Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[rmnka447]

"Of all people surprised that I became an evangelical Christian, I'm the most surprised."

Kristen Powers

 

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/november/fox-news-highly-reluctant-jesus-follower-kirsten-powers.html

 

Care to try again?

 

Sure, her conversion to Catholicism was revealed definitely after the date of this article which was 2013.

 

In any case, what does a person's religion or non-religion have to do with their political views? It should be a non-issue.

 

One of the tactics, that Kirsten documents in her book, which the illiberal left use to delegitimize liberals who question or criticize liberal doctrine is to label them "closet conservatives". Evangelical Christians tend to be conservative. So trying to label Kirsten an evangelical certainly looks like a good example of this ploy to me.

 

 

edit - Same source as your article, an article entitled "Pope Francis' Latest Convert: Kirsten Powers", 10/9/2015

[mikeh]

Sorry folks, the Democrats stopped being the 'reality-based' community about the time Obama was being sworn in.

 

We've tried it your way for 50+ years. Before President Trump, America has been in freefall. We used to be the sole military & economic superpower. We had high social capital. We used to reward excellence & value thrift & hard work. A family, even a fairly large one, could thrive with only one blue-collar breadwinner. Our schools taught skills that were useful instead of gibberish. Our mass media was mostly honest/accurate & there were serious repercussions when they deliberately weren't. Americans overwhelmingly were happy, law-abiding & productive & didn't need a myriad of psych meds to cope with their existence. We went to the moon. We honored mothers and fathers. Each generation had it better than the last.

 

Then the baby boomers came along & decided degeneracy, anarchy, welfare, psych meds, narcissism & hedonism was the answer to every problem.

 

Well you can say it over and over again, you can sit in your echo chamber until the cows come home, but LOOK AROUND, it just ain't so.

 

 

Hmmm....I know it is useless to argue reality with you but it is amusing, in a sad way, to make the attempt.

 

The USA enjoyed enormous competitive advantages over the rest of the industrialized world by the early 20th century. It has a large, rapidly growing internal market. It has near-infinite (it seemed to those at the time) natural resources and a rapidly growing workforce, supplemented by massive immigration. Almost by definition, immigrants tend to be the ones who are more risk-friendly than the people who stay at home, and more willing to work hard. This has nothing to do with ethnicity and everything to do with being the sort of person willing to make the decision to leave home for a strange land.

 

WW1 increased the competitive advantage, in part by bankrupting the main European protagonists, and in part by allowing the US to stay on the sidelines, selling goods and lending money to the protagonists, with the result that by the end of the war, the main European economic powers were either defeated militarily, and about to suffer the punitive terms of the Treaty of Versailles, or hugely in debt to the US.

 

The Great Depression, altho largely a creation of mistaken fiscal policies by the US, France and the UK, impacted the entire industrial world. The US suffered greatly, but Germany, already weakened by the results of the war, suffered horrific inflation and profound political instability, with the results we all know. France and the UK, already impoverished, fell further behind.

 

Then WW2 occurred, and once more the US was able to sit on the sidelines and make a huge amount of money. The Depression ended with the outbreak of WW2, in part because the Allies, and in particular, the UK were forced to buy food and war materiel from the US, which used that money to expand its industrial base.

 

The end of WW2 saw virtually all industrial societies, other than the US, in ruins, both physically and economically. In addition, all such countries, as with WW1, suffered the loss of very large numbers of physically and mentally fit men, while the US, with a larger starting population, suffered both absolutely and relatively few casualties.

 

Thus it was that the 1950's saw the USA enjoying unparalleled economic success. It was absorbing an ever-increasing share of the world's resources, and dominating the economic life of many other countries. This was the era in which politicians could say, with no irony intended or understood, that what was good for General Motors was good for America.

 

However, as time went by, the battered economies of former foes rebounded, in large part due to American aid. Make no mistake...America didn't help rebuild Western Europe or Japan out of altruism, but out of an openly acknowledged desire to prevent the spread of Soviet influence.

 

The law of unintended consequences took hold. Both Germany and Japan had seen massive destruction of infrastructure. Thus, when they rebuilt, they did so with the latest technologies and equipment, giving them significant competitive advantages.

 

In addition, and partly as a result of communist ideology and partly due to the collapse of colonialism (which almost always created significant economic drains on the economies of the colonizers, despite the hoped-for advantages of cheap access to resources and markets for goods), many of the countries that used to roll over for American exploiters began exercising some independence. A late but important aspect of this, was the rise of OPEC in the early 1970s, when oil-producing countries decided to stop the oil companies (largely but not only American) from controlling prices.

 

So the rest of industrialized world began to catch up. This was a big problem in the 1980s, with Japan, but has become even more of a problem in recent years because of China.

 

At the same time, innovation has destroyed millions of jobs. Back in the 1970s such was predicted, but most then said that this would lead to a leisure society. What went unaddressed was how the unemployed would pay for this leisure.

 

We do have a leisure society....for the very wealthy and their offspring. Mitt Romney, for example, deducts from his income tax more expenses for his wife's showhorses than most people earn in a year.

 

An anecdote: back in the 1980s my then-firm acted for the buyers of a sawmill, that had employed more than 100 people. They shut it down for about 6 months, and then re-opened, and invited some of the lawyers to tour the renovated facility. The owner proudly told us that they could now utilize well over 90% of any given log, rather than the approximately 85% previously, and that they had doubled output and cut their employess down by 75%. This was all because they had invested in technology.

 

Those 70-80 high paying union jobs were lost forever.

 

The same thing has happened to Detroit. Take a look not at cityscapes but at assembly lines in automobile factories. Where 50 years ago one saw a long line of busy workers, earning high wages and benefits, one now sees rows of robots, with very few humans around.

 

The same is true in warehouses.

 

Even in supermarkets, we now see self-checkout stations, and of course the need for bank tellers is a fraction of what it used to be due to ATMs.

 

This has nothing to do with which party is in power.

 

Blaming the Democrats for Detroit is simply idiotic.

 

Blaming trade deals is only slightly less idiotic. Protectionism never works. It has been tried countless times since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and it always produces worse results than does freer trade. That is not to say that there are no costs. Obviously, free trade will destroy jobs in industries now rendered non-competitive. So the US textile industry is decimated. Ok, what about the truckers, railroad workers, importers, wholesalers and retailers of imported textiles? They now have jobs that, in large part, didn't exist. What about the hundreds of millions who now have quality products available to them at a fraction of what it used to cost?

 

Trump and other protectionists never look at the totality. Voters who pine for the good old days can be forgiven for their ignorance, because politicians keep them ignorant.

 

The failings of the politicians lies not in making free trade deals but in refusing to provide proper assistance for those who would suffer. This is largely a Republican position, since the only way to provide these protections and retraining is by government intervention. There is no profit in this for the winners of the trade deals, and the losers are by definition out of business or unprofitable.

 

I could go on, but I have better things to do than try to educate an intentionally ignorant ideologue.

[Winstonm]

 

 

In any case, what does a person's religion or non-religion have to do with their political views? It should be a non-issue.

Religious non-issue like radical Islamic terrorists?

 

One of the tactics, that Kirsten documents in her book, which the illiberal left use to delegitimize liberals who question or criticize liberal doctrine is to label them "closet conservatives". Evangelical Christians tend to be conservative. So trying to label Kirsten an evangelical certainly looks like a good example of this ploy to me.

What does "closet conservative" have to do with political correctness? For that matter, what would any attempt to de-legitimize anyone have to do with politically correct words? Are you sure you're not confusing political correctness with your personal animus?

[jonottawa]

Childish insults aside, that was a fairly good post, Mike. I was trained in business school to be a 'free trade' acolyte too, but reality intervened. I think 'protectionism never works' is a HUGE overbid. The German economy pre-WWII flourished, in part due to protectionism. The Chinese economic ascendancy was fueled in part by protectionism. But I think we'll get lost in the weeds if we start arguing about that.

 

What I don't get is:

 

If blue-collar, low-skilled jobs are vanishing, why does it make economic sense to flood the country with millions of unskilled immigrants who will vote for politicians that allow in countless more unskilled immigrants? (Or if you disagree with any of the premises of this question, please explain.)

 

Or do you acknowledge that immigration (of unskilled potential workers) TODAY does not make economic sense and should only be done for 'humanitarian' reasons? And should it continue (as 3rd world overpopulation marches on) until our own standard of living drops to a 3rd world level or until when? And if there is a logical stopping point, what makes you think we'll stop once we reach that point?

 

Or to pursue this to its logical extreme: If you could wave a wand and teleport the 50 million poorest people on earth to Canada over the next 5 years, would you do it? If someone's answer to that question is no, does that make her a racist?

[jonottawa]

Another poor 'misunderstood' Hillary supporter :rolleyes:

 

NSFW!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaLa_q4ESd8

 

http://www.wibc.com/blogs/indys-morning-news/melyssa-jo-kelly-example-how-people-treat-police-officers

 

"This is a sign of not only a demented woman, but a dangerous and sick society, one that we just simply have to fix. We should at least not allow it here in Indianapolis

 

This comes out of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Two Des Moines officers were [recently] killed in an ambush-style attack. And in this coffee shop is...Melyssa Jo Kelly. She's older, she's in her sixties, and she's white... . She's being disruptive, she's being rude, she's being asked to leave by the owners of the coffeehouse. She refuses to leave.

 

The cops come and here is this woman, this 65-year-old white woman, and she starts taunting the police. Why are you taking your life out on a cop? Two cops get murdered and your response is 'good' because somebody else is in a hospital bed? The things don't relate.

 

She instigated every step of the way. She wanted a physical confrontation and then she wouldn't leave. And yes, after being asked by the owners to leave, she's screaming and yelling like she's being oppressed.

 

If this is how people are really treating cops, we have a societal problem that is bigger than I ever thought. The good news is, I don't think this is anything in the mainstream."

 

Thank God someone who RESPECTS law enforcement will be our next president.

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/290586-police-union-clinton-snubbed-us

[mikeh]

Childish insults aside, that was a fairly good post, Mike. I was trained in business school to be a 'free trade' acolyte too, but reality intervened. I think 'protectionism never works' is a HUGE overbid. The German economy pre-WWII flourished, in part due to protectionism. The Chinese economic ascendancy was fueled in part by protectionism. But I think we'll get lost in the weeds if we start arguing about that.

 

What I don't get is:

 

If blue-collar, low-skilled jobs are vanishing, why does it make economic sense to flood the country with millions of unskilled immigrants who will vote for politicians that allow in countless more unskilled immigrants? (Or if you disagree with any of the premises of this question, please explain.)

 

Or do you acknowledge that immigration (of unskilled potential workers) TODAY does not make economic sense and should only be done for 'humanitarian' reasons? And should it continue (as 3rd world overpopulation marches on) until our own standard of living drops to a 3rd world level or until when? And if there is a logical stopping point, what makes you think we'll stop once we reach that point?

 

Or to pursue this to its logical extreme: If you could wave a wand and teleport the 50 million poorest people on earth to Canada over the next 5 years, would you do it? If someone's answer to that question is no, does that make her a racist?

The German economy pre-WWII 'flourished' for a number of reasons, and only for a limited time. Ask anyone familiar with the economy 1919-1932, and few would claim it was flourishing.

 

It improved, statistically, after Hitler came to power but why?

 

It is a truism of the modern industrial economy that war and war preparation is 'good for business', and Hitler spent the first 7 years in power rebuilding, illegally, the German armed forces.

 

He also instituted a public policy of full employment (for males, excluding Jews) and did so in a manner similar to that employed in the Soviet Union....there were a lot of street cleaners working for municipalities and the state and federal governments, as I understand matters. Of course, employment in the security forces also accounted for significant job gains.

 

In short, I am not at all sure that it is a good idea to hold out Nazi Germany as a good example of the effectiveness of protectionism.

 

The Chinese economy did use protectionism, as did (and does) Japan. I think it fair to argue that protectionism can be a benefit to an economy if that economy has available to it a significant internal market, starts from a relatively low level, and is the subject of intense state promotion.

 

I think it fair to argue, in reply, that Japan's policies ended up hurting the country, which has been in recession or near-recession for some 25 years now. Admittedly, there are many reasons for that. It has an aging population, few resources, and faces competition from S. Korea, China, India, etc that simply didn't exist 30-40 years ago.

 

China is becoming less protectionist as its economy matures. I think it generally agreed amongst most economists that China's habit of undervaluing its currency ended a number of years ago, and that was one of its main protectionist methods, making imports relatively expensive.

 

Protectionism was tried by most industrialized countries in response to the Depression, and most economists, these days, agree that such steps made a bad situation into a catastrophic one. Again, it wasn't the only issue: a tightening of the supply of capital was a major problem, and underlies the QE embraced by the US, and others, since 2008.

 

As for your point about unskilled immigrants, once again you merely spout right wing talking points, aided by hyperbole.

 

No US politician has announced a support for admitting millions of unskilled immigrants. HRC did, in one speech, apparently say that her dream was a world with open borders. So what? That wasn't a claim that all border controls should be eliminated: it was at worst (or at best) an expression that in an ideal world, we could live without the borders, economic and political, that we now have. Idealistic and unattainable? Yes. An expression of a desire to see unrestricted immigration....not in the least, and only an ideologically driven idiot would argue otherwise.

 

Historically, immigrant populations tend to be law-abiding and hard-working and entrepreneurial. While Trump pointed to violent criminals, and while they exist, violent crime in the US is far more prevalent amongst native-born citizens than amongst immigrants, and even more so than amongst illegal immigrants. Once again, reality and right-wing talking points share nothing in common.

 

As for stealing jobs, that is at least a debatable claim. Most undocumented immigrants work at jobs that either aren't attractive to non-immigrants or that might not even exist otherwise, since the pay and conditions are so bad.

 

Undocumented immigrants don't get to vote. Documented immigrants don't get to vote either (some do, in some elections, but none do in Presidential elections), until they are citizens. So you have invented a non-existent bogeyman, in terms of millions of unskilled immigrants coming in and voting. Ask anyone who has tried to get or actually got a green card, and pursued citizenship, how 'easy' that process was.

 

As for whether it makes sense to allow immigration, it is important to define terms. Refugees may technically be a subset of immigrants, but it is an error to speak of millions of unskilled worker immigrants when what you mean is millions of unskilled refugees.

 

Every country limits immigration and has legitimate, and illegitimate, reasons for doing so. Racial profiling, which was routine 100 years ago, is imo illegitimate. Skill testing.....does the immigrant offer skills of use...is imo legitimate.

 

Refugees pose a different problem because the decision has to be influenced by morality.

 

Despite right wing nonsense, the US has been incredibly selfish in terms of accepting refugees from the Middle East and Africa. Canada, a tenth of the size of the US in population terms, and even smaller in terms of size of economy, has taken in more Syrian refugees than the US. And how many have committed terrorist acts? None.

 

Yes, there have been and will continue to be issues in Europe, but compare, say, allowing 10,000 refugees into the US with allowing 3 million into Europe, and I think one can see that the US can likely afford to be orders of magnitude more generous without risking the problems that have arisen in Europe.

 

Your last paragraph reveals how devoid of logic your arguments are. Canada has a population of a little over 30 million people. Nobody has suggested allowing 1 million people into the country over the next 5 years, and you raise, in argument, the idiotic notion that maybe 50 times that would come in, and that anyone opposed to that idea would be labelled racist?

 

We could invite 50,000,000 highly skilled, liberal thinking, wealthy Western Europeans and Americans into the country and I suspect 99.9999% of Canadians would be vehemently opposed. We couldn't fit them in, physically, or in terms of infrastructure. It would the equivalent of the US taking in 500,000,000 people.

 

You accuse me of childish insults but you make posts that reflect, usually, the intellectual capacity of a spoiled 8 year old, devoid of logic and reason, and full of right wing lies and distortions, and expect to be treated as an adult?

 

You want to debate...that's fine. But contrary to what right wing 'thinkers' appear to believe, proper debate requires a degree of intellectual honesty. Why not try some?

[mikeh]

60% of Uber drivers are blacks(20)/hispanics(18)/asians(17)/other non-white(5).

Why do they discriminate?

who said they do?

 

and don't tell me that the only racism blacks face is from whites.

 

what you really say is that 80% of uber drivers are not black. Explain the apparent discrimination against blacks on the basis of a non-racist explanation. While you're at it, explain the Air BnB results too.

[mike777]

Regarding the immigration discussion in this forum, it sounds like both sides are for immigration, immigration with some form of limits.

 

 

However the debate in the outside world seems to be should we have something close to open borders or zero borders.

 

 

Hopefully when it comes to immigration something like the following will actually happen....I hope :)

 

1) Trump one way or the other starts to build his wall, yes it is silly but bare with me.

2) hard core criminal immigrants start to be deported or going to jail in bigger numbers

3) ok ok once we at least have the perception, true or not, of tougher enforcement of the border we get down to the real work.

4) an increase in legal immigration, some pathway to citizenship. I point to Kennedy/Bush proposal as a first step.

 

 

-------------------------------

 

 

As an aside to the question does Canada have room for 50 million or America for 500 million, sure we do. :) Keep in mind some of us are going to become immigrants to Mars or wherever in the future.

 

As to the question are some of these blue collar or white collar jobs coming back...no...see robots....

[jonottawa]

Regarding the immigration discussion in this forum, it sounds like both sides are for immigration, immigration with some form of limits.

 

Indeed. That's what my last question was meant to establish.

 

http://i.quoteaddicts.com/media/q1/641109.png

[PassedOut]

Indeed. That's what my last question was meant to establish.

Hmmm. Does your Churchill quote mean that you believe that the lower the number one finds acceptable, the more disreputable one is?

[mike777]

btw JOn....Churchill was the son of an immigrant. I suppose some might call her an "unskilled" immigrant.

[mike777]

Hmmm. Does your Churchill quote mean that you believe that the lower the number one finds acceptable, the more disreputable one is?

 

 

I believe that is the point. :)

[Kaitlyn S]

I can understand believing in conservative principles, and pursuing them politically. What baffles me is wanting Trump in particular. There was Kasich, Rubio, perhaps others. Why, from among reasonable candidates, specifically choose the one who is openly racist and misogynistic? Who routinely bankrupts businesses? Who insults and attacks family of veterans killed in the line of duty? That is where you lost me. Why this guy specifically? You say it is not for being racist or misogynist yourselves. So what was it?

I've said many times that Trump was my seventeenth choice among the Republican candidates. Did I fail to mention it in this thread?

[cherdano]

What I don't get is:

 

If blue-collar, low-skilled jobs are vanishing, why does it make economic sense to flood the country with millions of unskilled immigrants who will vote for politicians that allow in countless more unskilled immigrants? (Or if you disagree with any of the premises of this question, please explain.)

 

Or do you acknowledge that immigration (of unskilled potential workers) TODAY does not make economic sense and should only be done for 'humanitarian' reasons?

 

Manufacturing jobs are in decline. That doesn't mean that blue-collar, low-skilled jobs are in decline, it's just that most of them are in the service sector. Meanwhile, from what I know basically all serious studies agree that, for example, Mexican immigration is beneficial not only for the US economy, but also for low-skilled native workers.

 

Your general question of "How much immigration is beneficial and workable?" is genuinely a tough one. But I do think it is clearly above the current US immigration rate (which isn't all that high anyway). Economically this is obvious to anyone who looks at this seriously. And I think the cultural problems of immigration brought up e.g. by conservative intellectuals are overstated.

 

My own perspective is partly formed by the fact that I grew up in a smallish town full of 1st and second immigration immigrants (maybe 40% of the population). Was that completely without problems? Well, every kind of neighbour can be a problem, and occasionally that can play out along national or ethnic lines. And of course there are cultural differences that, e.g., could make the life of some of my Turkish classmates more difficult. Just lay the "Western German society vs rural Muslim turkish society" on top of a normal teenager vs parents conflict and you get the idea.

But you can work that kind of problem out, and live with others, and in my town only a tiny minority would have thought that immigration per se had been a bad idea.

[hrothgar]

Here's what I don't understand: Why do folks think that I should identify more with rural working class whites than with Mexican immigrants?

[hrothgar]

Here's what I don't understand: Why do folks think that I should identify more with rural working class whites than with Mexican immigrants or Syrian refugees?

[helene_t]

In Scandinavia and the Netherlands, governments of any colour have done plenty for the working class, rural or otherwise, but people still vote for right extremists and abandon the social democrats.

 

I somehow doubt that the problem is that dems didn't do enough for the working class.

[Kaitlyn S]

You accuse me of childish insults but you make posts that reflect, usually, the intellectual capacity of a spoiled 8 year old, devoid of logic and reason, and full of right wing lies and distortions, and expect to be treated as an adult?

 

You want to debate...that's fine. But contrary to what right wing 'thinkers' appear to believe, proper debate requires a degree of intellectual honesty. Why not try some?

To Jon: Congratulations on being thought of as three grades ahead of me since I was compared to a 5-year old.

 

I personally see most of your posts as quite sound. However they aren't going to be taken seriously here.

 

It's situation normal. You must assume that their "facts" are right and your "facts" are wrong. That's the starting point. For you will quote from a conservative source and they will claim Bullsh*t, citing contradictory information from a liberal source. And their source is believed because the majority of people here implicitly trust the liberal source and call any source that disagrees with their preconceived notions as absolute nonsense. So how can you ever be right when your sources are deemed to be invalid and their sources are deemed to be the gospel truth?

 

You can't. So I bring to you some very wise words from a very wise person that I should have paid attention to a long time ago.

 

Oh Kaitlyn, get out while you still can. Not referring to this thread or your posts in particular. The WC Forum is not like any other. Sometimes I feel people post with their evil twin here.

 

I enjoy discussing issues but not under these conditions. It is not a fair debate when it is always assumed that the other side's facts are correct and your side's facts are wrong (and racist!) If they want to play this way, they can play among themselves. Let me know if some reasonable people join the fray, for I can discuss things with the reasonable people and ignore the other ones.

[Winstonm]

To Jon: Congratulations on being thought of as three grades ahead of me since I was compared to a 5-year old.

 

I personally see most of your posts as quite sound. However they aren't going to be taken seriously here.

 

It's situation normal. You must assume that their "facts" are right and your "facts" are wrong. That's the starting point. For you will quote from a conservative source and they will claim Bullsh*t, citing contradictory information from a liberal source. And their source is believed because the majority of people here implicitly trust the liberal source and call any source that disagrees with their preconceived notions as absolute nonsense. So how can you ever be right when your sources are deemed to be invalid and their sources are deemed to be the gospel truth?

 

You can't. So I bring to you some very wise words from a very wise person that I should have paid attention to a long time ago.

 

 

 

I enjoy discussing issues but not under these conditions. It is not a fair debate when it is always assumed that the other side's facts are correct and your side's facts are wrong (and racist!) If they want to play this way, they can play among themselves. Let me know if some reasonable people join the fray, for I can discuss things with the reasonable people and ignore the other ones.

 

Perhaps the place for you to begin is to understand that facts are neither right nor wrong - they simply are.

[mikeh]

To Jon: Congratulations on being thought of as three grades ahead of me since I was compared to a 5-year old.

 

I personally see most of your posts as quite sound. However they aren't going to be taken seriously here.

 

It's situation normal. You must assume that their "facts" are right and your "facts" are wrong. That's the starting point. For you will quote from a conservative source and they will claim Bullsh*t, citing contradictory information from a liberal source. And their source is believed because the majority of people here implicitly trust the liberal source and call any source that disagrees with their preconceived notions as absolute nonsense. So how can you ever be right when your sources are deemed to be invalid and their sources are deemed to be the gospel truth?

 

You can't. So I bring to you some very wise words from a very wise person that I should have paid attention to a long time ago.

 

 

 

I enjoy discussing issues but not under these conditions. It is not a fair debate when it is always assumed that the other side's facts are correct and your side's facts are wrong (and racist!) If they want to play this way, they can play among themselves. Let me know if some reasonable people join the fray, for I can discuss things with the reasonable people and ignore the other ones.

 

Maybe if fewer of your facts were urban myths, disproven by even 30 seconds on google, or unattributed, unsourced, and thus unverifiable anecdotes and more were based on peer-reviewed studies in recognized journals (see your posts on racial discrimination), people would be prepared to give roughly equal weight to your 'facts' as they give to the 'liberal' facts.

 

How about it? Do you even agree that there is a qualitative difference between your anecdotes and urban myths and our documented facts?

 

You whine, and I use the word advisedly, about how unfair it is that your facts aren't given proper weight, but not once do you offer a substantive rebuttal to the liberals who allege that you are spouting factual nonsense. I don't mean quoting opinion and countering with your own opinion...an opinion is a personal interpretation of the facts and the implications arising therefrom. Arguing about whose opinion is best is a different exercise than arguing about the underlying facts.

 

Thus, if your professor story had been true, we could have a debate about what that example shows, if anything, about the state of higher education, or the value of the 'socialism' that the story was intended to reflect.

 

However, since the story was a right wing fabrication, based on an idiotic understanding of what 'socialism' is there is nothing to debate.

 

On your 'someone told me that a professor said that a black professor was kept on simply because he or she was black' combined with stories about how HR firms had were getting legal advice about hiring blacks......these were again unattributed and thus unverifiable anecdotes, to which I responded by citing two well-known recent studies, the results of which were accepted by the organizations who were criticized, showing that in fact racial discrimination was widespread in the US.

 

Now, we can't have a debate about what inferences to draw from your anecdotes, because there is no objective reason to think that those anecdotes are true. We can have a debate about the inferences from the Uber and AirBnB studies because there is solid reason to accept the findings as true.

 

You could argue, for example, that modern hiring practices, and some employment laws, create a different environment in hiring than exists in the housing or transportation fields. You could argue, if you have facts to back you up, that anti-discrimination employment laws create unintended adverse consequences. However, you don't seem to have any facts to support that.

 

Do you actually understand the difference between facts and rumour? Between studies and anecdotes? Or do you think that they are of equivalent value in debate?

 

Maybe you should reflect on these differences, take another look at the posts where you have been criticized and see whether the criticisms are justified.

[Kaitlyn S]

Maybe you should reflect on these differences, take another look at the posts where you have been criticized and see whether the criticisms are justified.

OK, one example.

 

I was criticized because I said that blacks where hired less often because employers sensibly wanted to avoid the extra possibility of litigation.

 

While I have no data to back me up, I know that this would be one factor in hiring if I was running a small business. I also know that if it weren't for the possibility of litigation, I would have absolutely no bias against hiring someone if he was black. Why would I? Absent other factors, I would hire the person that I thought would perform the best. I have no evidence that tells me blacks perform either better or worse as a whole so it would not be a factor. The only factor is the possible litigation that comes with a black and does not come with a white. Is this racist? Perhaps by some peoples' definition but it is also practical, sensible, and a good business decision. For my family's welfare depends on me making a profit on my small business and if I lose all my profits and my children's college funds to a discrimination lawsuit (or even paying the legal fees when I end up victorious because I was right to fire the person) then I am truly a sad excuse for a businessperson.

 

I have talked to many of my friends about this and they all feel the same way. Granted, there is a strong bias there because (a) most of my friends are also conservative and (b) I am less likely to discuss this with a liberal friend for obvious reasons (if it's not obvious - then just assume they would treat me like you do.) However, to a man (or woman!) they say the sole reason for not wanting to hire the black is the threat of litigation expenses, and that they have nothing against black people.

 

Now, you may choose not to believe me. For it is my word that I have consulted several friends that have the same opinion. You are allowed to assume that I am lying. I'm not, but you can assume that I am. However, many small business owners are conservative, and it is not at all unlikely that they feel the same way my friends and I feel.

 

However, you are never, ever going to find statistics to back this up. For nobody that does any real hiring is ever going to admit the true motive for not hiring a black person. Why? Litigation!!!!!!!

 

So, my point is, that it is discrimination litigation that is stopping blacks from getting hired, and it is discrimination litigation that will make it impossible for that fact to ever be proven.

 

And I'm sure that you will all jump all over me and say I'm arguing like an ignorant five year old with no facts to back her up. And I am telling you that the same litigious society that makes blacks less likely to be hired will also make it impossible for those facts to exist. So yeah, I have no facts to back it up. And I never will. But I'm right. I guarantee it. The only way I'm wrong is if every single business owner totally ignores the possibility of discrimination litigation when hiring people. This includes many conservative people that probably think about protecting themselves, and think like my friends and I do. If you want to tell me I'm wrong, then you are admitting that you think that there has never been a business owner who hired a white person simply because they were thinking that future litigation brought forth by a black employee or fired employee might hurt (or annihilate) their bottom line. For it happened just once, I'm right - a black didn't get hired that might have got hired without anti-discrimination litigation that has run rampant enough to make the employer fear the possibility. I am guessing it's happened a lot more than once; I wouldn't be surprised if it's happened several thousand times.

 

All I'm asking is for you to debate fairly. I think I have a strong point here but it doesn't help when you say that I haven't shown proof when it is impossible for me to show proof unless some business owner wants to become a martyr and admit the reason he didn't hire a black is because he feared the possibility of litigation down the road. So saying I'm a full of sh*t racist because I can't supply proof seems highly unethical when you know damn well that proof is impossible.

[Winstonm]

Here's what I don't understand: Why do folks think that I should identify more with rural working class whites than with Mexican immigrants or Syrian refugees?

 

Tribalism.

[Winstonm]

OK, one example.

 

I was criticized because I said that blacks where hired less often because employers sensibly wanted to avoid the extra possibility of litigation.

 

While I have no data to back me up, I know that this would be one factor in hiring if I was running a small business. I also know that if it weren't for the possibility of litigation, I would have absolutely no bias against hiring someone if he was black. Why would I? Absent other factors, I would hire the person that I thought would perform the best. I have no evidence that tells me blacks perform either better or worse as a whole so it would not be a factor. The only factor is the possible litigation that comes with a black and does not come with a white. Is this racist? Perhaps by some peoples' definition but it is also practical, sensible, and a good business decision. For my family's welfare depends on me making a profit on my small business and if I lose all my profits and my children's college funds to a discrimination lawsuit (or even paying the legal fees when I end up victorious because I was right to fire the person) then I am truly a sad excuse for a businessperson.

 

I have talked to many of my friends about this and they all feel the same way. Granted, there is a strong bias there because (a) most of my friends are also conservative and (b) I am less likely to discuss this with a liberal friend for obvious reasons (if it's not obvious - then just assume they would treat me like you do.) However, to a man (or woman!) they say the sole reason for not wanting to hire the black is the threat of litigation expenses, and that they have nothing against black people.

 

Now, you may choose not to believe me. For it is my word that I have consulted several friends that have the same opinion. You are allowed to assume that I am lying. I'm not, but you can assume that I am. However, many small business owners are conservative, and it is not at all unlikely that they feel the same way my friends and I feel.

 

However, you are never, ever going to find statistics to back this up. For nobody that does any real hiring is ever going to admit the true motive for not hiring a black person. Why? Litigation!!!!!!!

 

So, my point is, that it is discrimination litigation that is stopping blacks from getting hired, and it is discrimination litigation that will make it impossible for that fact to ever be proven.

 

And I'm sure that you will all jump all over me and say I'm arguing like an ignorant five year old with no facts to back her up. And I am telling you that the same litigious society that makes blacks less likely to be hired will also make it impossible for those facts to exist. So yeah, I have no facts to back it up. And I never will. But I'm right. I guarantee it. The only way I'm wrong is if every single business owner totally ignores the possibility of discrimination litigation when hiring people. This includes many conservative people that probably think about protecting themselves, and think like my friends and I do. If you want to tell me I'm wrong, then you are admitting that you think that there has never been a business owner who hired a white person simply because they were thinking that future litigation brought forth by a black employee or fired employee might hurt (or annihilate) their bottom line. For it happened just once, I'm right - a black didn't get hired that might have got hired without anti-discrimination litigation that has run rampant enough to make the employer fear the possibility. I am guessing it's happened a lot more than once; I wouldn't be surprised if it's happened several thousand times.

 

Sorry, I know this conversation is with MikeH but sometimes something is so obviously wrong it must be pointed out: Of course your position is racist because you are making a determination - based on nothing but a biological difference in the amount of melanin present in a person - that people with dark skin are more litigious than others.

 

It is accurate that small businesses fear litigation - it is a serious problem. That is a fact. It is your personal bias (and that of those whom you talk to) that makes you form the opinion that fear of black litigation is widespread.

[PassedOut]

While I have no data to back me up, I know that this would be one factor in hiring if I was running a small business. I also know that if it weren't for the possibility of litigation, I would have absolutely no bias against hiring someone if he was black. Why would I? Absent other factors, I would hire the person that I thought would perform the best. I have no evidence that tells me blacks perform either better or worse as a whole so it would not be a factor. The only factor is the possible litigation that comes with a black and does not come with a white. Is this racist? Perhaps by some peoples' definition but it is also practical, sensible, and a good business decision. For my family's welfare depends on me making a profit on my small business and if I lose all my profits and my children's college funds to a discrimination lawsuit (or even paying the legal fees when I end up victorious because I was right to fire the person) then I am truly a sad excuse for a businessperson.

 

I have talked to many of my friends about this and they all feel the same way. Granted, there is a strong bias there because (a) most of my friends are also conservative and (b) I am less likely to discuss this with a liberal friend for obvious reasons (if it's not obvious - then just assume they would treat me like you do.) However, to a man (or woman!) they say the sole reason for not wanting to hire the black is the threat of litigation expenses, and that they have nothing against black people.

 

Now, you may choose not to believe me. For it is my word that I have consulted several friends that have the same opinion. You are allowed to assume that I am lying. I'm not, but you can assume that I am. However, many small business owners are conservative, and it is not at all unlikely that they feel the same way my friends and I feel.

Okay. I am a conservative have run my own businesses for many years. Two years after college, I bought my own home and three years after that I bought my first rental property -- using savings from my regular job to accumulate both down payments. Since then, I've never been without a side business even while working for corporations. When our family businesses became profitable enough that it was a waste of time work for a salary, I left the corporate world and have never regretted it.

 

I totally disagree with your notion that a fear of litigation should factor into any hiring decision. What possible litigation should I fear?

 

I don't fear hiring women, for example, because I don't engage in sexual harassment, nor do I permit it. I don't fear hiring black people because I treat people fairly. I don't fear litigation simply because I don't give people a reason to sue. If we're sued unfairly, why it be more likely to come from a black person than from anyone else? I just don't get it.

 

What kind of friends do you have anyway?

[Kaitlyn S]

Sorry, I know this conversation is with MikeH but sometimes something is so obviously wrong it must be pointed out: Of course your position is racist because you are making a determination - based on nothing but a biological difference in the amount of melanin present in a person - that people with dark skin are more litigious than others.

How many times has a black sued for racial discrimination compared to the number of times that a white has sued for racial discrimination?

 

It's not so much that blacks are more litigious, it's that their suits are much more expensive. A white's case is likely to be tossed as frivolous; a black's case will be an expensive ordeal even if won by the employer, and disastrous if lost by the employer.

 

It's expectations. Why don't you try to drop the singleton king with five trumps out? Because the finesse is so much more likely. Do you balance at IMPS with a 50% chance of a gain but give up 1100 when wrong? Of course not. You are playing expectations. Why would an employer fear a black suing for discrimination? Because if a black sues it's going to cost big time. If a white sues, probably no problem. Who is more litigious is irrelevant. The employer is playing expectations.

 

It is totally unbelievable that you come up with this crap and yet all your buddies in this forum will say that your point is valid and mine is crap. It should be obvious to the most casual of observers that I did not say that blacks were more litigious. They may be, I don't know. The courts would certainly reward them to be as they win a lot more of their anti-discrimination cases. (I'm not saying the courts are wrong.) But as I have pointed out, whether they are or not is irrelevant and you totally missed what I was saying.

 

By the way, if that is what you thought I was saying, I can see why you think I'm a deplorable racist. I would think so too!

 

That being said, as an employer, I would be less likely to hire someone that was more litigious and I would think that was a sensible decision. In fact, there was this woman that worked in bridge club. She spilled coffee, and then slipped in her own spill, and then sued the owner. I would never, ever hire her. Personally I think she should be banished to the ranks of the unemployed forever for that stunt. However, I am not less likely to hire a black because he is more likely to be litigious, but because the litigation is more likely to be costly.