US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3304

On March 14 2016 12:54 kwizach wrote:

I am not arguing that someone else in the current Republican primary is better positioned than Trump to be the nominee, as I just repeated on this very page.

On March 14 2016 12:55 oBlade wrote:

What's basically going on is I'm talking about the race for the GOP nomination and he's talking about the general election. I'm saying Trump is in shape for the former and he's saying Trump is weak when it comes to the latter.

Plans for a huge commercial development that would transform a tiny town near the edge of the Grand Canyon have been thrown out by federal officials in a surprise victory for conservation and indigenous interests – but campaigners warn that the world famous natural wonder remains in peril.

Tusayan, in northern Arizona, has a few low-key hotels and a population of just 560.

A mile from the entrance to Grand Canyon national park, it is the last settlement tourists pass through, if they even notice it, before entering the park to gawp into the spectacular sandstone abyss.

But an Italian developer has spent more than two decades hovering over this speck on the map with dreams of turning it into a bustling resort area with three million square feet of commercial facilities, including a tourist lodge, spa, cultural center, upscale shops, restaurants, holiday ranch, hotels and a few thousand new homes.

The scheme has caused a long-running, often bitter battle between local civic leaders supporting the developer, the Italian-owned Stilo Development Group USA, and environmental and Native American groups in opposition.

But a milestone decision has sent proponents of the development project reeling.

Heather Provencio, the new supervisor of a nearby chunk of national forest who needs to approve better road access across the federal land for the private development to go ahead, announced the plan was not in the public interest.

On March 14 2016 12:55 oBlade wrote:

What's basically going on is I'm talking about the race for the GOP nomination and he's talking about the general election. I'm saying Trump is in shape for the former and he's saying Trump is weak when it comes to the latter.

On March 14 2016 13:05 IgnE wrote:

So why should I care?

On March 14 2016 10:54 JW_DTLA wrote:


Why are you ignoring the great crash again? I mean seriously. It isn't hard to have a basic grasp of history. I can see through your dishonesty, so can everyone else. The Obama presidency started in 2009, the crash was in 2008 and petered out right around the time Obama signed the stimulus. The SubPrime crisis really hurt black wealth levels, but that was all Pre-Obama. Check out Pew research for a bit:

"Over the longer term, black adults sustained the largest increase in income status from 1971 to 2015 and were the only major racial or ethnic group to experience a decline in their lower-income share."
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/2-changes-in-income-status-vary-across-demographic-groups/


Some articles to back up my previous post about divergent white and black perspectives:

Discussing the white perspective (It’s not just anger over jobs and immigration. White voters hope Trump will restore the racial hierarchy upended by Barack Obama.):
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/03/how_donald_trump_happened_racism_against_barack_obama.html

Discussing the black perspective (sadness over loss of a great President and fear for what comes next):
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/us/politics/proud-of-obamas-presidency-blacks-are-sad-to-see-him-go.html
Consider the actual black perspective.

On March 14 2016 13:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:

So like i just said.Blacks are worse off now than when Obama first got in.What has he done for them?

What have the democrats done for Detroit, a city they have governed for over 50 years straight? Chicago blacks, what have they done for them in the past 90 years (Yes,Chicago has been ruled by democrats for 90 years straight).

You need to get this idea out of your head that the democrats want anything other than welfare addicted low class voters.

If it's such a racial thing for the republicans then why was Carson topping the polls for a time against Trump? It's anti establishment, anti lobbyist.Please stop with the identity politics.

On March 14 2016 14:03 JW_DTLA wrote:


I can't find a more recent poll, but this one from July 2015 is still close enough from: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/poll-obama-approval-rating-increase-50-percent-119575

"Ninety-one percent of blacks expressed approval of Obama in the poll, which was recorded after the president’s response to the tragic killing of nine African-Americans at a historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina, on June 17."

Tell me why they are wrong. I want to hear you say it. Spin that 91% into something.

On March 14 2016 13:56 Slaughter wrote:
Well Detroit was ruined by a confluence of factors that fucked the city lol. Blaming it on democrats is a ridiculous notion. Republicans couldn't have saved that city either. Local governments can only do so much when you have state and federal laws that exist on a higher order of the hierarchy, not to mention the economic depression which was almost entirely out of their hands. They also had a few corrupt as fuck mayors and some of the good ones said fuck it because they got so much flak.

On March 14 2016 14:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:

Yeah and I'm saying on a national level Bill Clintons NAFTA was bad for them and Obamas TPP will be bad for them.Why continue blindly supporting candidates and parties that screw them over.

Thanks for proving my point though with the corrupt mayor comment.You referring to Coleman Young? Mayor for 20 years, democrat? Exactly.

On March 14 2016 14:57 Slaughter wrote:


Implying there is no corrupt republican politicians? Lol I wasn't even referring to him but whatever, you obviously are just like to label all democrats as idiots or corrupt apparently (isn't that what republicans like to say democrats do with the whole PC thing?).

NAFTA also isn't what killed the manufacturing in the Detroit area. Your views on this are too simplistic and lack any nuance. Things are almost never black and white and have multiple forces at play.

Things haven't gotten worse for poor African American communities because of democrats, they took hits from the recession yes but other then that the whole "race relations are worse now" and "blacks are worse off" is mostly due to the fact that it is getting more coverage in the media. Things weren't good for them pre Obama, people just are more aware of it currently because it has been given a spotlight.

On March 14 2016 15:27 IgnE wrote:


Is it your position that NAFTA is neither good nor bad? That it's not all bad? I am confused how nuance changes the actual evaluation of NAFTA in your eyes because you resort to truisms, like "multiple forces at play" or that non-"simplistic thinking" is required, but don't actually do any explication.

So NAFTA, good or bad? On balance.

On March 14 2016 13:56 Slaughter wrote:
Well Detroit was ruined by a confluence of factors that fucked the city lol. Blaming it on democrats is a ridiculous notion. Republicans couldn't have saved that city either. Local governments can only do so much when you have state and federal laws that exist on a higher order of the hierarchy, not to mention the economic depression which was almost entirely out of their hands. They also had a few corrupt as fuck mayors and some of the good ones said fuck it because they got so much flak.

On March 14 2016 15:39 Danglars wrote:
When Democrats mess it up, nobody could've avoided fate and the system broke the good guys. I have to wonder if you're some expert on urban politics and we're expected to take you at your word.

On March 14 2016 13:38 IgnE wrote:
You are the one who has spent 10 pages in the politics public thread arguing that this is an important point. I guess it's not important.