Play Nice 47th President of the United States: Donald Trump - Part 20: Here we go again!

[Gethelred]

Mod Notice
* Thread monitored actively. User who drag it down will be removed

Specifically: reference to TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) and its counterpart 'Trumpanzee' or anything similar will no longer be allowed.

Personal attacks are also to be kept to a minimum.

Just a reminder, even if it hasn't come up for a few pages and y'all should know this stuff by now:

This thread is not about Covid, lockdowns, or vaccines. It is about Donald Trump. While Trump was in office during the pandemic and his response to Covid is relevant, there are pertinent threads for you to post your opinions on those things in.

It might also do with reminding a few that when you post on the SRP, you are responsible for backing up/verifying your claims to fact. What this means is that you will be asked time to time to support your claims with evidence, to ensure that this forum is as free of misinfomation as we can make it.

Do not post conspiracy theories on this forum. We have an entire other forum for that.

Thanks all.

As always, please submit ideas for the thread title by tagging Gethelred! We're looking for something new to match the new thread!

USA - 2024 US Presidential Election: Trump vs Harris (pt II)

Continued from Part 1 - https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/2024-us-presidential-election-trump-vs-harris.1383317/

www.bigfooty.com

USA - Kamala Harris Concedes. God Help America

www.bigfooty.com

< - Trump 19 is back there.

 

[Present Not Past]

Possibly; again that is also part of conservative thinking “poverty cycle give yourself to the military”

And there's only so many poor people that the US Armed Forces can recruit.

 

[Present Not Past]

And his socio-economic background.

Targeted initiatives.

 

[Bloods86]

Should the playing field be levelled for everyone? For example, should there be something for the 22 million whites in poverty?

Yes. That's what progressive policies try to do, though some groups are disproportionately disadvantaged due to demographics, so specific measures might be considered for them.

All of the measures I mentioned in the post you blew past to levy personal blame, would also help white people.

 

[stefcep]

What does that have to do with government initiatives to ameliorate poverty?

The aim of government initiatives should be to help people to help themselves.

 

[Bloods86]

Targeted initiatives.

Most initiatives would be. They target the underlying factor which might disadvantage someone.

 

[Bloods86]

The aim of government initiatives should be to help people to help themselves.

Yes, barring certain severe issues, where a comfortable life in dignity is the best outcome.

That's what government initiatives often try to do.

Education assistance is so people can be educated.

Welfare is so people who are unemployed can actually survive, and be able to look for and secure another job.

Assistance targeted at groups who have been disproportionately disadvantaged because of some innate characteristic, is to help get those groups become proportionately represented in education, the workforce etc and would intend to have the long term effect of breaking non participation or poverty or assistance cycles.

 

[stefcep]

Yes. That's what progressive policies try to do, though some groups are disproportionately disadvantaged due to demographics, so specific measures might be considered for them.

All of the measures I mentioned in the post you blew past to levy personal blame, would also help white people.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're living in poverty then you deserve the same attention irrespective of which identity group you belong to.

Ok so tell me, when did the Democrats anounce those "measures" to indicate they gave a rats arse about those 22 million whites living in poverty?

 

[Present Not Past]

The aim of government initiatives should be to help people to help themselves.

So why are you targeting fatherless families as the source of poverty when you say it's up to individuals to help themselves, assisted with government initiatives?

 

[stefcep]

Most initiatives would be. They target the underlying factor which might disadvantage someone.

Underlying factors like for example fatherlessness, which increases the risk of poverty by 500%? It would have to be one of if not THE top correlating factor, wouldn't it? So supporting the traditional nuclear family would naturally be a top policy priority for progressives interested in targetting the underlying factor of socio-economic disadvantage.

Is it?

 

[stefcep]

So why are you targeting fatherless families as the source of poverty when you say it's up to individuals to help themselves, assisted with government initiatives?

Because abandoning the family is often a personal choice.

 

[Present Not Past]

Because abandoning the family is often a personal choice.

Okay, this is good. I like this.
But this is moving on from politics, and on to morality.

 

[Blue1980]

Because abandoning the family is often a personal choice.

Generational trauma, kinda like abusers who end up abusing others etc.

Its about breaking the cycle. Generally there is a corelation between absent fathers/broken families and poor people regardless of race.

I do think with the messaging it is inferred in some way that if you are poor and white, well you don't matter or just deserve to be poor, which is incredibly self defeating.

So yes a better overall message of lifting everyone up is needed by the democrats, regardless of race or group. This however doesn't have to be at the expense of affirmative actions, or involve throwing trans people under the bus.

Thing is aside from a narrative that its the hollywood elites and immigrants ruining your life, and deregulations on everything, what tangible things the republicans are offering which will help the poor people and working class of america?

 

[Present Not Past]

what tangible things the republicans are offering which will help the poor people and working class of america?

There is absolutely nothing that they have offered.
It was all about grievances.

 

[Bloods86]

As far as I'm concerned, if you're living in poverty then yoiu deservce the same attention irrespective of which identity group you beling to.

Ok so tell me, when did the Democrats anounce theose "measures" to indicate they gave a rats arse about those 22 million whites living in poverty?

Yes, I understand you may want to push history aside and assume there is a proportionately level playing field.

What are you talking about, the Democrats have proposed and implemented in previous cycles, and this one, measures relating to what I stated? If you don't think that improvements or increased access to those things would benefit poor white people, then good on you I suppose.

But because you've clearly missed the point I've made a few times now, here's some examples.

Education - Biden proposed over US$100bn towards free community college as part of his plan to make it completely free eventually, but Republicans unified against it, meaning Manchin and Sinema's opposition scuttled any hopes of it passing. Biden's attempts at relieving student loan debt were partially scuttled by conservative judges appointed by Republicans.

Child tax credits - Democrat's American Rescue Plan expanded the child tax credit (lump sums per child under 17) and made it fully refundable (to benefit low income families who paid little tax), and Harris proposed expanding it further.

Housing affordability - Harris had announced financial assistance (downpayment assistance up to $25k for first home buyers, expanding low income housing tax credits) and additional housing packages (including tax incentives for builders to build starter homes, curbing investor purchases)

Healthcare - the Affordable Care Act was a Democrat led bill (actually taking from an earlier Republican proposal), and despite Republican attempts to destroy it without a replacement, millions of Americans, particularly those who can't afford or don't have insurance for various reasons, have at least some level of healthcare rights. Democrats have slowly started to take action on prescription drug prices, though it could certainly be quicker.

Family planning and reproductive rights - this is a massive area where families or women can be severely disadvantaged economically in cases of unplanned pregnancies and the associated costs, short and long term. While all the focus is on abortion (which should remain a fundamental right of women), properly funded and well run sex education, birth control accessibility and affordability, and not having to worry about health issues because you can't access reproductive care, are things that Democrats fund better, improve access to, de-criminalise and don't actively stigmatise (leading to bad outcomes).

Decriminalisation of minor drug offences would benefit many white, black and other people who face costly and restrictive punishments, including prison time that takes them away from being able to work and provide for their families/themselves. This is something that Democrats have done / propose doing when they have been / are able to at state and federal level. Unfortunately unless they control all branches of government, this will be slow going, like most things they try to do.

Jobs - various pieces of legislation just implemented in the Biden/Harris term invest in renewables, tech and manufacturing jobs, including in areas hard hit by the decline in primary industries, fossil fuel extraction and manufacturing. Manufacturing as an example, is undergoing a big boost in investment and job levels are increasing at a fast pace for recent years.

 

[Bloods86]

Underlying factors like for example fatherlessness, which increases the risk of poverty by 500%? It would have to be one of if not THE top correlating factor, wouldn't it? So supporting the traditional nuclear family would naturally be a top policy priority for progressives interested in targetting the underlying factor of socio-economic disadvantage.

Is it?

I've already said it's not a one way street, though I can understand why some conservatives need to play it that way. Alleviating socio-economic disadvantage reduces financial and emotional stress on families that can lead to breakdown. I've already mentioned a number of areas Democrats are better in, particularly the minority progressive members, that would help with this.

There are various factors in fatherless families, though as I've pointed out, conservatives often overstate this as being a 'black problem', not factoring in nuances such as non married couples, divorced/separated parents where the mother has the primary residence, but the father is still involved, imprisoned or deceased fathers etc. Progressive policies would help remove or lessen some of these factors.

Edit: It's worth noting that in the past, the CDC and Pew looked into this talking point (fatherless black families), and while there is a larger ratio of black single parent families, they also found black fathers to be more hands on fathers than other groups, black fathers were involved more regularly (at least once a month) in their child's lives than other fathers who lived separately, and the US Census indicates that single parent households with the father as the single parent were a slightly higher ratio for black families than others.

 

[Satan]

And there's only so many poor people that the US Armed Forces can recruit.

Stripes

 

[JackOutback]

Anyone who is poor, well its their fault for being poor.

They should pull on those bootstraps harder.

 

[samFFC]

Being racist means genuinely believing one race is inferior to others. I don't believe that for a minute - not about any other current politician either. On either side.

Saying the odd stupid thing without thinking, no doubt at all.

No it doesn’t.

You can believe whatever you like, you can be a “good person” if you like, but you are your actions, what you say, what you do, and the company you keep.

 

[samFFC]

lol - well considering he wrote an entire book about Trump then that statement could refer to anything really.

The other stuff is not racism - you are seeing things you have been conditioned into believing. Thats ok. Miserable way to live life seeing racism everywhere in my opinion.

Deeply unserious

And you didn’t answer the question about him being critical or bad mouthing white people.

Did you have an example?

 

[samFFC]

We will all be ok. The world is not going to end.

Why not just start with this instead of talking a bunch of nonsense?

If you don’t care about other people and their points, just say so, or just ignore them?

So so boring.