.

President Donald J. Trump: (17:50)
They didn’t think it was worthy. I wouldn’t mind. If it reached my desk, I would have done something about it. It never reached my desk because-
...
President Donald J. Trump: (18:25)
The world is a very angry place, if you look all over the world. We call up. I see a 22 soldiers were killed in India with China fighting over the border. It’s been raging for many, many decades. And they’ve been fighting and back and forth. I have so many briefings on so many different countries, but this one didn’t reach my desk.

Jonathan Swan: (18:50)
The reason I say this is, even if you don’t believe this particular piece of intelligence, and there is dispute, no doubt, there is dispute in the intelligence committee about it, John Nicholson, former head of forces in Afghanistan said, and this is when he was working for you, that Russia is supplying weapons to the Taliban. Isn’t that enough to challenge Putin over the killings of U.S. soldiers?
...
Jonathan Swan: (19:30)
But you surely heard that. Right? I mean, it’s well known in the intelligence community, that they’re arming the Taliban, Russia.

President Donald J. Trump: (19:36)
I don’t know. When you say arming is-

Jonathan Swan: (19:38)
Supplying weapons.

President Donald J. Trump: (19:39)
Paying or they-

Jonathan Swan: (19:40)
Russia is supplying weapons and money to the Taliban.

President Donald J. Trump: (19:42)
I have heard that but, again, it’s never reached my desk.

[rightleft22]

The problem or a problem is Trumps inability to communicate complex ideas and the interview expecting that he can.

Trump is implying that if a issue does not cross his desk but comes up he is not responsible to looking into it.  That's a problem of leadership
His explanation that intelligence on the issue was week and so not something he can address with Russia is valid.
The next question should have been. Will There be further investigation? 
Instead Trump rambles about what does and does not  'crosses his desk' confusing the issue with a leadership question.

And when trump talks about the methods of measurement of covid data he dons't or can't talk about the nuances of measurements and why things might be measured multiple ways.
One suspect Trump or the ones feeding him information chose the measurement of Active covid cases - death ratio for no other reason then that that Trump would like those number better.
It is a valid measurement as is the measurement of population - death measurement. Both provide info but in context. Trump isn't' capable of explaining context so it all gets muddled and we are left to unscramble what the he "means".

And then their all his 'facts' based on the old he heard someone had this or that experience but for which he seldom has a name for that someone or them.

[DonaldD]

His inability and even more his refusal to engage with issues that threaten him personally, is a significant problem.

His own people have let slip that bringing anything Russia-related to him is basically unacceptable; think about that - people in the president's orbit will not provide him information concerning a significant competitor of the USA, one that is possibly, even likely, targeting the country's armed forces, thereby completely impeding the country's ability to defend itself and to defend its own troops.

In the same way, Trump is seemingly incapable of providing leadership in controlling the pandemic, because he sees the virus as being a weapon used against his re-election chance, even though actually addressing the pandemic and reducing infection rates would benefit him in the medium term.

[rightleft22]

His inability and even more his refusal to engage with issues that threaten him personally, is a significant problem.

His own people have let slip that bringing anything Russia-related to him is basically unacceptable; think about that - people in the president's orbit will not provide him information concerning a significant competitor of the USA, one that is possibly, even likely, targeting the country's armed forces, thereby completely impeding the country's ability to defend itself and to defend its own troops.

In the same way, Trump is seemingly incapable of providing leadership in controlling the pandemic, because he sees the virus as being a weapon used against his re-election chance, even though actually addressing the pandemic and reducing infection rates would benefit him in the medium term.

His psychology and reasoning abilities are not well suited for leadership

Trumps comment on the Lebanon blast shows lack of judgment. True he was just repeating what he was told and one imagines the selected individuals he listened to for that information. But it was irresponsible as a leader to make such statements when the answer wasn't known.  One wonders if or how this information crossed his desk?  I would bet his sources where his online conspiracy go to's and not a official briefing.
So yeah how he said what he said not wrong int that he wasn't saying it as a fact but speculation. Just another example of poor leadership intelligence.

[DonaldD]

Trump, realizing his geriatric voting block in Florida might be dissuaded from exercising their franchise:

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

Whether you call it Vote by Mail or Absentee Voting, in Florida the election system is Safe and Secure, Tried and True. Florida’s Voting system has been cleaned up (we defeated Democrats attempts at change), so in Florida I encourage all to request a Ballot & Vote by Mail! #MAGA

And in a stunning turn of events, Trump decries mail in voting in Nevada, because... well, it won't help his re-election bid.  Or more likely, just to impugn the credibility of the election.

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

Nevada has ZERO infrastructure for Mail-In Voting. It will be a corrupt disaster if not ended by the Courts. It will take months, or years, to figure out. Florida has built a great infrastructure, over years, with two great Republican Governors. Florida, send in your Ballots!

[DonaldD]

In 1917, they say… the great pandemic, it certainly was a terrible thing where they lost anywhere from 50 to 100 billion people… probably ended the 2nd world war, all the soldiers were sick.

OK, the billions/millions thing is probably just him slurring, and the "2nd world war" probably a verbal typo...

Well, look… the Obama campaign spied on our campaign, and they’ve been caught, alright?  And now let’s see what happens to them.

He does have a lot of verbal gaffes, though, doesn't he?  At some point we have to ask... how badly is he deteriorating?  Yes, his mangled sentence structure is clearly just an attempt to appeal to his base by speaking to them in ways he thinks they would be most comfortable with (seems a little convenient, but OK) but how many stupid things does he have to say before giving his supporters pause?

[TheDeamon]

Well, look… the Obama campaign spied on our campaign, and they’ve been caught, alright?  And now let’s see what happens to them.

He does have a lot of verbal gaffes, though, doesn't he?  At some point we have to ask... how badly is he deteriorating?  Yes, his mangled sentence structure is clearly just an attempt to appeal to his base by speaking to them in ways he thinks they would be most comfortable with (seems a little convenient, but OK) but how many stupid things does he have to say before giving his supporters pause?

The Obama Admin did spy on his campaign, and his transition team as well. The DoJ report is allegedly going to drop sometime this month, we'll see if he felt like he was able to indict anyone.

Knowing people did a thing is not the thing as being able to know their intent, which can determine criminality on many of these things.

[yossarian22c]

Trump:

"children are almost, I would almost say definitely, but almost immune from this disease."

At least 97,000 children tested positive for the coronavirus during the last two weeks of July, according to a new review of state-level data by the American Academy of Pediatrics and Children's Hospital Association.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/08/11/900861372/at-least-97-000-children-tested-positive-for-coronavirus-in-last-2-weeks-of-july

At what point do we recognize Trump as a complete failure and a pathological liar.

Cue the Trumpies saying "immune" doesn't really mean what we think it means.

[DonaldD]

The Obama Admin did spy on his campaign, and his transition team as well. The DoJ report is allegedly going to drop sometime this month, we'll see if he felt like he was able to indict anyone.

Actually, they didn't BUT that wasn't the stupid part.  Let me highlight it: "Well, look… the Obama campaign spied on our campaign,"

[TheDeamon]

Trump:

"children are almost, I would almost say definitely, but almost immune from this disease."

At least 97,000 children tested positive for the coronavirus during the last two weeks of July, according to a new review of state-level data by the American Academy of Pediatrics and Children's Hospital Association.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/08/11/900861372/at-least-97-000-children-tested-positive-for-coronavirus-in-last-2-weeks-of-july

"almost immune" != "immune"

He really should have used different words, but he has the best words, I know.

Children are unlikely to experience severe complications from Covid19 infections. But even "unlikely" doesn't mean they will escape complication free.
At what point do we recognize Trump as a complete failure and a pathological liar.

Cue the Trumpies saying "immune" doesn't really mean what we think it means.

[DonaldD]

Marjorie Taylor Greene:

I'm very excited about that now there's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take this global cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles out, and I think we have the president to do it.

Donald J. Trump:

Congratulations to future Republican Star Marjorie Taylor Greene on a big Congressional primary win in Georgia against a very tough and smart opponent.

Marjorie is strong on everything and never gives up - a real WINNER!

Ladies and gentlemen, your Republican Party of the USA.

[DonaldD]

The Racist in Chief strikes again

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

The “suburban housewife” will be voting for me. They want safety & are thrilled that I ended the long running program where low income housing would invade their neighborhood. Biden would reinstall it, in a bigger form, with Corey Booker in charge!

[Fenring]

It seems to be jumping to a conclusion to call him racist for (presumably) accurately reflecting a public sentiment about their communities, which in turn it may be jumping to a conclusion to call them racist (and him by supporting them). I can tell you from first-hand evidence that the presence of low-income housing near higher-end neighborhoods can increase local crime and danger for the neighborhood. In fact it seems practically self-evident that this would be the case. It takes blinders and a desire to find boogeymen to assume this must be because racists hate the blacks, versus they don't want crime in their neighborhood.

[DonaldD]

If you are unaware of "low income housing" as a threat to suburbia being used as part of the southern strategy, the use of Cory Booker as the boogey man to implement it should really have spelled it out for you. Now why would he have specifically nominated Booker for that position, I wonder...

There are none so blind as those who will not see...

[Fenring]

If you are unaware of "low income housing" as a threat to suburbia being used as part of the southern strategy, the use of Cory Booker as the boogey man to implement it should really have spelled it out for you. Now why would he have specifically nominated Booker for that position, I wonder...

I have no idea who that is, so I'm amenable to seeing your POV if you wouldn't mind explaining. I'm also sure there are people who don't want low-income housing because of racism, but I was addressing the automatic conclusion that it's just that.

[DonaldD]

Google is your friend, but it's weird that the name didn't ring a bell, given that he was running for the democratic presidential candidacy this past year.  Many of those in the US would immediately recognize him as a black Democratic Party senator, however.  Clearly, many people even outside the USA recognize his name...

[TheDrake]

It seems to be jumping to a conclusion to call him racist for (presumably) accurately reflecting a public sentiment about their communities, which in turn it may be jumping to a conclusion to call them racist (and him by supporting them). I can tell you from first-hand evidence that the presence of low-income housing near higher-end neighborhoods can increase local crime and danger for the neighborhood. In fact it seems practically self-evident that this would be the case. It takes blinders and a desire to find boogeymen to assume this must be because racists hate the blacks, versus they don't want crime in their neighborhood.

Maybe it is just classism, but also either overt racism or subconscious racism because of the disparity along racial lines of income inequality. It says "I don't want to solve the societal problems that lead to crime, and my focus is on making sure poverty and crime just don't affect me personally."

Those suburban housewives should be thinking about making donations to support organizations, rather than spending their time lobbying against the poor having a place to live. Regardless of their race.

Remember, these people were worried about crime and their property value too. Let's not forget that the guy making this statement actively blocked black people of equivalent wealth from moving in to his all-white property.

[TheDeamon]

The Racist in Chief strikes again

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

The “suburban housewife” will be voting for me. They want safety & are thrilled that I ended the long running program where low income housing would invade their neighborhood. Biden would reinstall it, in a bigger form, with Corey Booker in charge!

You do realize that "sub-urban america" in a lot of the country is about 30 to 40% minorities depending on proximity to larger cities?

It's only that portion of rural america which often gets conflated with sub-urban america(as a statistical abstract) where you start hitting predominately white population centers.

[TheDeamon]

If you are unaware of "low income housing" as a threat to suburbia being used as part of the southern strategy, the use of Cory Booker as the boogey man to implement it should really have spelled it out for you. Now why would he have specifically nominated Booker for that position, I wonder...

There are none so blind as those who will not see...

Oh like the black guy currently running HUD?

[TheDeamon]

Remember, these people were worried about crime and their property value too. Let's not forget that the guy making this statement actively blocked black people of equivalent wealth from moving in to his all-white property.

Real estate practices in the 1960's and 70's were horrid, but I doubt you're going to find more than a handful of large-scale real-estate companies/operators from that era, in certain geographical areas(like where Trump's business was) that did NOT practice that. It simply was the way business was done in that era and for all practical purposes(not literal) everyone was doing it, so anyone trying to bill themselves as a credible businessman would have been compelled to follow suit if he was hoping to court investors in his development projects, never mind tenants.

IIRC in the 1980's and 1990's Trump did a lot of work in the other direction as well, helping to desegregate areas after pursuing such things ceased to be a "kiss of death" in the world of finance.

[Fenring]

Google is your friend, but it's weird that the name didn't ring a bell, given that he was running for the democratic presidential candidacy this past year.

Tbh I didn't follow that primary quite as closely as I followed the ones in 2016. Some of the candidates felt like they blended into the background for me, as I was primarily focused on Bernie, Warren, Yang, and a couple of others.

Maybe it is just classism, but also either overt racism or subconscious racism because of the disparity along racial lines of income inequality. It says "I don't want to solve the societal problems that lead to crime, and my focus is on making sure poverty and crime just don't affect me personally."

I have to be honest, one of my biggest disagreements with BLM and the current state of the leftist movements is that I think their focus is objectively misdirected. There are important things to 'punch up' against in the world, and I think the racist white supremacists might be the most misguided and red herring of a target that we've seen in recent memory. I'm mentioning this because classism - and more generally the battle for policy as regards wealth - has historically always been at the forefront of the culture wars, and it seems foolish to suppose that this has magically ceased to be the case. Sure, it could have other elements, which may include racism, but jumping right past class conflict just cannot possible create an accurate picture. It never could and it never will (so long as there are classes). The people with money want to protect what they have, and want something for their buck, and those without it want to change the system. Those with control over the money supply want it to benefit their interests, and those with huge capital want it to leverage policy into their own monopolistic or oligarchic enrichment. You can classify all of this under D for duh. Rich people don't want poor people messing up their neighborhood, a headline you can find in any age going back to Ancient Rome I'm sure.

[wmLambert]

...one of my biggest disagreements with BLM and the current state of the leftist movements is that I think their focus is objectively misdirected. There are important things to 'punch up' against in the world, and I think the racist white supremacists might be the most misguided and red herring of a target that we've seen in recent memory.

The real point to notice is that the Democrat Party has always worked through "unaffiliated" groups to do their bidding. The KKK was always known to be the militant wing of the Dems. Biden spoke at Byrd's eulogy and never mentioned he never apologized for his KKK contributions. He made a wink-and-nod statement that he was no longer one of them - but never supplied the names of those he know murdered civil rights activist who were mostly all GOP, like MLK, Jr. Biden and the Clintons admitted his mentorship.

Because they couldn't hide the bad KKK history, they projected it onto ther victims - saying the bigots all became GOP due to a non-existent "Southern Strategy." The Dems have supported the Occupy Wall-Streeters, AntiFa, BLM, and any other group that will break windows and throw Molotov Cocktails to attack the country and then blame it on the GOP. These groups could not exist at all without the assistance of the Democrats.

The leaders of BLM are all avowed activist Socialists whose first desire is to destroy the government. Black Lives are not really their driving focus. If it were - they would be against Planned Parenthood's decades-long project to kill Black babies.

[rightleft22]

The people with money want to protect what they have, and want something for their buck, and those without it want to change the system. Those with control over the money supply want it to benefit their interests, and those with huge capital want it to leverage policy into their own monopolistic or oligarchic enrichment. You can classify all of this under D for duh. Rich people don't want poor people messing up their neighborhood, a headline you can find in any age going back to Ancient Rome I'm sure.

True the people with money want to protect what they have and have the power to create policy with is often discriminatory against those without wealth and or power. The justifications for such policy is what is often racist, (racist ideas didn't create policy so much as policy creates racist ideas.) The racist the problem becomes systemic as the reasoning becomes embedded in our thinking.
 
i.e. Black people moving into a neighborhood lowers property values. (black people = crime). You can't say that now now its adding low cost housing to a community = lower property values and may people think = Black.

I might argue that the 'class protecting their interests have in the past successful uses racist reasoning to defend their actions and distract the 'useful idiot' from realizing that the discrimination doesn't just hurt Black people but the poor 'lower class' as well. Allowing such racist reasoning no matter how well hidden behind the words we use to become systemic.  So separating the debate on class and racism become difficult because its been a tool of classism to distract
 

[Fenring]

I might argue that the 'class protecting their interests have in the past successful uses racist reasoning to defend their actions and distract the 'useful idiot' from realizing that the discrimination doesn't just hurt Black people but the poor 'lower class' as well. Allowing such racist reasoning no matter how well hidden behind the words we use to become systemic.  So separating the debate on class and racism become difficult because its been a tool of classism to distract

This could be true, but it could also be backward. You could just as easily suppose that the class protecting their interests have a vested interest in shifting attention away from themselves onto another target. Your supposition seems to be that the upper classes use racist reasoning, which the lower classes notice and get upset at those in the upper class. But if the perception of the racism re-focuses those who are angry towards red herrings, then the upper classes are protected and the lower classes are beating on windmills and expending their energy, while riling up those who feel threatened by a mob - win win win for the rich.

[wmLambert]

I might argue that the 'class protecting their interests have in the past successful uses racist reasoning to defend their actions and distract the 'useful idiot' from realizing that the discrimination doesn't just hurt Black people but the poor 'lower class' as well. Allowing such racist reasoning no matter how well hidden behind the words we use to become systemic.  So separating the debate on class and racism become difficult because its been a tool of classism to distract

This could be true, but it could also be backward. You could just as easily suppose that the class protecting their interests have a vested interest in shifting attention away from themselves onto another target. Your supposition seems to be that the upper classes use racist reasoning, which the lower classes notice and get upset at those in the upper class. But if the perception of the racism re-focuses those who are angry towards red herrings, then the upper classes are protected and the lower classes are beating on windmills and expending their energy, while riling up those who feel threatened by a mob - win win win for the rich.

Not backward at all. The attacking comes from those using victimization to create power for themselves. The ones at the top can ignore the gadflies. They are not the driving force at all.

Jousting at windmills is a good analogy, but never forget that the windmills might be Giants, after all.

[TheDrake]

Oh my, I'd hate to only have 2% growth in my home equity instead of 4% just so poor people can have a place to live!

It's funny, because of the loads of people who talk about the free market like to make zoning rules preventing the construction of high-density housing to protect their investment in real-estate. Separable from the issue of government sponsored low income housing (Section . They don't want to see apartments at all. They don't want buildings over N stories. All of which might let people have affordable housing without needing government subsidy.

As for suburbs having mixed racial makeup, do you really think that's what Trump envisions when he employs that term?

As for apologizing for Trump doing things because, "hey that's the way things were done", well who can't you give a pass to on that basis? Slave owners. Restaurateurs with coloreds only sections. Pastors who refused to marry people of mixed race. The whole point of morality is to do the right thing, even if it damages you materially. Mind you, you are also talking about doing something not only morally wrong, but legally wrong. It violated the FHA passed in 1968.

[Wayward Son]

But is there really much difference between classism and racism?

Racism was used over the decades to make sure certain races (blacks, hispanics, etc.) were kept in the lower economic levels, which is most likely the primary reason large fractions of these minorities are still in those levels.

Classism keeps people in their current economic levels.  Which means that blacks, hispanics, etc. are still being kept in the lowest levels.

So while discrimination may not be occurring just because they are part of certain minorities, they are still being discriminated against, and because they or their parents were part of those certain minorities.  The effect is the same, and perpetuates the same thing.

A rose by any other name...

[DonaldD]

And speaking of racism in the Trump campaign... senior legal advisor to "Team Trump" Jenna Ellis retweets latest birther conspiracy questioning Harris' eligibility:

Jenna Ellis Retweeted

Tom Fitton
@TomFitton
Is Kamala Harris ineligible to be Vice President under the U.S. Constitution's "Citizenship Clause"?

If they really wanted to avoid the racism label, maybe they should stop, you know, being racist?

[NobleHunter]

The other reason for resistance to class first approaches is that historical they end up being white first as well. So a lot of people are skeptical of claims that the way to be progressive is just to forget about race.

[TheDrake]

"So showerheads - you take a shower, the water doesn't come out. You want to wash your hands, the water doesn't come out. So what do you do? You just stand there longer or you take a shower longer? Because my hair - I don't know about you, but it has to be perfect. Perfect,"

[yossarian22c]

"They want $25 billion for the post office. Now, they need that money in order to have the post office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots. Now, in the meantime, they aren't getting there. But if they don't get those two items, that means you can't have universal mail-in voting because they're not equipped to have it."
...
If we don't make a deal, that means they don't get the money.

Trump is going to sabotage the economy and the post office to win an election?

[TheDrake]

I don't understand the whole "post office can't handle it" argument. You're talking about maybe 2-3 letters on average per voting household, spread out over mutliple days. Is that really more taxing than holiday cards?

[Fenring]

But is there really much difference between classism and racism?

Racism was used over the decades to make sure certain races (blacks, hispanics, etc.) were kept in the lower economic levels, which is most likely the primary reason large fractions of these minorities are still in those levels.

That the outward effect may be momentarily overlapping has nothing to do with whether they're the same thing. If classism is at the heart of it then the rich wouldn't want the poor around regardless of their skin color, and would take concerted efforts to keep anyone down who is already down. If racism is in play then these people wouldn't approve of black neighbors whether they are rich or poor. Not saying these don't both happen, but saying they may be the same thing is specious, unless you subscribe to the new far-left playbook where nothing is relevant for discussion other than final effects. Under that rulebook, if more blacks are poor than whites proportionately then that IS racism, regardless of any other considerations or motivations. But for most people, it does involve both intention and personal outlook and actions, and as such I think you will find that hatred of the poor is quite different from hatred of members of different ethnic backgrounds.