Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
njtosd
Participant[quote=spdrun]FIH — Hillary is not a technocrat/professor. That would be Elizabeth Warren. She’s a political hanger-on/hack who got where she was on her husband’s coattails.[/quote]
Oh my gosh. For once I agree with you.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]SK, your post about Obama and racism was pretty much what I’ve always felt.
What do you think is Trump’s appeal to his working class base? And why do they believe him? He lies about his wealth and he sounds like a fast talking scam artist to me. In real estate, when a developer sells you property and prices go up, then everyone’s happy. But when there’s trouble, Trump is the first one to bail, and screw everybody else.[/quote]
Disclaimer – I don’t like Trump. But I am fascinated by his appeal, which I never expected and have been watching like a bad movie. I think it is a matter of passion. He expresses a lot more emotion than Hillary does, who (in my opinion) comes across as calculating and not believable.
I think Trump appeals to people who are fearful (similar to Hitler) – he expresses the fears that they are unwilling to admit to. And there is a lot to be fearful about, and I think Hillary’s cold calculating behavior doesn’t give those who are fearful much comfort. As anyone who has read The Crucible can attest, uncertain times bring out the conservative tendencies in a population . . .
Participant[quote=flu][quote=njtosd][quote=AN][quote=njtosd]Flu – Asians are projected to become the wealthiest group in the US in coming years. http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/15/mericans-are-transforming-the-face-of-us-wealth.html
When they do, will that mean that discrimination against Asians has stopped?[/quote]
Success of a race on average and discrimination against a race are two separate thing. Just because Asian found ways to work around the discrimination, persevere through the discrimination, and achieve financial success does not mean they’re not being discriminated against. It just mean as a group, Asian don’t spend as much energy bitching about it as working with the landscape that’s in front of them, even when there’s discrimination.[/quote]Flu contended that white men weren’t being discriminated against because they are doing so well in corporate America. I think groups can be both discriminated against and successful – which was the point I was making.[/quote]
I didn’t say that it doesn’t happen. It doesn’t happen to the scale that people bitch about. Take Paramount for example. He (use to?) works for an aerospace company in RB, same one that some of my colleagues use to work there too.
Why on earth would he feel like he’s discriminated against when
1) There’s no H1-B in his company, since most of the work requires a security clearance
2) There’s barely any asians at his company too, and virtually none in management (I’ve checked)
3) Barely any other minorities over there (I’ve checked in the past)Granted it went through tough times because of other reasons (consolidation of operations that led to a few folks I know moving to Maryland and Virginia) and it’s dysfunctional in the past for many reasons, but specifically what is this sort of “discrimination” he personally experience?
He’s working in the industry that has the greatest barrier to entry because due to the need for a security clearance, so that eliminates all “illegals” and all “immigrants” from a direct threat to so called job security, and since getting a security clearances takes a long time these days, it’s even a pretty big “wall” for people with U.S. citizenship. So what job threat from illegals/H1-B’s/immigrants has he or is he specifically experiencing, which is the #1 complaint among Trump worshippers. And yet, I still hear him claim he was discriminated against? So I’m curious, what specific incidence(s) of discrimination?
I suspect none specifically, it’s just he’s been listening too much to what others spew, what Trump spews, and adopted the same rhetoric as if he personally has experienced it himself.[/quote]
If Paramount is having any trouble job wise I doubt it has to do with discrimination – I’m sure his rather opinionated personality comes through.
I don’t take anything for granted. If someone says that white men are never discriminated against, I try to find data. Constitutionally, white men do not fall into a “protected class” as do women, minorities, aliens (of the immigration type) people with disabilities, etc. Therefore, it is easier to discriminate against them without facing a Constitutional challenge. Perhaps, though, that just levels the playing field.
Discrimination is everywhere everyday and it will never go away – tall, short, thin, fat, Boston accent, Southern accent, etc. etc. (I’ve heard more slams on this board directed toward the Midwest than I would have expected – most of which are inaccurate). I think somewhere on this thread I read that non asians put less academic pressure on their kids (mine would laugh . . . ) On an individual basis we all just have to overcome the obstacles that are put in front of us – whether by laws or other people.
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
I’m not saying that all of the immigration allowed into the US was bad … I’m just saying that full employment for the “nativist sector” of the US population has dropped significantly in the past 20 years due to massive immigration into the country.[/quote]
I’m reasonably sure there is no data to back this up. This isn’t a matter of opinion. This is an assertion of an actual occurrence that can be measured and tested. It hasn’t happened.[/quote]
The data seems to show that BG’s position is not supported: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/08/26/Are-Immigrants-Really-Taking-American-Jobs
Participant[quote=AN][quote=njtosd]Flu contended that white men weren’t being discriminated against because they are doing so well in corporate America. I think groups can be both discriminated against and successful – which was the point I was making.[/quote]I’m sure there are pocket discrimination. But as a whole, do you have data to back your claim that white men are being discriminated against? When, where, how, by who?[/quote]
I never claimed such a thing. Please review posts before making comments like that. What I was trying to say (and it seems pretty easy to understand . . . ) is that simply doing well is not proof that a group is not discriminated against.
Participant[quote=AN][quote=njtosd]Flu – Asians are projected to become the wealthiest group in the US in coming years. http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/15/mericans-are-transforming-the-face-of-us-wealth.html
When they do, will that mean that discrimination against Asians has stopped?[/quote]
Success of a race on average and discrimination against a race are two separate thing. Just because Asian found ways to work around the discrimination, persevere through the discrimination, and achieve financial success does not mean they’re not being discriminated against. It just mean as a group, Asian don’t spend as much energy bitching about it as working with the landscape that’s in front of them, even when there’s discrimination.[/quote]Flu contended that white men weren’t being discriminated against because they are doing so well in corporate America. I think groups can be both discriminated against and successful – which was the point I was making.
ParticipantFlu – Asians are projected to become the wealthiest group in the US in coming years. http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/15/mericans-are-transforming-the-face-of-us-wealth.html
When they do, will that mean that discrimination against Asians has stopped?
ParticipantBG – I’ve asked you this before (and you should know it from legal writing …). You should never purport to quote someone unless your quote is identical in every way to what was originally said. If you change anything (like adding italics) you must make it clear that emphasis was added by you. I did not find the portion that you italicized to be more important than other parts of what I wrote. The importance was added by you.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
Regardless, the outcome turned out to be the same as we’re seeing today, NSR. In your example, mgmt plundered the organization and then ran off with the proceeds, leaving their longtime assembly lines grossly underfunded and their loyal workforce in a lurch. In recent years, mgmt decided to move their factories to a country where the customary wages are 1/10th or less than they are in the US, leaving their longtime workers jobless in a region with no other type of industry for many miles around.
In both cases, the longtime union-member employees paid the ultimate price.[/quote]
I remember guys in high school – I asked them where they were going to college. They laughed at me and said their (brother, uncle, cousin) was going to get them a job on the line that paid $30 an hour and that I was dumb for spending all the time and money on college. I thought a lot about those conversations when I was making $6.50 an hour doing leukemia research with a college degree. They were absolutely overpaid (even if they were inflating their income) for their abilities – and that was the union’s doing. The problem is that they really weren’t worth what the union got them in terms of pay – it was a bubble of a sort. And bubbles burst. I’m not saying management wasn’t partly to blame – but management is easy to move around if that would fix things. Unions and politicians – not so much.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
njtosd, it’s funny, but BG said the same thing about housing and jobs in San Diego. Be prepared to move.[/quote]
Did you happen to notice my screen name? We lived here and then moved to NJ for . . . . a job! Didn’t like it there and made changes so that we could live back here. Right now my husband is hours away from here on business. If we have to move again, I’d do it and I wouldn’t blame anyone else. That puts too much power in the other guy’s hands.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
The “desperation” you describe isn’t about race. It’s about families which have, for generations, been able to support themselves with union factory jobs with full benefits and now find themselves permanently out of work and their long-owned homes worth nearly nothing, due to lack of living-wage jobs in the area. They can’t even sell their homes and transfer out of the region for a better job and likely can’t find good renters because there aren’t any living-wage jobs in the region. I can see why these people feel that they’re “stuck” and frustrated with NAFTA, etc.[/quote]
BG – I grew up outside of Detroit and although my Dad wasn’t directly employed by the auto companies we were supported by the auto companies once removed, like almost everyone in Detroit. I could see in the 1980s that Detroit was in a death spiral and when I looked for a job I looked in Chicago as did my sister and brother. I know lots of people who stayed because it was easier to hang around where things were familiar (and getting cheaper by the day). People are responsible for finding work where the work exists – the world is not responsible for providing jobs where people choose to live (which is how my Irish ancestors ended up in the U.S. . . . )
The death of Detroit is attributable to the over reaching of the auto unions and the tendency of Detroit politicians to tax city businesses who couldn’t vote against them (the owners generally weren’t city residents). In addition, the weather is as bad in Detroit as it is good in San Diego. My Dad’s firm moved from downtown to the suburbs due to the political climate and the growing crime problem. . . and I haven’t heard of many businesses moving back.
We as individuals are responsible for finding a way to support our families. No one owes me a job anywhere. If I’m lucky enough to get a job in the place that I want – that’s a plus. People need to prepare themselves for engineering jobs in Minnesota and Wisconsin or wherever, not comparative religion “jobs” in San Diego. And if they don’t prepare themselves, they are at the mercy of the job creators. Maybe it’s not desirable – but as long as people blame their failures on factors outside of their control they are destined for more failure.
Participant[quote=SK in CV]
Huh? Wine tasting is subjective, ergo, all politicians are abysmal? That’s your argument to counter the claim that all candidates aren’t the same?[/quote]
The candidates are all bad in different ways. Tell me why one is worse than another, and provide data and I will consider it.
If you look up higher in the thread, you will see Brian’s view that the dems are better than Trump because, well, just because. Later he says that the candidates have similarities, like wines are similar because they are all made from grapes and have alcohol, but he believes that there are both candidates and wines that are just better than others and that “perceptive” people can see the distinction. My point is that (1) snobs incorrectly believe they can taste the difference between good wines and bad, and (2) snobs (like Brian) believe that their perceptiveness makes their chosen candidates superior – without need for more explanation. Sometimes there are good and bad candidates – unfortunately not this time – but there is no perceptive elite who can unerringly identify the good vs. the bad.
I don’t like Trump. I don’t like Hillary. I wish Bernie Sanders ideas were practical. I cried when Reagan was elected and it didn’t turn out to be all that bad. I thought Clinton was good (and under Clinton the economy was pretty good) but he brought the respect accorded to the office of the presidency to a new low with discussions of cigars and . . . such. People made fun of George W Bush’s intellect – but his grades were better than Kerry’s http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4684384. Somehow, however, Kerry felt that he was entitled to call Bush an idiot, and perceptive people like Brian took it as fact. For some reason many liberals smugly see themselves as the smart correct ones without feeling that they have to prove it. Two legs good, four legs bad . . .
My point is that there is not some perceptive elite who know who’s going to be good and no candidate is good “just because”.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=flyer]
I don’t think we can lump everyone together. It would be like saying all wines are the same — they all contain alcohol, and made of grape. Some wines are clearly superior.
There are qualitative differences; and smart, perceptive people recognize the differences.[/quote]Not surprising that you believe that. Take a look at these: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis
And I love this show – “Adam ruins everything”. It takes on all that you hold near and dear, Brian. Here is his bit on wine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdcG7PlkAg0
Why can’t you accept that all of the candidates are abysmal and that simply saying “I’m a liberal” doesn’t make someone a good person nor does saying “I’m a conservative” make someone bad? You also realize that since people want to believe this liberal/conservative good/bad dichotomy that bad people (being bad) will say that they are liberal because it will make people think that they are good . . . . Ka-chow.
Individuals are individuals. Like wine, you have to decide which ones you like on a case by case basis.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=Blogstar]
There is an equivalent extreme in the democrat’s politics but you will never see it.[/quote]The superiority is in keeping your evils caged. Humans are all the same, but keeping your evils in check is what distinguishes the civilized from the barbaric.
Let’s put it this way. A family with well behaved, polite parents and children, where everyone knows her responsibilities and does his job, is better than a family full of drama, vulgarity and disfunction.[/quote]
I would say that Bill Clinton and his family has exhibited more drama, vulgarity and dysfunction than the Bush family. And do you remember Billy Carter and his eponymous Billy Beer? Or Mike Dukakis’ wife drinking rubbing alcohol? The Obamas have been pretty much picture perfect, though dull. If you are trying to identify the Dems as the well behaved ones, you’re being charitable. Politicians on both sides of the divide are a fantastic source of the bad behavior you so despise. Frankly I wouldn’t want any of them as neighbors.
-
AuthorPosts
