Incidentally, @Benkei, my family is mixed race, so racism is not just a real problem for me as it would be even if everyone in my family and everyone I knew was white, it's also potentially a personal problem that I need to deal with.

I have noticed in advertising in the US, many ads concerning relationships, sex, intimacy feature an interracial couple. Sometimes in-your-face, sometimes subtle, sometimes very subtle.

I noticed it too. I dont recall seeing it before the mixed royal family situation. Did they make it cool?

One good thing about business is everyone's money is equally desirable.

Do you think the subtext is just about money? In some sense of course it is, maybe all the way down. But I think there's also a promotion of a kind of freedom - if that's the word - or maybe just possibility. That leads to money too, but in the sense it's also propaganda. Prurience? Titillation?

That leads to money too, but in the sense it's also propaganda. Prurience? Titillation? — tim wood

Not sure about prurience and titillation. That would depend on how the situation was presented. But in so far as a partner of another race is considered exotic, desirable etc., sure, business will use that.

:up:

:meh:

You guys are nuts.

If your president uses the N-word, he's a racist scumbag just the same as anyone who would come on this site and use it would be considered so, and he should be condemned by everyone no matter what their political persuasion. If you can't come out and say that, that 's your problem not the left's. — Baden

I hereby condemn my president for any racism he may harbor. So damned, this the 15th day of August, 2018.

Thank fuck for that. I've had enough making enemies for one night.

What aspects would you consider "good ideas" of the following:

1. increased corporate tax (pay for what they use),
2. higher capital gains taxes (the Buffet Rule)
3. roll-back of recent tax cuts for the rich
4. repeal of Citizens United through legislation
5. universal healthcare
6. stricter environmental protection regulation
7. tax incentives for green initiatives (like duties on gas-guzzlers for instance) — Benkei

None appear to be good ideas, but instead are fundamental components of the Democratic platform.

Thank fuck for that. I've had enough making enemies for one night. — Baden

Dude, you'll never be an enemy. :love:

None appear to be good ideas, — Hanover

I knew you'd say that. I missed my chance to call @Benkei a left-wing fairy for thinking you'd agree with any of it.

That's no different in principle to saying if someone offers me 1000 bucks to call someone a nigger or to support someone else calling someone a nigger, do I do it because it's in my self-interest? No, I don't because a more important part of my self-interest than money is a basic level of moral integrity. I mean nothing angelic, just basic. If someone can't even get to that level, they're screwed. — Baden

Your position is largely an ad hom, arguing that the speaker of the position must maintain a certain moral character in order to be supported even if that speaker speaks views you agree with. As long as Trump's racism, to the extent it actually exists, is not made part of his policies, then it just makes him a stupid fucking racist, but not someone I must vote against.

David Duke, for example, was an actual white supremacist who, as I understand it, wanted to implement racist laws. I obviously wouldn't vote for him. I don't know of any anti-black policy Trump's supported though.

With Trump, you have someone who is an elitist, megalomaniac and who is egotistical, brash, and unapologetic. The only ones he respects either carry his same last name or his genes. I feel fairly confident that he's made plenty of anti-Semitic comments in his time, and has little respect for Italians, Asians, or anyone other than those in his little protected family environment. The point being that I don't know what you expect to prove with this latest episode of his use of the N word. Do you think I'm just now learning that he's not a loving, caring, open hearted sort of guy? Go back through my posts. I've very consistently called him a buffoon, but he has my endorsement as long as he's the leading candidate with an R next to his name.

You argue there is some moral imperative to abstain should your only choice of candidate be racist, else you'll somehow be guilty of racism by association. I just reject that as long as the person has no intention to bring about racist policy. I also truly believe that Obama and Hillary harbor racist views as offensive as Trump's, just they're far more sophisticated, cautious, and civil not to say it in stark indefensible terms.

You argue there is some moral imperative to abstain should your only choice of candidate be racist, else you'll somehow be guilty of racism by association. I just reject that as long as the person has no intention to bring about racist policy. — Hanover

This is a pretty weak argument. As if racists wouldn't let their racism leak into policy. Let's get real. There's a million ways that could happen and it very likely would. They don't have to specifically make it part of their platform. But, yes, you have a moral imperative to your fellow citizens, especially black citizens, not to vote in an overt racist or anti-semite or whatever, whether or not they have racist or anti-semite policies. It's about showing a minimum level of decency and solidarity. And apart from that, what kind of message does it send to the upcoming generation? Your reward for being a racist, is... President? It would send a horrible message, that racism is acceptable and that would encourage more racism, which you would be partly responsible for. You can't separate all this and be purely pragmatic about it as that's not dealing with the moral issue, so much as just ignoring it.

I also truly believe that Obama and Hillary harbor racist views as offensive as Trump's, just they're far more sophisticated, cautious, and civil not to say it in stark indefensible terms. — Hanover

On the basis of what? Shouldn't there be evidence? I mean, even in Trump's case, we are talking hypothetically, so far. Though I'm convinced he's a racist to some degree, he still has plausible deniability, so voting for him as things stand is just about defensible. An N-word tape would strip that away completely though. That's not just cranky granddad racism, that's in your face, fuck you, racism. As I said earlier there are levels and there has to be a line.

Vive la révolution!

I saw a recent poll showing that 1/5 of Trump supporters dislike him personally, but still view his policies positively. I have fairly little doubt that 20% of supporters (and more) would accept that he is a racist (or continue to acknowledge it) if the N-word tape were proven true, while nevertheless continue to hand-wave his personal vices.

David Duke, for example, was an actual white supremacist who, as I understand it, wanted to implement racist laws. I obviously wouldn't vote for him. I don't know of any anti-black policy Trump's supported though. — Hanover

You know what he's doing to non-white immigrants, right?

Voter restrictions are also anti-black, insofar as they predominantly affect black communities

And he's a racist, that should count for something.
— Benkei

How much should that "count"? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I was quite shocked when I saw that reply. I don't think that I'd ever have to ask that question. I would never knowingly vote for a racist candidate. I would instead support the cause of an alternative candidate from within the party replacing the racist, and I would want action to be taken against the racist by the executive committee of the party.

@Hanover, why wouldn't you do this? You don't have to abandon the party that you support.

Colin Powell said the birther baloney was racist. Trump is good at oblique hits that leave the audience confused.

And yet confusion about his sexism is rare. Racism is worse than sexism? Good grief.

@Hanover @ArguingWAristotleTiff Let me come at this way. How would you explain to a black person, say a black friend of yours, that their country is still a safe and welcoming place for them under a President that refers to them as the N-word and a country that thinks that's acceptable enough in a President to vote him into office*? What would you tell them?

Or, by the same token, how would you explain to a black child your support and vote for a President who would call his/her people the N-word? How would you explain his/her place in that alientating environment you've contributed to creating for him/her?

*Doesn't even have to be Trump or even the Republican party specifically. Trump is just a potential example.

OK. So you think everything is honky dory where it concerns justice and fairness in your society, that it's equitable and that republicans best contribute to those values by, for instance, lowering taxes?

The effective corporate tax rate is 18.6%. Companies are the largest users of energy, natural resources, air and water and their related infrastructures. What exactly is the justification that private individuals pay more to maintain those infrastructures than those that actually use it?

The effective corporate tax rate is 18.6%. Companies are the largest users of energy, natural resources, air and water and their related infrastructures. What exactly is the justification that private individuals pay more to maintain those infrastructures than those that actually use it? — Benkei

I was surprised how low that was, so wondered how it compared to here. It's 19%. :meh:

Was 28% 4 years ago.

You know what he's doing to non-white immigrants, right? — Maw

He is enforcing the law. Immigrants who play by the rules and obey the law, from all nations, are not targeted. The Democrats can't make the distinction between criminals and honest people, since crime is what they do.

There is a book out which claims that Hitler and the Nazi party used the Democrat party legal tactics for discrimination against the blacks, in the early 20th century, as the model for their discrimination against the Jews. There is documentation that senior Nazi officials thanked the Democrats for their outstanding legal tactics for turning a group into second class citizens.

James Q. Whitman’s “Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law

The Democrats have never payed for their crimes, but have successfully diverted attention away from their crimes. Trump creates self esteem through jobs and a strong economy, while the Democrats give hopelessness and create resentment through welfare dependency. If person has a good job they can make their own choices. If they are on welfare you can control them.

It would be hardly surprising as the Democrat party was virulently racist at the time. Of course, there's absolutely no connection between that and Trump or today's Democrats.

Trump creates self esteem through jobs and a strong economy, while the Democrats give hopelessness and create resentment through welfare dependency — wellwisher

Yawn. The Republicans destroyed the economy, you nincompoop, largely due through promoting the type of financial deregulation Trump also supports. Obama fixed it and handed the fixed version on to Trump.

and handed the fixed version on to Trump. — Baden

Who then proceeds to fuck it up with his tariffs.

Pop quiz: Which party has been better on the economy measured by GDP growth rates?

Answer: The Democrats

And Trump agrees (I guess he accidentally ran with the wrong party):
“I’ve been around for a long time and it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans.”

See, the thing is, facts matter. And all your partisan nonsense is just verbal diarrhea only you and your deluded cadre of fellow nincompoops believe.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/11/07/trump-is-right-about-one-thing-the-economy-does-better-under-the-democrats/#5fec1c046786

Trump creates self esteem through jobs

...

while the Democrats give hopelessness and create resentment through welfare dependency. — wellwisher

I read recently that there's such a thing as too-low unemployment:

The labor market will reach a point where each additional job added does not create enough productivity to cover its cost, making every successive job after that point inefficient; this is the output gap, often called the slack in the labor market. In an ideal world, an economy has no slack, meaning the economy is at full capacity and there is no output gap. In economics, slack is calculated by U6 minus U3, where U6 is the total unemployment, hidden unemployment and part-time workers seeking full-time work, and U3 is simply total unemployment.

Just as an economy rises and falls, so does the output gap. When there is a negative output gap, the economy's resources — its labor market — are being underutilized. Conversely, when there is a positive output gap, the market is overusing resources and the economy is becoming inefficient — this occurs when the unemployment rate falls.

The level at which unemployment equals positive output is a highly debated. However, economists suggest as the U.S. unemployment rate gets below 5 percent, the economy is very close to or at full capacity. So at 3.9 percent, one could argue the level of unemployment is too low, and the U.S. economy is becoming inefficient.

So it's actually good for the economy to have a certain level of unemployment. But because it's also good for the unemployed to contribute to the economy¹ (and also to eat), welfare provides an economic (and personal) benefit.

But let's not let facts stand in the way of Republican talking points.

¹

Aggregate Demand (AD) / economic growth. Welfare freezes will (ceteris paribus) reduce consumer spending, and lead to lower aggregate demand. It is an example of deflationary fiscal policy. It will be quite significant because people receiving welfare benefits have a high marginal propensity to consume because, on low incomes, they don’t have the luxury of saving – therefore, lower welfare benefits will directly lead to less spending in the economy. Welfare freezes will also contribute to a decline in consumer confidence because it will be a visible reminder of economic hardship. — https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/11599/economics/economic-impact-of-welfare-freezes/

"Nine of the last 10 recessions have been under Republicans."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/11/07/trump-is-right-about-one-thing-the-economy-does-better-under-the-democrats/#5fec1c046786