The Next President is...

[17D_guy]

57 minutes ago, MyCS said:

Blacks commit more crimes due to home environment, lack of money, culture, and education. Homes lacking a father figure is problematic too. 

You're asking him to look past the numbers and get to a reason.  Good luck. To him, minorities are just more violent, and less educated by nature.  "Those people" are this way now, and always have been.

I've had the same discussion with people where they're like, "Why don't they just move out of those neighborhoods?!  If they didn't like it they would leave."

Zero desire to dig into the issue, really look at the blatantly racist housing issues that kept minorities that could leave in bad neighborhoods (red lines, racist lending practices, racist development [ex. 80 through Omaha], etc.).  Then, the war on drugs and mass incarceration at a disproportionate rate for minorities over whites, which crippled the families of what were generally conservative households.

[pawnman]

5 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

You're asking him to look past the numbers and get to a reason.  Good luck. To him, minorities are just more violent, and less educated by nature.  "Those people" are this way now, and always have been.

I've had the same discussion with people where they're like, "Why don't they just move out of those neighborhoods?!  If they didn't like it they would leave."

Zero desire to dig into the issue, really look at the blatantly racist housing issues that kept minorities that could leave in bad neighborhoods (red lines, racist lending practices, racist development [ex. 80 through Omaha], etc.).  Then, the war on drugs and mass incarceration at a disproportionate rate for minorities over whites, which crippled the families of what were generally conservative households.

While I certainly agree that there are historic reasons for these problems...how long can you blame those historic reasons?  How much separation from those events do you need before you need to take some responsibility for improving your own lot in life?

Is anyone TODAY, in 2021, being prevented from renting an apartment, buying a house, getting a job, etc based solely on race?  And if so...what do we do about it?  We already have a plethora of government agencies that work to eliminate this kind of racism in hiring, housing, health care, banking, education...Is the solution MORE government programs?  And what kind of government programs will be successful where our current programs have failed?

[jazzdude]

The challenge is that a lot of race issues are a local problem, and solutions require local communities figuring out what work for their community.

Selective enforcement of the law and biases in sentencing are problems within the justice system. Great of the unfamiliar is also a problem for police: if you don't understand the culture or mannerisms of a particular group of people, it can be very easy to view unfamiliar behavior as threatening, which escalates the amount of force used. Also, the thin blue line movement is stupid. It creates this notion that people in the community are bad, and the police keep the order. This creates a mentality of separation of the police from the community it is supposed to be protecting. But these are issues that have to be fixed within a community at a local area.

Increasing funding for police would have varying effects. It's built on the belief that they will spend the money to improve training, or hire more police. But I'd bet that many departments will buy better toys (cars, maybe outfit a SWAT team or two, or a helicopter) rather than invest in training. Sounds an awful lot like the DoD...

That unfamiliarity in culture differences also can cause problems in other areas in life. Job interviews, housing, etc. That can also make it hard to escape your circumstances. And that's a local issue (there's already federal laws regarding hiring and housing protected classes).

There's also a motion that if you work hard enough and have enough grit, you can escape and climb the social ladder. In some cases, it's true, but it also relies on good luck and timing, which aren't always acknowledged (many people are suckers for the great man theory). But often times, it seems to be parents making huge sacrifices in their life to give their kids a better life that breaks the chain.

The formula for upward mobility has also changed. Used to be a college degree was enough to bring home a good job, and was a safe bet. Now even that is a significant gamble, with many people being saddled with heavy debt that can't be discharged in bankruptcy. This one's probably a national issue though-good intentions with bad unintended consequences. But it doesn't stop employers from requiring or preferring college degrees, even if the job in no way requires one.

So there's a lot of systemic and cultural issues that contribute to the race problem (but it's really a culture problem).

Here's an AF example: remember when everyone was complaining about having to complete SOS/ACSC and a master's in their off time in order to have a decent chance of promotion? And how that was taking away time with the family? And that commanders were using those factors also in determining strats (essentially dinging you twice for the same item)? And at least within AMC, special programs are also tired to those factors (WIC, Phoenix).

The typical line was to show your commitment to the system, you know what the game is, and if you want to advance, you have to play the game. Sure, a very small percentage of people a year might be promoted without a master's or PME. The system wasn't going to change itself (the statistics show that advanced degrees and PME were positive indicators of future success...) But a systemic issue forced a lot of pain onto the population of officers, and it took CSAF unilateral action to change it (masking degrees). And even then it feels like there are commanders out there that still use master's degrees in their strat matrix.

But if you look out in the civilian world, we expect people, largely who are poor or in the lower end of middle class, to pay out of pocket for night classes to get a degree or trained in a different career fields to improve their station in life, and no one blinks an eye. It's just expected, and to an extent, celebrated as American culture (busting your butt to live a comfortable life). But it ignores that there's risk involved for the individual, and even if you work hard, bad timing of luck means you can still fail. This is compounded by the survivorship bias, where is ready to pick out certain factors and point to that being the reason for success, while ignoring many other factors that contribute to that success.

We're also a very individualistic society, so we tend to not recognize the support or help we get from the society that surrounds us. If you're not aware of that fact, when you look at people who are struggling from that perspective, it's very easy to lay 100% of the blame on the individual, even though there may be a societal issues to blame as well.

[arg]

A refresher on how to act. My favorite part. "If the police have to come get you there're bringing an ass kicking with them"

Edited February 6, 2021 by arg

[brabus]

On 2/4/2021 at 2:16 PM, Swamp Yankee said:

How is "go talk to a black person" who experiences issues "avoiding something"?   Data collection is an essential component of problem analysis.  I'm not suggesting everything you hear will be fact or even relevant.  However, it is intellectually fragile ground to make claims about someone's position without at least speaking with them.  

That said, maybe you have done so.  If that is the case, I'm interested in what you heard.  Were any of your opinions challenged?

The irony is for the amount of black people you’ve talked to who support your viewpoint, I have 7 (yes I’ve counted when I thought about it) black friends who do not share your viewpoint (and 3 of them came to this country on a raft as a child...so no, they’re not from a “privileged” family). They are along the thought process espoused earlier in this thread that historical treatment and past laws have been terrible/discriminatory, and there are absolutely things to address and make better today, but there is not a systemic, nation-wide, far-reaching (or whatever other adjective you want to use) problem of racism. It is real and they want it gone, but it is so wildly blown out of proportion when attached to words like “systemic” and the focus of those who are well intentioned is significantly misguided.

So consider this, or just throw it away because it’s counter to the narrative, but I hope you guys don’t, because it’s certainly a perspective that needs to be considered so we can move forward in the most positive direction, without being misguided so strongly by bullshit spewed by the media and politicians.

[ClearedHot]

Biden Wants to Shut Down Credit Bureaus

Ah yes under the banner of Equity (not equality), let the government have control and run one more aspect of your life.

[Homestar]

The article hits on the lack of transparency which is a problem. Not sure about racial bias but the credit bureaus formulas are a secret and that should probably be improved. 
 

Also, screw Equifax. And OPM. 

[ClearedHot]

18 minutes ago, Homestar said:

The article hits on the lack of transparency which is a problem.

So give it to the government?   We all know the government is famous for transparency...

[Negatory]

5 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

So give it to the government?   We all know the government is famous for transparency...

Infinitely more transparent  than private credit bureaus, especially with FOIA requests. Or am I missing something?

Edited February 6, 2021 by Negatory

[ClearedHot]

4 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Infinitely more transparent  than private credit bureaus, especially with FOIA requests. Or am I missing something?

Given the governments record with transparency, especially the past 12 years, I would 100% disagree with you.

[ClearedHot]

Biden administration to remove terrorist designation for Yemen's Houthi militia

Iran jumping for joy...I don't understand this decision especially when we have been supplying arms to Saudi (until Biden suspended sales to them.), to help them push back this group which has clear demonstrated ties to the Iranian and North Korean governments.

[Homestar]

16 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

So give it to the government?   We all know the government is famous for transparency...

No. The government is no more responsible with that info than the credit bureaus (see my anti-OPM comment).

[ClearedHot]

1 minute ago, Homestar said:

No. The government is no more responsible with that info than the credit bureaus (see my anti-OPM comment).

Exactly, the Chiacoms have had my SF86 for years...

[jazzdude]

Credit bureaus are a tough nut to crack.

Their customer isn't you as the individual, but lenders. Their business is telling lenders how risky lending to you is, and their formula doing so it's the core of their recommendations.

Sure, you should have visibility to make sure facts are correct (accounts, addresses, etc). But the formula that spits out your credit score is proprietary to the credit bureau, and it's what keeps them in business (providing good recommendations to lenders). So there's no way to have transparency without destroying the business.

You don't *have* to have a credit score to get a loan; there's no real requirement for a lender to check, though it's likely in the lender's financial interests to do so.

The problem with the government getting in the credit reporting business is then the government gets deep in the lending business (has that worked out well for government backed education loans?), especially if commercial credit bureaus are eliminated or forced to use a certain formula.

What happens when a lender uses a government backed credit score, and an individual defaults on the loan? Is the government responsible for backing part or all of the loan because it endorsed the individual (through issuing a credit score), especially if the government score differs significantly from a commercial credit score?

Or if the government formula ignores certain indicators based on fairness/equality, lenders may choose to increase interest rates across the board (to avoid perceptions of unfairness) to cover loans that may default.

[pawnman]

3 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Biden administration to remove terrorist designation for Yemen's Houthi militia

Iran jumping for joy...I don't understand this decision especially when we have been supplying arms to Saudi (until Biden suspended sales to them.), to help them push back this group which has clear demonstrated ties to the Iranian and North Korean governments.

Because Trump said they were terrorists, so Biden has to say they are not.

[Prosuper]

Wordy article from Time admitting that Trump was right about the election.  https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

[GrndPndr]

1 hour ago, Prosuper said:

Wordy article from Time admitting that Trump was right about the election.  https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

This really ended up being about everyone except Trump (and Trump supporters), miraculously saving the election.  And boy was it close (so they said)...

Quote

This is the inside story of the conspiracy to save the 2020 election, based on access to the group’s inner workings, never-before-seen documents and interviews with dozens of those involved from across the political spectrum. It is the story of an unprecedented, creative and determined campaign whose success also reveals how close the nation came to disaster.

The inferred meaning here is - a Trump win.

[jazzdude]

The inferred meaning here is - a Trump win.

I took the implied meaning as an election whose results were declared invalid. That outcome would be by far much worse than a "Trump win." Dems and many on the left seem to think this would've been the worst election outcome, but it's not; an election being tampered with is the worst outcome, regardless of who won.

I don't think we have any real precedence on what to do if the presidential election was declared invalid, especially if it was declared invalid late (like in December or January, since lawsuits take time).

Does the incumbent stay in power? Do they (president and VP) step down while the election is redone, and have the speaker of the house fill in until it's certified? Though the latter doesn't make sense either because they would've also been on the same ballot as a representative, so would also be declared invalid. So it wipes out the House as well. I guess you'd still have 2/3 of the Senate.

And leading up to that, how would communities redo the election to avoid being tampered with a second time in a relevant time period? How does mail in or absentee voting work if you're trying to redo the election quickly? Or do military members and dependents overseas just lose their right to vote for an election? That can also sway a redo election.

Finally, it would destroy our moral credibility in international politics if we can't hold open and fair elections, especially when we have held ourselves up as the champions of democracy. So we'd also lose at least some of our ability to influence other nations based on our ideology. I'm sure China or Russia would be more than happy to use our failed election to increase their influence in the world.

[Swamp Yankee]

On 2/6/2021 at 6:42 AM, brabus said:

The irony is for the amount of black people you’ve talked to who support your viewpoint, I have 7 (yes I’ve counted when I thought about it) black friends who do not share your viewpoint (and 3 of them came to this country on a raft as a child...so no, they’re not from a “privileged” family). They are along the thought process espoused earlier in this thread that historical treatment and past laws have been terrible/discriminatory, and there are absolutely things to address and make better today, but there is not a systemic, nation-wide, far-reaching (or whatever other adjective you want to use) problem of racism. It is real and they want it gone, but it is so wildly blown out of proportion when attached to words like “systemic” and the focus of those who are well intentioned is significantly misguided.

So consider this, or just throw it away because it’s counter to the narrative, but I hope you guys don’t, because it’s certainly a perspective that needs to be considered so we can move forward in the most positive direction, without being misguided so strongly by bullshit spewed by the media and politicians.

Thanks for sharing what you've learned.  It doesn't match my insights, but that's fine.  There is BS on both sides.  Gone are the days of the solely-"liberal mainstream media".  Mainstream media now has two components:  The MSNBC/CNN/NYT side and the Fox/OAN/talk radio side.  Both have large viewer/readerships.

With regard to: "...there are absolutely things to address and make better today..."   What are those things?  How should they be addressed and made better today? 

Edited February 8, 2021 by Swamp Yankee

[Swamp Yankee]

On 2/6/2021 at 3:00 PM, pawnman said:

Because Trump said they were terrorists, so Biden has to say they are not.

 

On 2/6/2021 at 11:18 AM, ClearedHot said:

Biden administration to remove terrorist designation for Yemen's Houthi militia

Iran jumping for joy...I don't understand this decision especially when we have been supplying arms to Saudi (until Biden suspended sales to them.), to help them push back this group which has clear demonstrated ties to the Iranian and North Korean governments.

The Houthis (Ansar Allah) are a terrorist organization by any definition.  However, this development is more about the Trump admin scoring political points on their way out. 

Trump did not declare Houthis a terrorist organization until 10 Jan 2021. By waiting until their final few days, the Republicans could avoid foreign policy conflicts while making Biden look bad when he inevitably reversed this last-minute designation.   Mission accomplished in that regard.   

The humanitarian aid concerns are real, although Trump likely did not designate earlier because Houthis are in conflict with ISIS / ISIL / AQAP (the enemy of my enemy is my friend concept).   To their credit, in 2018 the Trump admin designated IRGC and QF (Iran) as terrorist orgs partially because they supply the Houthis with arms.  Biden's admin has not reversed that yet.  We will have to see what new Sec State Blinken does.  What we do with Iran is far more important than specifically the Houthis. Iran sees itself as a major world power and wants to be treated as such.  The question is where on the 3-axis spectrum of sanctions / military posturing / diplomacy we should be.  In my opinion we need to get tougher. 

This links below provide some interesting analysis:

https://www.aei.org/op-eds/biden-is-hoping-to-deal-with-an-iran-that-doesnt-exist/

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/02/05/biden-nuclear-iran-foreign-policy-466120

Edited February 8, 2021 by Swamp Yankee

[Swamp Yankee]

On 2/6/2021 at 6:49 PM, jazzdude said:

I took the implied meaning as an election whose results were declared invalid. That outcome would be by far much worse than a "Trump win." Dems and many on the left seem to think this would've been the worst election outcome, but it's not; an election being tampered with is the worst outcome, regardless of who won.

I don't think we have any real precedence on what to do if the presidential election was declared invalid, especially if it was declared invalid late (like in December or January, since lawsuits take time).

Does the incumbent stay in power? Do they (president and VP) step down while the election is redone, and have the speaker of the house fill in until it's certified? Though the latter doesn't make sense either because they would've also been on the same ballot as a representative, so would also be declared invalid. So it wipes out the House as well. I guess you'd still have 2/3 of the Senate.

And leading up to that, how would communities redo the election to avoid being tampered with a second time in a relevant time period? How does mail in or absentee voting work if you're trying to redo the election quickly? Or do military members and dependents overseas just lose their right to vote for an election? That can also sway a redo election.

Finally, it would destroy our moral credibility in international politics if we can't hold open and fair elections, especially when we have held ourselves up as the champions of democracy. So we'd also lose at least some of our ability to influence other nations based on our ideology. I'm sure China or Russia would be more than happy to use our failed election to increase their influence in the world.

I agree.  If Trump was legitimately reelected many would have been disappointed, but the country would survive.

However, we barely missed suffering the 2nd worst outcome; a "strongman" leader forcing their continuance.  Past examples include Lukashenko in Belarus, Morales in Bolivia,  and Hernandez in Honduras. Not exactly shining examples of free-market economies with significant personal liberty.   We dodged that bullet. 

[Lord Ratner]

30 minutes ago, Swamp Yankee said:

I agree.  If Trump was legitimately reelected many would have been disappointed, but the country would survive.

However, we barely missed suffering the 2nd worst outcome; a "strongman" leader forcing their continuance.  Past examples include Lukashenko in Belarus, Morales in Bolivia,  and Hernandez in Honduras. Not exactly shining examples of free-market economies with significant personal liberty.   We dodged that bullet. 

Barely missed? His own vice president shot him down. He lost in every court his legal team entered. It's amazing how we always seem to be on the precipice of catastrophe, yet never fall over the edge. Perhaps we're not as close as our emotions, and political puppeteers, lead us to believe.

[lloyd christmas]

On 2/7/2021 at 12:46 AM, Prosuper said:

Wordy article from Time admitting that Trump was right about the election.  https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

Just got around to reading that article.  Lengthy for sure but well worth the read.  I’ve never agreed with the folks out there who claim widespread voter fraud, voting machine manipulation and the other various conspiracy theories.  I voted for Trump and I recognize that he lost but not for those reasons.  I do believe there was a calculated effort to defeat him using a combination of the main stream media, big tech, social media, Hollywood, unions, big business and the dem party.  This article details those coordinated efforts.  They held nothing back and they won.  The playbook they used in the election is really no different at all in their everyday push to move progressive issues forward.  It’s exactly what frustrates and disenfranchises conservatives every single day.  

You have to give the dems credit.  They never take their foot off the gas.  

Edited February 8, 2021 by lloyd christmas

[jazzdude]

Barely missed? His own vice president shot him down. He lost in every court his legal team entered. It's amazing how we always seem to be on the precipice of catastrophe, yet never fall over the edge. Perhaps we're not as close as our emotions, and political puppeteers, lead us to believe.

I agree it wasn't a "barely missed," but it shows some significant assumptions in our elections that need to be (or continue to be) addressed.

We were arguably much closer to a "bad" election back in 2000 with the Florida recounts. Though some good came out of that, with an emphasis on better voting systems that helped prevent a repeat of that on a potential larger scale in 2020. Could you imagine the debate on hanging chads in 2020 instead of having electronic and paper records of votes?

What Trump attempted to do was attack elections in key states, and hope something would stick. If a few stuck, it opens up the (unlikely) chance even more elections are bad, and casts doubt on the election. Fortunately, his campaign didn't have a lot of funding to sustain a legal fight (don't have to win, but just have to keep it in court), and the places they challenged had improved their voting systems to fend off spurious lawsuits.

Hell, a politician doesn't even have to win in court; they just have to fuel enough discontent and doubt in their base for them to take action, maybe drastically. Trump arguably inspired (or convinced, depending on your political leaning) a bunch of people to storm the Capitol to stop the election certification. Fortunately, those people were just idiots and loosely organized, and didn't appear to really be executing a coup. It could've been a lot worse had there been a concerted effort to attack senators or representatives.

So yeah, we're not at the precipice of catastrophe, but that doesn't mean everything is okay. Many of the Trump claims were refuted due to investments in improved voting technologies, but that's not a static fight. A bunch of fired up citizens stormed the Capitol when Congress was in session and had control of the building, if only for a short while.

We need to continue to improve our election security, to include ballots (paper, electronic, absentee), voter registration, voter verification, and election certification and certification.

There's also some ugliness in our system that needs to be addressed, such as gerrymandering. ("Both parties do it" is an insufficient/inadequate answer)

We also need to address the "what if" of having a bad election, since right now it looks like the assumption is "it's not likely so we don't have a rule for it." Not an immediately pressing issue, but an important one. We already added one amendment to handle Presidential succession, so I don't think it's far fetched to address what happens with a invalid election (not just to address political shenanigans, but also for natural or man made disasters on election day).

[ClearedHot]

4 hours ago, Swamp Yankee said:

 

The Houthis (Ansar Allah) are a terrorist organization by any definition.  However, this development is more about the Trump admin scoring political points on their way out. 

Trump did not declare Houthis a terrorist organization until 10 Jan 2021. By waiting until their final few days, the Republicans could avoid foreign policy conflicts while making Biden look bad when he inevitably reversed this last-minute designation.   Mission accomplished in that regard.   

The humanitarian aid concerns are real, although Trump likely did not designate earlier because Houthis are in conflict with ISIS / ISIL / AQAP (the enemy of my enemy is my friend concept).   To their credit, in 2018 the Trump admin designated IRGC and QF (Iran) as terrorist orgs partially because they supply the Houthis with arms.  Biden's admin has not reversed that yet.  We will have to see what new Sec State Blinken does.  What we do with Iran is far more important than specifically the Houthis. Iran sees itself as a major world power and wants to be treated as such.  The question is where on the 3-axis spectrum of sanctions / military posturing / diplomacy we should be.  In my opinion we need to get tougher. 

This links below provide some interesting analysis:

https://www.aei.org/op-eds/biden-is-hoping-to-deal-with-an-iran-that-doesnt-exist/

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/02/05/biden-nuclear-iran-foreign-policy-466120

Having served as the TF commander in Africa...I understand exactly what and who they are. 

There are other reasons they were not previously designated..even though many of us in the field asked for it.  I have heard the cover story about getting aid and other help in but it doesn't not reality or the situation on the ground.  Bottomline, these clowns are a proxy for Iran and as Trump elevated his fight against Iran we should have kept the pressure on.  When it comes to Biden I have zero faith after he and his boss send an airplane load of American Pesos to the Iranian government.  This was a big mistake.