Politics 2020

[213374U]

18 minutes ago, Malcador said:

At the very least, you need to install spyware to watch the denizens.

[Malcador]

TIme to burn this identity.

[Gromnir]

56 minutes ago, 213374U said:

A core component of the alt-right narrative is trampolining off of the libs' ridiculous focus on idpol, though.

"idpol"? another shibboleth wielder.

selective quotes and a general misrepresentation o' mlk does not help your position.

mlk, was not in favor o' the "black power" phrase. true. mlk focus were indeed on economic equality. is one reason we keep stressing how is the economic pain being suffered by many disenfranchised groups which should be the focus o' those wishing to bring 'bout change.

however, reimagine mlk to fit your preferred version o' him is unsound. mlk would be disappointed by the inability o' those who identify as blm to better disavow and stop violence, but imply the mlk message were less 'bout race than class struggle is untenable.

maybe need the full i have a dream speech

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

...

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.

again, am convinced mlk would decry the occasional violence, but am having no doubt he would support blm and what that loose confederation o' people and ideals represents. 

that said, Gromnir has noted more than once, and previous to the whole alt-right exploitation o' widespread white grievance bit, that the insistence on framing broader social issues as the result o' racism or as a result o' white privilege does have a tendency to further aggravate that considerable body o' white voters who has been suffering disproportionate for many years. tell a former factory worker in indiana who is working three part-time jobs and is getting further behind every month as he struggles to support his wife and two kids that he should also feel guilt 'bout his white privilege is not helping bring him into the democrat party fold. yes, the way in which overt zoning restrictions and more subtle home loan preferences denied minorities from having the same home ownership opportunities for generations (and lasting well into the 70s) created a legacy o' racial inequality, a legacy with repercussions still felt today, and unlikely to spontaneous end anytime in the near future. systemic racism is not a past tense issue, but am cognizant o' the reality that such issues cannot be framed so overt as it antagonizes that considerable body o' white voters who is also suffering. working class white voters is a reality and 2016 proved it is unwise to ignore 'em. hillary was certain she didn't need 'em. deplorables. more fool her. 

HA! Good Fun!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Speaking of MLK, the political cartoons of him when he was still alive are interesting and topical. http://www.kleefeldoncomics.com/2016/01/on-history-mlk-cartoons-of-yesteryear.html?m=1

Really makes you think those condemning the present protests would have opposed the civil rights movement for being too violent and supported police brutalizing people they don't like. Kinda funny some things don't change.

I used to believe "idpol" (for which I've never seen a consistent definition, seemingly everyone has their own conception) was a motivator for the rise of the alt-right, but after having had years of experience talking to them I think they already held those views (perhaps in a more mild form) and would have emerged regardless of annoying liberal pundits badgering them about being ****. The "idpol" seems to be something they (media personalities) seek out to get offended by, like trawling youtube and blogsites for some 15 second clip of 20ish kids yelling to feed their audience of braindead bootlickers.

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

that said, Gromnir has noted more than once, and previous to the whole alt-right exploitation o' widespread white grievance bit, that the insistence on framing broader social issues as the result o' racism or as a result o' white privilege does have a tendency to further aggravate that considerable body o' white voters who has been suffering disproportionate for many years.

agreeing with most everything you said here. From where I sit though, it seems to me that these white voters are happy to take a hard pass on anything that would help them if it meant that anyone else might benefit also.

So, one might argue that this considerable body of white voters has taken itself hostage and refuses to negotiate.

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, 213374U said:

The American "left" can't crash and burn soon enough if you ask me.

Agreed. But the alt-right needs to go with it.

The alt-right might be trampolining off of identity politics now, but let's not forget that the reason it has any prominence is because we had the audacity to elect a black president.

I'd like to think we have the capacity to dislike more than one set of bad ideas at a time.

[ComradeYellow]

When I think "left" I think of finding the poor and downtrodden people who have no voice and creating a movement that reasonably accommodates their needs and desires, not Idpol.

The problem is mostly alt-right types trying to stifle genuine "left" movements as purely "anti-white" or "business crushing".  Such behavior ironically creates more of what exactly they're afraid of from the so-called "left".

It's like someone's trying to manufacture a race war or something and people biting it hook line and sinker.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ComradeMaster said:

When I think "left" I think of finding the poor and downtrodden people who have no voice and creating a movement that reasonably accommodates their needs and desires, not Idpol.

The problem is mostly alt-right types trying to stifle genuine "left" movements as purely "anti-white" or "business crushing".  Such behavior ironically creates more of what exactly they're afraid of from the so-called "left".

It's like someone's trying to manufacture a race war or something and people biting it hook line and sinker.

 I think this speaks to the importance of defining terms (all the time) and avoiding labels (as much as possible).

"The left", as it's commonly used now, thinks that capitalizing the word "white" is the only hope of curing racism and that including your preferred pronouns in your email signature is an important thing to do. It speaks in the language of intersectionality and microaggressions. As @213374U said, this needs to go.

I think the way you're using it above is probably a bit closer to what would have been referred to as "liberalism" in the 90's and 00's. Coincidentally, there are some that would argue that it's actually the definition of "conservatism". The differences existing in the means, not the goals.

The problem, as I think @Gromnir was trying to define it (apologies to him in advance if I butcher this), is that there is a segment of white voters who are having a really rough go of it lately. They see their cohort as the only legitimate heirs to the term "citizen" and feel threatened by any progress that doesn't solely benefit them. So while "white privilege" is a thing, they don't have the perspective to see it, and hearing about it feels like some sort of cultural brainwashing (that they feel obligated to fight against).

From the minority perspective, the majority gets to enjoy certain benefits, even if their individual lives are very hard (i.e. the average poor white person has it much better than the average poor black person). You have to be a soulless, possibly probably definitely racist ***hole not to see this. This is more evidence that this entire society is against me. 

From the majority perspective, you must be ****ing crazy to say that I have "privilege", when I'm struggling to pay my bills, my job is about to be given to a robot, and my brother just died from an opioid overdose. The fact that we're even talking about this is more evidence that this entire society is against me. 

It's entirely possible that this is manufactured. I think an utter lack of perspective-taking and communication is a much more plausible explanation though.

My 2 cents.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Achilles

[ComradeYellow]

26 minutes ago, Achilles said:

I think the way you're using it above is probably a bit closer to what would have been referred to as "liberalism" in the 90's and 00's. Coincidentally, there are some that would argue that it's actually the definition of "conservatism". 

What?  "Liberalism in the 90's and 00's" was all about neoliberalism, corporate expansionism, Wall Street and money, as Bill Clinton put the final nail in coffin as the Democratic Party being the "New Deal" Party.  (The New Deal was the American version of "left" in the 20th century, as the Republican Party's pro-industry, anti-slavery, pro-tariff, laissez faire economics was considered "left" in America in the 19th century).

Look, America has always been an ass backwards country in regards to new developments.  As the Communists were writing the Communist Manifesto in the 1840's, criticizing modern industrial capitalism in Europe, America was in the process of "finally" integrating it with the Republican Party. 

Point being, it's kind of hard to define what "left" means in the U.S. because we're already backwards enough as it is and there is literally no political movement that could be considered "left" because even Bernie Sanders was operating in the confines of Democratic Party orthodoxy which is not left at all.

[Guest]

I remember the 90's differently, but whatever.

The point being that how "the left" is colloquially used now is different than how you're using it.

And if Bernie doesn't pass your "left" purity test, then I'm really not sure I want to see who does

[ComradeYellow]

6 minutes ago, Achilles said:

And if Bernie doesn't pass your "left" purity test, then I'm really not sure I want to see who does

I consider Bernie left-liberal, whilst I'd consider myself left-libertarian. I guess you could call that "Socialism with American values" if you wanted to.

Put simply, left-liberals seem to want to adopt the Euro model, whilst I reckon we have our own way of doing things over here.

[Zoraptor]

41 minutes ago, Achilles said:

"The left", as it's commonly used now, thinks that capitalizing the word "white" is the only hope of curing racism and that including your preferred pronouns in your email signature is an important thing to do. It speaks in the language of intersectionality and microaggressions.

The critical problem there is that all too often being overtly 'progressive' is the only leftist stuff those people actually do, because it's easy to complain on Twitter and there's a built in audience for it. If you were supporting Hillary over Bernie in 2016 you weren't a leftist no matter if you were voting for a woman because she was a woman, you're at best a centrist because all Hillary's important stuff was status quo centre right economic and aggressive foreign policy orthodoxy with a few minimal garnishes to appeal to people who wanted Bernie and a bunch of identity policy hand waving.

Indeed, the whole 'Bernie Bro' thing could not have been better crafted to illustrate how moronic the pseudo left's approach was. Sure, label the people you want to vote for your candidate as a bunch of young aggressive white guys bullying and yelling at poor delicate Hillary supporters. What are they going to do, vote for Trump?

A: nope, just not vote. Then you lose the election because you needed 100k votes in critical states...

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

The critical problem there is that all too often being overtly 'progressive' is the only leftist stuff those people actually do, because it's easy to complain on Twitter and there's a built in audience for it. If you were supporting Hillary over Bernie in 2016 you weren't a leftist no matter if you were voting for a woman because she was a woman, you're at best a centrist because all Hillary's important stuff was status quo centre right economic and aggressive foreign policy orthodoxy with a few minimal garnishes to appeal to people who wanted Bernie and a bunch of identity policy hand waving.

Indeed, the whole 'Bernie Bro' thing could not have been better crafted to illustrate how moronic the pseudo left's approach was. Sure, label the people you want to vote for your candidate as a bunch of young aggressive white guys bullying and yelling at poor delicate Hillary supporters. What are they going to do, vote for Trump?

 

  Hide contents

A: nope, just not vote. Then you lose the election because you needed 100k votes in critical states...

 

You say "centrist" like it's a bad thing

Re: Bernie Bros, I'm not sure I follow. Is your argument that there weren't Bernie supporters being ***holes or that Hillary made a mistake in vilifying them?

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

Put simply, left-liberals seem to want to adopt the Euro model, whilst I reckon we have our own way of doing things over here.

Thanks for taking the time to share your definitions.

[ComradeYellow]

22 minutes ago, Achilles said:

You say "centrist" like it's a bad thing

I think the point here is that there's a significant portion of the American population (along with foreign supporters of reactionary/alt-right movements) that considers Clinton and co "far left", which is both highly erroneous and dangerous and will probably lead to Civil War if a genuine left wing movement actually manifests itself.

[Elerond]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/09/22/covid-funds-pentagon/

"A $1 billion fund Congress gave the Pentagon in March to build up the country’s supplies of medical equipment has instead been mostly funneled to defense contractors and used to make things such as jet engine parts, body armor and dress uniforms."

 

It is good that decisions made by Congress matter

[Zoraptor]

22 minutes ago, Achilles said:

You say "centrist" like it's a bad thing

Re: Bernie Bros, I'm not sure I follow. Is your argument that there weren't Bernie supporters being ***holes or that Hillary made a mistake in vilifying them?

Centrism is basically maintenance of the overall status quo, so if the status quo is bad then centrism is a bad thing. There may, of course, be worse alternatives to it though.

There certainly were some people who'd fit the Bernie Bro moniker, there are always such for all political movements. But the objection to the moniker in general would be twofold:

Firstly, on the practical front, it was counterproductive since it didn't encourage people to vote for Clinton, rather the reverse. That ended up being a bit of a running theme with her campaign though, she took votes for granted when she wan't pointlessly alienating others. That, in the end, is how she contrived to lose to Trump.

Secondly, and more relevant to why it's typical of the stereotype progressive 'left' it was used mostly to try and shut people up rather than because Bernie Bros actually existed. Having and expressing opinions that others disagree with is not being aggressive, and a lot of the identity politics stuff reduces, ultimately, to trying to get people who disagree with you to shut up by labeling them as being --ist (sexist, mostly for Bernie Bros) so that only your opinion gets expressed. Hillary stans might be disappointed that not everyone supported her acritically, but they shouldn't have been. Bernie Bro had exactly the same purpose and function as 'libcuck' had for Trump supporters; it was an easy way to dismiss those expressing certain views without addressing the view itself.

And, of course and as typical with most such things, Bernie Bro is itself an --ist term; they might genuinely believe that no true woman could go against her X chromosome and prefer Bernie (or Trump for that matter) over Hillary, but that wasn't reality. Indeed, ironically, libcuck is actually less --ist than Bernie Bro.

[Malcador]

41 minutes ago, Elerond said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/09/22/covid-funds-pentagon/

"A $1 billion fund Congress gave the Pentagon in March to build up the country’s supplies of medical equipment has instead been mostly funneled to defense contractors and used to make things such as jet engine parts, body armor and dress uniforms."

 

It is good that decisions made by Congress matter

The morass has been drained.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

Centrism is basically maintenance of the overall status quo, so if the status quo is bad then centrism is a bad thing. There may, of course, be worse alternatives to it though.

So, your definition above is how I'm used to seeing "conservatism" used. Maintain status quo, emphasize tradition over change, and so on.

By way of contrast, a "centrist" is someone who has a mix of liberal and conservative view. By extension, "centrism" would be taking political views from "both sides".

I don't think there's anything wrong about acknowledging that no single ideology has all the good (or the bad) ideas.

Quote

There certainly were some people who'd fit the Bernie Bro moniker, there are always such for all political movements. But the objection to the moniker in general would be twofold:

Firstly, on the practical front, it was counterproductive since it didn't encourage people to vote for Clinton, rather the reverse. That ended up being a bit of a running theme with her campaign though, she took votes for granted when she wan't pointlessly alienating others. That, in the end, is how she contrived to lose to Trump.

Agreed. I don't know to what extent she or her campaign are responsible for the term "Bernie Bro" (I was under the impression it was coined via social media). I do think she made a grievous error with "deplorables". Which speaks to the extent that she took a lot of **** for granted.

Quote

Secondly, and more relevant to why it's typical of the stereotype progressive 'left' it was used mostly to try and shut people up rather than because Bernie Bros actually existed. Having and expressing opinions that others disagree with is not being aggressive, and a lot of the identity politics stuff reduces, ultimately, to trying to get people who disagree with you to shut up by labeling them as being --ist (sexist, mostly for Bernie Bros) so that only your opinion gets expressed. Hillary stans might be disappointed that not everyone supported her acritically, but they shouldn't have been. Bernie Bro had exactly the same purpose and function as 'libcuck' had for Trump supporters; it was an easy way to dismiss those expressing certain views without addressing the view itself.

And, of course and as typical with most such things, Bernie Bro is itself an --ist term; they might genuinely believe that no true woman could go against her X chromosome and prefer Bernie (or Trump for that matter) over Hillary, but that wasn't reality. Indeed, ironically, libcuck is actually less --ist than Bernie Bro.

Yeah, I don't know on this one. It may be that I only remember the ***holes, but I sure do recall seeing a lot of them. Not just in 2016 but in the 2020 primaries, as well. In fact, I know that Sanders himself asked his supporters to tone it down, to no great effect.

Your larger point seems to be that politicians should do a better job of being nice to voters, especially the ones that they don't agree with and that Hillary wasn't particularly great at it. On that, I agree.

[Darkpriest]

2 hours ago, Achilles said:

there is a segment of white voters who are having a really rough go of it lately. They see their cohort as the only legitimate heirs to the term "citizen" and feel threatened by any progress that doesn't solely benefit them. So while "white privilege" is a thing, they don't have the perspective to see it, and hearing about it feels like some sort of cultural brainwashing (that they feel obligated to fight against).

From the minority perspective, the majority gets to enjoy certain benefits, even if their individual lives are very hard (i.e. the average poor white person has it much better than the average poor black person). You have to be a soulless, possibly probably definitely racist ***hole not to see this. This is more evidence that this entire society is against me. 

From the majority perspective, you must be ****ing crazy to say that I have "privilege", when I'm struggling to pay my bills, my job is about to be given to a robot, and my brother just died from an opioid overdose. The fact that we're even talking about this is more evidence that this entire society is against me. 

It's entirely possible that this is manufactured. I think an utter lack of perspective-taking and communication is a much more plausible explanation though.

My 2 cents.

I think there are a few more dimensions here. 

A) what you describe is very US centric or colonial powers centric (excluding Germans, who by their actions now try to re-admit back to human race after their actions in the early 20th century) 

B) Shouldn't majority have some more bargain power and benefits in their own local majority? Isn't that what democracy is at its current understanding? The one who has majority, has the power over others? That said, there should be no legal limitations and privilages based on identity. You can't wish away or control basic instincts of a human being - unconcious bias and ingroup/outgroup bias. You can try to educate and hope enough individuals will be sufficiently self aware of such instincts, so they can attemt to hold some control over it in times of peace and prosperity. 

C) it seems such actions are weighted towards a specific skin color characteristic, even though it is not even a relative majority in worlds population. At the same time, you do not see similar treatments of minorities in other parts of the world. See Asia and Africa. It means that some may feel threathened that they are losing their safe space in the world for their own kind and their progeny. 

D) once acquired privilages are unlikely to be given up, if the composition of the population will change. You can see that in areas, where immigrants from vastly different culture became majority at a local level. 

 

I'm sure there is sufficient material for someone to get a Ph. D. in social sciences and antropology covering this topic

 

EDIT: NOTE - unconcious bias and ingroup/outgroup bias can have many different manifestations, so please do not limit understanding of it to skin/religion/gender 

Edited September 22, 2020 by Darkpriest

[Gromnir]

none of the female candidates trump is s'posed considering for the nomination pass hawley's test. 

you want some irony?

up until a week ago, the only Justice on the Supreme Court who had public stated previous to sitting on the Court that roe v. wade were improper decided were... J. Ginsburg. 

The forgotten history of Justice Ginsburg’s criticism of Roe v. Wade

HA! Good Fun!

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

I think there are a few more dimensions here. 

A) what you describe is very US centric or colonial powers centric (excluding Germans, who by their actions now try to re-admit back to human race after their actions in the early 20th century) 

B) Shouldn't majority have some more bargain power and benefits in their own local majority? Isn't that what democracy is at its current understanding? The one who has majority, has the power over others? That said, there should be no legal limitations and privilages based on identity. You can't wish away or control basic instincts of a human being - unconcious bias and ingroup/outgroup bias. You can try to educate and hope enough individuals will be sufficiently self aware of such instincts, so they can attemt to hold some control over it in times of peace and prosperity. 

C) it seems such actions are weighted towards a specific skin color characteristic, even though it is not even a relative majority in worlds population. At the same time, you do not see similar treatments of minorities in other parts of the world. See Asia and Africa. It means that some may feel threathened that they are losing their safe space in the world for their own kind and their progeny. 

D) once acquired privilages are unlikely to be given up, if the composition of the population will change. You can see that in areas, where immigrants from vastly different culture became majority at a local level. 

 

I'm sure there is sufficient material for someone to get a Ph. D. in social sciences and antropology covering this topic

I'll try to coherently take these in turn:

A) Yes, you're absolutely right and I probably should have done a better job of calling this out (and will try to do better in the future). There's enough political nuance to track in the U.S. that I would defer citizens of other countries to speak to their own current events.

B) Operative word here is "should". Consider this hypothetical situation:

1. I'm a member of a particular religious tribe
2. My tribe is in the majority in my country
3. Because my tribe is in the majority my government makes all of my religious observances national holidays
4. Members of all other tribes get "my" holidays off as well, however they have to use vacation time (assuming that is a benefit offered by their employer) for their religious observances 

This is a privilege of being a member of my religious tribe.

If my tribe were ever to lose its majority status and some other religious tribe rose to prominence, then it stands to reason that their religious observances would become the national holidays and then that would be a privilege of being a member of that tribe.

"Should" this be the way things are?

C) In my analysis, it's not just a race thing. There is a class component as well, though the two mingle in ways that make it difficult to track one without influencing the other.

D) Agreed. That's a good assessment of where things are at in the U.S. Estimates say that whites will be the racial minority here within the next 30 years. This really freaks some people out and I think that's where a lot of this tension is coming from. Interestingly, "immigrants from vastly different cultures becoming the majority" is more commonly known as "white people" here

[Orogun01]

13 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

Every ideology has its fans, there's people in Cuba and Venezuela who support their governments wholeheartedly.

I think the biggest issue here people have is lack of Democracy rather than different economic approaches.  Look at Europe at the 2nd half of the 20th century.  Socialist parties were all over the place and doing well and when the pendulum swung in the 1980's or so they started waning in popularity.  Democracy.

EDIT:  China is a whole different animal.  There's no legitimate democracy there but their government is able to adapt to popular moods and change accordingly unike the U.S.

An expert on Chinese affairs once said that in China you can't change the Party but you can change the policy, in the U.S. you can change the Party but you can't change the policy.

I think there's a lot of validity to that.

I agree that there's a diversity of views but it takes  a special type of person that will support a dictatorship. Venezuela still enjoys certain doubts because their government doesn't have a past as violent as the Cuban (AIFK). There were purges, the Mariel incident were dissidents and other undesirable elements were sent over, open discrimination against homosexuals ,and the dictatorship is still very open about their corruption. People in Cuban politics are either idealistic and think they can bring about change or shamelessly evil. Saying that it is a lack of Democracy is an understatement when I know Cuba has violated human rights time and time again.
The focus on Democracy comes from trying to counteract some of the more appealing positions socialist parties and institutions make. Because Americans are pretty involved in their political process and because of the Bill of Rights, they rightfully fear a government that would deny them that.

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, Achilles said:

Agreed. I don't know to what extent she or her campaign are responsible for the term "Bernie Bro" (I was under the impression it was coined via social media). I do think she made a grievous error with "deplorables". Which speaks to the extent that she took a lot of **** for granted.
 

Bit post facto, but her attitude to Bernie voters after the 2016 election and in 2020 suggests she was certainly... not in disagreement with the Bernie Bro stereotype even if she didn't personally and actively promote it. Promoting stuff she didn't want to say personally was, after all, what Correct the Record/ Shareblue et alia were for; also there was the rather ridiculous SM campaign they instituted against Pepe for being a 'racist symbol' so it isn't like they didn't have form.

HRC was such an awful candidate and bad loser that it is certainly easy to associate every bad decision to her, but if her supporters were willing to tar Bernie with his overenthusiastic supporters then it's certainly fair for the reverse to happen too and she be tarred with her 'bad' supporters. There was certainly a lot of attempts to blame Bernie for the loss in 2016- "didn't campaign enough for Hillary" when he had more campaign rallies for Clinton once Hillary was confirmed than Hillary herself had- when they were desperately looking for someone other than the Democratic establishment to blame for the loss.

On conservatism vs centrism, I would generally regard little c conservatists as being centrists in general. In part because what constitutes left and right shifts by country so the US Democratic Party in New Zealand would be solidly right wing, not left wing. But in both places the bulk of the two big parties are staunchly status quo when it comes to big ticket non social items and differ mostly on implementation and details. OTOH big C Conservatism is strongly embedded in right wing politics.

I'd probably make the same observation about liberalism too for most countries, but the US definition of 'liberal' has diverged far too much from other countries' usage.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Zoraptor

[Orogun01]

6 hours ago, Gromnir said:

mlk, was not in favor o' the "black power" phrase. true. mlk focus were indeed on economic equality. is one reason we keep stressing how is the economic pain being suffered by many disenfranchised groups which should be the focus o' those wishing to bring 'bout change.

As a first generation immigrant I can tell you for certain that anyone can prosper in this country. People that have barely the basics of English have made a decent living, for having left their lives behind and started anew, I'd say that's a pretty good place. More so their offspring that have had more time to adapt will likely make it further than them.

As a former ghetto resident, I can say that a lot of the economic pain is self inflicted and stems from cultural problems rather than systemic ones. If there's a systemic problem it might be the welfare state that incentivizes indolence and poverty

Tomas Sowell has spoken a lot about this and his background is as someone from one of these communities. I find his take on the difference of a pre welfare Harlem to what it became.

It is also worthy of note that the group that claims to care more about minorities is also the group that's very supportive of heavy taxation. California and NY will do a big show about how they care about minorities while have some of the biggest taxes in the country. If the purpose of welfare programs is to help people out of poverty why are they so keen to take their money when they're just barely out of the poverty threshold?