|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Norway28624 Posts
On June 01 2018 00:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2018 23:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I've long maintained that the degree to whether people are unhappy with their life is not just dependent on how their reality 'objectively' is, but how their reality compares to their expectation. (basically, happiness equation = reality minus expectation. Simplified, of course, but there's a very strong correlation.)
I think this reasonably well explains why minority kids are better at 'dealing' with an objectively shitty situation - it's more in line with their expectations. Their parents and grandparents all had to deal with strife and hardship. They, in turn, grow up expecting some degree of strife and hardship. The current white parent generation, much less so.
As somewhat of an aside, but because I already started, I think the issue that poor white people have with the concept of 'white privilege' can be viewed through this lens too - because white people are privileged, being poor and white ends up being something that reflects poorly upon them as individuals. Poor and black on the other hand isn't as damning for the individual poor and black person, as systematic injustices made it so that he never really had a chance in the first place. (Appearing so inwardly, and to some degree outwardly). I mean, in reality, the poor white person will usually have had damning elements about his or her socioeconomic background too, granting them real personal opposition to the idea that they are privileged, but it's not internalized to them, and it's not obvious from looking at them.
Basically, being part of a maligned group can be strengthening to maligned individuals, whereas being a maligned individual without any group identity ends up seeming like an even more hopeless and desperate situation.
Then you couple these factors with two other facts; the US places more emphasis on designating winners (and by extension, on losers) than any other western country. So white american 'losers' perceive themselves as bigger losers than minority american losers (because it is to a bigger degree perceived as their own fault), and bigger than white european losers (because the degree to which we designate kids as winners or losers is a bit less of an element here. I'm sure there are differences between european countries too here though, but this is definitely true from a scandinavian perspective. Could be much less so for the UK, for example. ) Add to it that white american losers, who personally feel a degree of hatefulness rarely matched in other countries also have access to guns, and you're starting to get somewhere in explaining the huge difference in school shooting ratios between the US and other comparable countries. I think you're missing the mark. Because poor whites are told they're privileged, they don't enjoy the sympathies (verbal or otherwise) usually afforded to a struggling economic class. You won't find sympathy because your skin color means you're not as bad off as other poor families. Your community is portrayed by the media as a group of isolated, uneducated hicks. Your parents probably voted for Trump because they were driven by anger, race, and nationalism. Your struggles aren't important. Your concerns don't matter--remember, you're white and privileged, so your opinion isn't as valuable as others on problems affecting poor communities. Oh, and by the way, your skin color gave you higher expectations than you should've had for yourself, and that's why you're unhappy. I think the racial privilege bit does more harm to those at the bottom rungs of society, than good.
This can work as an explanation for rural communities embracing Trump and a 'fuck the liberal coastal smug elite fuckers' attitude, but I don't see the relevance to white people being the ones who undertake school shootings. My impression is that those come from a deep, personal hatred towards the world in general and their class/school mates in particular, not from hatred of the other based on political affiliation. Maybe the charleston school shooting, maybe if there's a school shooting where the perp is a guy from the most rural part of kansas moving to some coastal city, but not the profile of most of them.
|
On May 31 2018 21:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2018 20:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 31 2018 16:19 Silvanel wrote:
Is school bullying in US really the way they depict it in movies? I mean there are "cool kids" and some amount of bullying everywhere but shit they depict in movies would never fly in Poland, at least not when i was going to school. Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? There are a vast number of ways students can be bullied and that bullying can manifest itself... sometimes it's private or more subtle, sometimes it's blatant or public; sometimes it's physical, sometimes it's psychological, sometimes it's verbal; sometimes (most of the time) it's between students, sometimes it's between a student and a teacher; etc. Actually I have always wondered about that myself. But I always assumed that it was just really exaggerated but somehow embedded itself as a popular cliche that you'll see everytime a school is featured in American movies and TV. A kind of "jock" bullying "nerd" stereotype. The whole cool kids physically bullying nerdy kids and everybody laughs it off at the expense of the bullied kid dynamic that you always see in American movies and tv series. It doesn't even have to be a school. It appears to be really imbedded into American movie/TV culture. Like one time I was wacthing an American show where a physically powerful colleague eats an autistic colleague's work lunch, and I was expecting that he would be told that isn't acceptable but instead, everybody at work acting like the nerdy autistic guy is just being annoying moaner, as opposed to an action for an immediate termination of contract. That sort of thing. There's a bullying problem in schools in the UK, but it rarely gets physical and when if does, it is serious business. Also in my school all the coolest kids hung out in different groups and weren't friends at all.
It was pretty stereotypical at my school. I was massively depressed and punk rock as fuck in highschool and, during senior year, overheard people not so quietly joking that I should be voted most likely to shoot up the school. Thank god I'm a big enough guy that nobody ever tried to fuck with me physically.
|
On June 01 2018 00:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2018 23:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I've long maintained that the degree to whether people are unhappy with their life is not just dependent on how their reality 'objectively' is, but how their reality compares to their expectation. (basically, happiness equation = reality minus expectation. Simplified, of course, but there's a very strong correlation.)
I think this reasonably well explains why minority kids are better at 'dealing' with an objectively shitty situation - it's more in line with their expectations. Their parents and grandparents all had to deal with strife and hardship. They, in turn, grow up expecting some degree of strife and hardship. The current white parent generation, much less so.
As somewhat of an aside, but because I already started, I think the issue that poor white people have with the concept of 'white privilege' can be viewed through this lens too - because white people are privileged, being poor and white ends up being something that reflects poorly upon them as individuals. Poor and black on the other hand isn't as damning for the individual poor and black person, as systematic injustices made it so that he never really had a chance in the first place. (Appearing so inwardly, and to some degree outwardly). I mean, in reality, the poor white person will usually have had damning elements about his or her socioeconomic background too, granting them real personal opposition to the idea that they are privileged, but it's not internalized to them, and it's not obvious from looking at them.
Basically, being part of a maligned group can be strengthening to maligned individuals, whereas being a maligned individual without any group identity ends up seeming like an even more hopeless and desperate situation.
Then you couple these factors with two other facts; the US places more emphasis on designating winners (and by extension, on losers) than any other western country. So white american 'losers' perceive themselves as bigger losers than minority american losers (because it is to a bigger degree perceived as their own fault), and bigger than white european losers (because the degree to which we designate kids as winners or losers is a bit less of an element here. I'm sure there are differences between european countries too here though, but this is definitely true from a scandinavian perspective. Could be much less so for the UK, for example. ) Add to it that white american losers, who personally feel a degree of hatefulness rarely matched in other countries also have access to guns, and you're starting to get somewhere in explaining the huge difference in school shooting ratios between the US and other comparable countries. I think you're missing the mark. Because poor whites are told they're privileged, they don't enjoy the sympathies (verbal or otherwise) usually afforded to a struggling economic class. You won't find sympathy because your skin color means you're not as bad off as other poor families. Your community is portrayed by the media as a group of isolated, uneducated hicks. Your parents probably voted for Trump because they were driven by anger, race, and nationalism. Your struggles aren't important. Your concerns don't matter--remember, you're white and privileged, so your opinion isn't as valuable as others on problems affecting poor communities. Oh, and by the way, your skin color gave you higher expectations than you should've had for yourself, and that's why you're unhappy. I think the racial privilege bit does more harm to those at the bottom rungs of society, than good.
I think you are confusing "I hear your opinion and think it is just straight up wrong" and "your opinion doesn't matter".
When someone talks about young earth perspectives, I am not saying their opinion doesn't matter when I say they are wrong. I am saying I disagree with their analysis. I look at carbon dating and say "you are definitely incorrect and your argument has nothing to stand on".
You aren't allowing for the possibility that people aren't convinced by the arguments presented. If a group of people are saying something I think is inaccurate, I am not disrespecting them or saying their views don't exist by not agreeing with them.
|
The tail wags the dog. It is official. If the President sees something on FOXNFRIENDS, he takes action. Since Trump has no strong policy positions or beliefs beyond himself, even the feeblest arguments by friendlies on FOXNFRIENDS can trick him into stuff.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 01 2018 01:48 Wulfey_LA wrote:The tail wags the dog. It is official. If the President sees something on FOXNFRIENDS, he takes action. Since Trump has no strong policy positions or beliefs beyond himself, even the feeblest arguments by friendlies on FOXNFRIENDS can trick him into stuff. + Show Spoiler +
Who cares that people broke the law! Others are worse so lets just let everyone out of jail except the worst guy ever. #prisonreform
|
What the fuck.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-steel-deadline-1.4685242
25% tariffs on steel, 10% on aluminum starting midnight tonight.
This is stupid as all hell. Hello brinksmanship and pissing off every allied country in the world.
Edit::
The justification is "National Security Reasons"
What do Canadian metals, and German cars have to do with national security?...
|
On June 01 2018 02:03 Lmui wrote:What the fuck. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-steel-deadline-1.468524225% tariffs on steel, 10% on aluminum starting midnight tonight. This is stupid as all hell. Hello brinksmanship and pissing off every allied country in the world. Edit:: The justification is "National Security Reasons" What do Canadian metals, and German cars have to do with national security?... Trump against the world in a trade war during election year.
Republicans will love him for this /s.
|
"National Security Reasons" is the one of the few ways the president can impose tariffs without congressional approval. It is called bullshit of the highest order used to protect the steel and aluminum industry as the expense of whoever our trading partners decide to slam is response.
|
On June 01 2018 01:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2018 00:22 Danglars wrote:On May 31 2018 23:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I've long maintained that the degree to whether people are unhappy with their life is not just dependent on how their reality 'objectively' is, but how their reality compares to their expectation. (basically, happiness equation = reality minus expectation. Simplified, of course, but there's a very strong correlation.)
I think this reasonably well explains why minority kids are better at 'dealing' with an objectively shitty situation - it's more in line with their expectations. Their parents and grandparents all had to deal with strife and hardship. They, in turn, grow up expecting some degree of strife and hardship. The current white parent generation, much less so.
As somewhat of an aside, but because I already started, I think the issue that poor white people have with the concept of 'white privilege' can be viewed through this lens too - because white people are privileged, being poor and white ends up being something that reflects poorly upon them as individuals. Poor and black on the other hand isn't as damning for the individual poor and black person, as systematic injustices made it so that he never really had a chance in the first place. (Appearing so inwardly, and to some degree outwardly). I mean, in reality, the poor white person will usually have had damning elements about his or her socioeconomic background too, granting them real personal opposition to the idea that they are privileged, but it's not internalized to them, and it's not obvious from looking at them.
Basically, being part of a maligned group can be strengthening to maligned individuals, whereas being a maligned individual without any group identity ends up seeming like an even more hopeless and desperate situation.
Then you couple these factors with two other facts; the US places more emphasis on designating winners (and by extension, on losers) than any other western country. So white american 'losers' perceive themselves as bigger losers than minority american losers (because it is to a bigger degree perceived as their own fault), and bigger than white european losers (because the degree to which we designate kids as winners or losers is a bit less of an element here. I'm sure there are differences between european countries too here though, but this is definitely true from a scandinavian perspective. Could be much less so for the UK, for example. ) Add to it that white american losers, who personally feel a degree of hatefulness rarely matched in other countries also have access to guns, and you're starting to get somewhere in explaining the huge difference in school shooting ratios between the US and other comparable countries. I think you're missing the mark. Because poor whites are told they're privileged, they don't enjoy the sympathies (verbal or otherwise) usually afforded to a struggling economic class. You won't find sympathy because your skin color means you're not as bad off as other poor families. Your community is portrayed by the media as a group of isolated, uneducated hicks. Your parents probably voted for Trump because they were driven by anger, race, and nationalism. Your struggles aren't important. Your concerns don't matter--remember, you're white and privileged, so your opinion isn't as valuable as others on problems affecting poor communities. Oh, and by the way, your skin color gave you higher expectations than you should've had for yourself, and that's why you're unhappy. I think the racial privilege bit does more harm to those at the bottom rungs of society, than good. I think you are confusing "I hear your opinion and think it is just straight up wrong" and "your opinion doesn't matter". When someone talks about young earth perspectives, I am not saying their opinion doesn't matter when I say they are wrong. I am saying I disagree with their analysis. I look at carbon dating and say "you are definitely incorrect and your argument has nothing to stand on". You aren't allowing for the possibility that people aren't convinced by the arguments presented. If a group of people are saying something I think is inaccurate, I am not disrespecting them or saying their views don't exist by not agreeing with them.
With race, it's certainly the latter. I'm not even knocking your personal experience. I'm saying the racial privilege discussion devalues opinions from certain groups deemed to have privilege. You're a poor white, but at least you're white. Others are just poor! You were raised in a single parent family, but you still possess white privilege. I'm taking Drone's argument that the happiness in poor whites suffers from high expectations to reality (wrong), and arguing that it actually just lowers their self-worth and it's wrong for educators and society to harp on that. You want to instill worth and value, not today's divisive identity politics, in young people of all races.
|
On June 01 2018 02:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2018 01:45 Mohdoo wrote:On June 01 2018 00:22 Danglars wrote:On May 31 2018 23:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I've long maintained that the degree to whether people are unhappy with their life is not just dependent on how their reality 'objectively' is, but how their reality compares to their expectation. (basically, happiness equation = reality minus expectation. Simplified, of course, but there's a very strong correlation.)
I think this reasonably well explains why minority kids are better at 'dealing' with an objectively shitty situation - it's more in line with their expectations. Their parents and grandparents all had to deal with strife and hardship. They, in turn, grow up expecting some degree of strife and hardship. The current white parent generation, much less so.
As somewhat of an aside, but because I already started, I think the issue that poor white people have with the concept of 'white privilege' can be viewed through this lens too - because white people are privileged, being poor and white ends up being something that reflects poorly upon them as individuals. Poor and black on the other hand isn't as damning for the individual poor and black person, as systematic injustices made it so that he never really had a chance in the first place. (Appearing so inwardly, and to some degree outwardly). I mean, in reality, the poor white person will usually have had damning elements about his or her socioeconomic background too, granting them real personal opposition to the idea that they are privileged, but it's not internalized to them, and it's not obvious from looking at them.
Basically, being part of a maligned group can be strengthening to maligned individuals, whereas being a maligned individual without any group identity ends up seeming like an even more hopeless and desperate situation.
Then you couple these factors with two other facts; the US places more emphasis on designating winners (and by extension, on losers) than any other western country. So white american 'losers' perceive themselves as bigger losers than minority american losers (because it is to a bigger degree perceived as their own fault), and bigger than white european losers (because the degree to which we designate kids as winners or losers is a bit less of an element here. I'm sure there are differences between european countries too here though, but this is definitely true from a scandinavian perspective. Could be much less so for the UK, for example. ) Add to it that white american losers, who personally feel a degree of hatefulness rarely matched in other countries also have access to guns, and you're starting to get somewhere in explaining the huge difference in school shooting ratios between the US and other comparable countries. I think you're missing the mark. Because poor whites are told they're privileged, they don't enjoy the sympathies (verbal or otherwise) usually afforded to a struggling economic class. You won't find sympathy because your skin color means you're not as bad off as other poor families. Your community is portrayed by the media as a group of isolated, uneducated hicks. Your parents probably voted for Trump because they were driven by anger, race, and nationalism. Your struggles aren't important. Your concerns don't matter--remember, you're white and privileged, so your opinion isn't as valuable as others on problems affecting poor communities. Oh, and by the way, your skin color gave you higher expectations than you should've had for yourself, and that's why you're unhappy. I think the racial privilege bit does more harm to those at the bottom rungs of society, than good. I think you are confusing "I hear your opinion and think it is just straight up wrong" and "your opinion doesn't matter". When someone talks about young earth perspectives, I am not saying their opinion doesn't matter when I say they are wrong. I am saying I disagree with their analysis. I look at carbon dating and say "you are definitely incorrect and your argument has nothing to stand on". You aren't allowing for the possibility that people aren't convinced by the arguments presented. If a group of people are saying something I think is inaccurate, I am not disrespecting them or saying their views don't exist by not agreeing with them. With race, it's certainly the latter. I'm not even knocking your personal experience. I'm saying the racial privilege discussion devalues opinions from certain groups deemed to have privilege. You're a poor white, but at least you're white. Others are just poor! You were raised in a single parent family, but you still possess white privilege. I'm taking Drone's argument that the happiness in poor whites suffers from high expectations to reality (wrong), and arguing that it actually just lowers their self-worth and it's wrong for educators and society to harp on that. You want to instill worth and value, not today's divisive identity politics, in young people of all races.
You don't think young white men are given unfair standards to live up to? Our parents and grandparents had a relatively straightforward path to supporting a family on a single income and college was optional. Much of society harps on millennials as underachieving but wages have risen slower than housing prices. And lots of other stuff.
I think the white privilege thing is poorly communicated. It's not that being white guarantees you success, it means there are less things bringing you down. There are still a variety of factors working against young white men. In the case of the self image and ego, they are still given unrealistic expectations regarding raising a family, buying land and conforming to the American idea of success.
Current economic conditions simply do not allow for nearly the % of young white men to achieve "success" as the conditions in the 50s allowed for. When you factor in student loan debt, you can hardly raise a family on an engineering salary. People used to be able to raise a family on a steel worker salary. Surely I'm not the only one who has been asked by a baby boomer why I'm not as successful as they were when they were my age.
These unfair standards disproportionately impact white males because a larger majority of white males in the 50s were doing well. So more local societies and the larger society as a whole place unfair expectations on white men. Because a lower % of blacks were doing well in the 50s, millennial blacks are not considered failures because of unfair circumstances the way white men are.
|
On June 01 2018 02:17 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2018 02:07 Danglars wrote:On June 01 2018 01:45 Mohdoo wrote:On June 01 2018 00:22 Danglars wrote:On May 31 2018 23:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I've long maintained that the degree to whether people are unhappy with their life is not just dependent on how their reality 'objectively' is, but how their reality compares to their expectation. (basically, happiness equation = reality minus expectation. Simplified, of course, but there's a very strong correlation.)
I think this reasonably well explains why minority kids are better at 'dealing' with an objectively shitty situation - it's more in line with their expectations. Their parents and grandparents all had to deal with strife and hardship. They, in turn, grow up expecting some degree of strife and hardship. The current white parent generation, much less so.
As somewhat of an aside, but because I already started, I think the issue that poor white people have with the concept of 'white privilege' can be viewed through this lens too - because white people are privileged, being poor and white ends up being something that reflects poorly upon them as individuals. Poor and black on the other hand isn't as damning for the individual poor and black person, as systematic injustices made it so that he never really had a chance in the first place. (Appearing so inwardly, and to some degree outwardly). I mean, in reality, the poor white person will usually have had damning elements about his or her socioeconomic background too, granting them real personal opposition to the idea that they are privileged, but it's not internalized to them, and it's not obvious from looking at them.
Basically, being part of a maligned group can be strengthening to maligned individuals, whereas being a maligned individual without any group identity ends up seeming like an even more hopeless and desperate situation.
Then you couple these factors with two other facts; the US places more emphasis on designating winners (and by extension, on losers) than any other western country. So white american 'losers' perceive themselves as bigger losers than minority american losers (because it is to a bigger degree perceived as their own fault), and bigger than white european losers (because the degree to which we designate kids as winners or losers is a bit less of an element here. I'm sure there are differences between european countries too here though, but this is definitely true from a scandinavian perspective. Could be much less so for the UK, for example. ) Add to it that white american losers, who personally feel a degree of hatefulness rarely matched in other countries also have access to guns, and you're starting to get somewhere in explaining the huge difference in school shooting ratios between the US and other comparable countries. I think you're missing the mark. Because poor whites are told they're privileged, they don't enjoy the sympathies (verbal or otherwise) usually afforded to a struggling economic class. You won't find sympathy because your skin color means you're not as bad off as other poor families. Your community is portrayed by the media as a group of isolated, uneducated hicks. Your parents probably voted for Trump because they were driven by anger, race, and nationalism. Your struggles aren't important. Your concerns don't matter--remember, you're white and privileged, so your opinion isn't as valuable as others on problems affecting poor communities. Oh, and by the way, your skin color gave you higher expectations than you should've had for yourself, and that's why you're unhappy. I think the racial privilege bit does more harm to those at the bottom rungs of society, than good. I think you are confusing "I hear your opinion and think it is just straight up wrong" and "your opinion doesn't matter". When someone talks about young earth perspectives, I am not saying their opinion doesn't matter when I say they are wrong. I am saying I disagree with their analysis. I look at carbon dating and say "you are definitely incorrect and your argument has nothing to stand on". You aren't allowing for the possibility that people aren't convinced by the arguments presented. If a group of people are saying something I think is inaccurate, I am not disrespecting them or saying their views don't exist by not agreeing with them. With race, it's certainly the latter. I'm not even knocking your personal experience. I'm saying the racial privilege discussion devalues opinions from certain groups deemed to have privilege. You're a poor white, but at least you're white. Others are just poor! You were raised in a single parent family, but you still possess white privilege. I'm taking Drone's argument that the happiness in poor whites suffers from high expectations to reality (wrong), and arguing that it actually just lowers their self-worth and it's wrong for educators and society to harp on that. You want to instill worth and value, not today's divisive identity politics, in young people of all races. You don't think young white men are given unfair standards to live up to? Our parents and grandparents had a relatively straightforward path to supporting a family on a single income and college was optional. Much of society harps on millennials as underachieving but wages have risen slower than housing prices. And lots of other stuff. I think the white privilege thing is poorly communicated. It's not that being white guarantees you success, it means there are less things bringing you down. There are still a variety of factors working against young white men. In the case of the self image and ego, they are still given unrealistic expectations regarding raising a family, buying land and conforming to the American idea of success. Current economic conditions simply do not allow for nearly the % of young white men to achieve "success" as the conditions in the 50s allowed for. When you factor in student loan debt, you can hardly raise a family on an engineering salary. People used to be able to raise a family on a steel worker salary. Surely I'm not the only one who has been asked by a baby boomer why I'm not as successful as they were when they were my age. These unfair standards disproportionately impact white males because a larger majority of white males in the 50s were doing well. So more local societies and the larger society as a whole place unfair expectations on white men. Because a lower % of blacks were doing well in the 50s, millennial blacks are not considered failures because of unfair circumstances the way white men are.
I think young men are given unfair standards, not young white men as a matter of race.
I think too much has been made of what white privilege gets you. It detracts from your individual worth. It is a net detriment to being taught to young people. For reasons I just mentioned in the previous post, not here.
I think young men have barriers to success, but I don't think it's useful for pointing out race like race has some big role to play. The white son of a doctor and the black son of a doctor, the poor white man raised by a single parent, the poor black man raised by a single parent. I reject these shifting hierarchies of privilege and think the real focus should be on challenges to the individual, secondarily to generational and educational challenges. I'm in no way suggesting there aren't big problems to fix in America.
I'll agree to certain generational expectations at the community level, but not ipso facto from your race. The son of a factory worker may be expected to form a family on an unskilled income, not because his parents were white, but because his parents were uneducated and raised him. Not because more white people as a race had more or less of those circumstances as a population whole, but because of his family upbringing. Statistical differences in incomes does not mean the individual feels societal weight "as a whole" like you're forced to adopt racial feelings of inferiority or superiority based on how well or poorly your race did in the past. What about your income, your family situation, your local community's expectations of success, your school education quality, your social group, gang recruitment in your area, drug usage in your area, average percentage of alcoholics in your area, your religion, your romantic relationships? We have to slice population privilege along the dividing lines of race because someone can put the group statistics on a chart? No, absolutely not. Racial expectations are no useful way of categorizing happiness. I can parade another group designation before you and group those educated in poorly performing schools, or raised by single parents, or whose parents were addicted to opiates, or who were raised to work the farm like every generation previous, or who were raised to aim for postgrad work, and have them tell you what societal weight they felt ... and how many are going to say my skin color did it?
|
On May 31 2018 22:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +Trump to impose total ban on luxury German cars: report
President Trump wants to impose a total ban on the imports of German luxury cars, according to a new report from CNBC and German magazine WirtschaftsWoche.
Several U.S. and European diplomats told the news outlets that Trump told French President Emmanuel Macron about his plans last month during a state visit.
Trump reportedly told Macron that he would maintain the ban until no Mercedes-Benz cars are seen on Fifth Avenue in New York.
Shares of Daimler, Porsche and Volkswagen were lower on Thursday, shortly after the weekly German business magazine published the report.
The Hill has reached out to the Trump White House for comment.
The report comes a week after Trump ordered Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to investigate auto tariffs and probe whether car imports are a danger to national security. A similar national security argument was used when Trump placed steep tariffs on aluminum and steel imports in March.
Trump and congressional Republicans are preparing to clash over the proposed tariffs, which could be as high as 25 percent. http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/390009-trump-to-impose-total-ban-on-luxury-german-cars-report I don't understand why he would ban German luxury cars. Is it to get back at Angela Merkel for having a backbone and standing up to him? Does he think cars are a threat to national security? Does he want to force Americans to buy fewer foreign cars?
I thought we were already screwing around with German cars. One of my coworkers bought an Audi and it got stuck in customs at the port for months for no reason.
|
The new accusations exacerbate an existing crisis for prosecutors, who already admitted last week to hiding one 55-minute video and misrepresented edits they made to another video. That initial screw-up, known to lawyers as a Brady violation, already jeopardized the case.
But that initial, single Brady violation is actually part of a much broader pattern of evidence-concealing, the lawyers now say. The government has concealed another 69 separate recordings — three audio files and 66 videos — of planning meetings for the Inauguration protests known as #DisruptJ20, defense lawyers say in the motion.
The recordings, which were made by employees of the right-wing Project Veritas, purportedly show defendants discussing de-escalation tactics and their intent not to initiate physical violence with anyone unless they are attacked first. The prosecutor had previously told the judge that no recordings existed from the meetings where the newly revealed audio and videos were made.
“The Government has succeeded in misleading over 200 co-defendants, their attorneys, and three Honorable Superior Court Judges to believe there were only seven videos in its possession from Project Veritas,” attorney Andrew Clarke wrote in the filing. “Only by Order of the Court and more recently, its own disclosures, we now know the truth, that the Government withheld 69 additional recordings by Project Veritas and altered others.”
For more than a year, the government has relied on undercover recordings made by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas team to support its case against participants in the march. After initially charging more than 200 people who were rounded up in a mass arrest that day with felonies, and seeing the first six people tried acquitted on all counts in December, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Kerkhoff dropped cases against all but 59 of the accused. thinkprogress.org
Today I learned that Trump's government has not only been relying on videos produced by Project Veritas to prosecute people who protested at Trump's inauguration, but they withheld a vast majority of them from the defense.
Put this right next to Trump pardoning Dinesh D'Souza for breaking the law to try to help a Republican get elected. This is something I expect out of Erdogan's Turkey, not the USA.
|
it looks like i'm moving to the USA. I love new york.
|
On June 01 2018 03:28 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
it looks like i'm moving to the USA. I love new york.
Did I miss something?
|
|
|
Maybe Charles and David Koch should visit congress and explain why their pet attack dogs is out there feeding false evidence to the FBI?
|
On June 01 2018 03:28 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2018 03:28 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
it looks like i'm moving to the USA. I love new york. Did I miss something?
i live near Toronto, Ontario. Over the last 12 years Ontario's hydro production costs went from the lowest in NA to the highest in NA. This has decimated the private sector.
We now have a trade war that harms the synergies between the New York and Ontario economies.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-steel-deadline-1.4685242
1/2 of Canada's steel production is exported directly to the USA.
Ontario's economy relies on selling stuff to New York state. The trade war will hurt Ontario and Canada a lot more than the USA and New York. So I'm heading to New York.
|
On June 01 2018 03:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2018 03:28 Mohdoo wrote:On June 01 2018 03:28 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
it looks like i'm moving to the USA. I love new york. Did I miss something? i live near Toronto, Ontario. Over the last 12 years Ontario's hydro production costs went from the lowest in NA to the highest in NA. This has decimated the private sector. We now have a trade war that harms the synergies between the New York and Ontario economies. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-steel-deadline-1.46852421/2 of Canada's steel production is exported directly to the USA. Ontario's economy relies on selling stuff to New York state. The trade war will hurt Ontario and Canada a lot more than the USA and New York. So I'm heading to New York.
Welcome!
|
Just don’t go to NYC and you will be fine. Unless you like paying way to much for pretty much everything. Then move to NYC.
Also we need that steel from Canada to do things in this economy. Its not like there is a second Canada sized steel market our companies can just go to. So for now this means US companies will pay more taxes for steel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
