***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[dwalk31]

Are you disagreeing with the concept of environmental racism? I agree, it's not easy to address such long-standing, complex, and systemic issues. Trump's policies will only exacerbate those issue and make it more difficult to address.

I'm not sure how the trade-of narrative is inaccurate. Trump has been dismantling environmental protections. Minority communities are disproportionately impacted by environmental hazards.

If you want to talk about what's done at the local level, maybe we can do that another time. I was hoping to compare Biden's record to Trump's. As I understand, one of the reasons you didn't support Clinton and don't support Biden are because of policies that have negatively impacted the black community. I'm trying to understand how Trump's policies that negatively impact the black community fit in there.

The difference is that Biden wrote a law that was enacted. Trump has done no such thing.

The local level matters because the leadership in St. Louis, that you mentioned, is Democratic leadership.

And no, I am not disputing environmental racism. I stated it was important.

If you point me to an Executive Order Trump has done it might be helpful for a more 1:1 comparison. But a blanket Trump is dismantling environmental protections comparison to the crime bill Biden wrote is not quite the same.

And it isn't a trade off when you consider what can be done at a local level.

 

[junglejim]

Which is what? I'm pretty sure they Mayor on Flint, Michigan would like to have drinkable water. If it were as simple as doing it at a local level, it wouldn't be an issue.

 

[dacomeup]

Not a genuine debate. He would’ve had a reason to not vote for Bernie as well. He’s locked into this “ architect of mass incarceration” quote, consistently ignoring the historical context of it, and even that his party wanted the measures to go further. He’s now decided to lock in Cory Booker quoting it — when Cory Booker himself has endorsed Biden. There is no room for genuine discussion with this guy. He’s just baiting people in so he can give his normal run around.

 

[dwalk31]

What authority does a mayor have to impose environmental protections? I get it at a state level like California, but how the **** is a mayor suppose to unilaterally create a law addressing these issues?

I'm not quite sure if serious.

It's not about unilaterally creating a law. The president generally can't do that either.

But to answer your question, signing/vetoing city ordinances... budget decisions... policies...etc.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Not a genuine debate. He would’ve had a reason to not vote for Bernie as well. He’s locked into this “ architect of mass incarceration” quote, consistently ignoring the historical context of it, and even that his party wanted the measures to go further. He’s now decided to lock in Cory Booker quoting it — when Cory Booker himself has endorsed Biden. There is no room for genuine discussion with this guy. He’s just baiting people in so he can give his normal run around.

Yeah, dwalk31 who is considered a proud supporter of pedophiles, is not here for sincere discourse.

 

[dwalk31]

Not a genuine debate. He would’ve had a reason to not vote for Bernie as well. He’s locked into this “ architect of mass incarceration” quote, consistently ignoring the historical context of it, and even that his party wanted the measures to go further. He’s now decided to lock in Cory Booker quoting it — when Cory Booker himself has endorsed Biden. There is no room for genuine discussion with this guy. He’s just baiting people in so he can give his normal run around.

I said Booker, specifically, as a response to the pedophile nonsense that was mentioned by Rusty. And it isn't just Booker that has said it.

I think Bernie has the energy due to his progressive views and consistency and that is why he would have won over Biden. And maybe over Turmp. He also doesn't have the tough-on-crime, while a legislator, stain that Biden has on him.

None of this is about who I am going to vote for. I can highlight issues a candidate has without it being dispositive.

Many agree on the First Step Act being a positive. That doesn't mean Trump gets their support. And it doesn't mean them acknowledging it ends genuine debate.

Biden's record related to the Crime Bill is trash. And he danced around that record on the Breakfast club.

EDIT: And Rusty proved my point above

 

[junglejim]

I'm not quite sure if serious.

It's not about unilaterally creating a law. The president generally can't do that either.

But to answer your question, signing/vetoing city ordinances... budget decisions... policies...etc.

And what is this going to do to stop companies from polluting the air, water, etc? If it were so easy to do it on a local level it wouldn’t be a pervasive issue. Most localities don’t have to funding to set up local EPA groups or even before basic pollution standards. Most of it comes from state and federal laws, some of which trumps administration has relaxed.

Telling poor communities who do not have the funding to handle it does nothing but make the issue worst without federal and state regulations.

Who measures it, with what equipment, how is it enforced, and where does the budget come from if not for additional taxes? Most localities spend their revenues on funding schools. Does schools take a budget cut to enforce? You can see where this becomes problematic right?

 

[dwalk31]

Which is what? I'm pretty sure they Mayor on Flint, Michigan would like to have drinkable water. If it were as simple as doing it at a local level, it wouldn't be an issue.

Flint mayor-elect wants to explore ways to end Detroit water contract

Flint mayor-elect wants to explore ways to end Detroit water contract

Flint Mayor-elect Sheldon Neeley will explore ways to break off from the Detroit water system and connect instead to the Karegnondi Water Authority

www.detroitnews.com

 

[dwalk31]

And what is this going to do to stop companies from polluting the air, water, etc? If it were so easy to do it on a local level it wouldn’t be a pervasive issue. Most localities don’t have to funding to set up local EPA groups or even before basic pollution standards. Most of it comes from state and federal laws, some of which trumps administration has relaxed.

Telling poor communities who do not have the funding to handle it does nothing but make the issue worst without federal and state regulations

Are you talking about pollution generally or the stuff mentioned in that St. Louis article?

Buzz words like pollution are fine, but if you want to discuss a narrow issue we can.

Companies have polluted the air and water during the presidencies of people from both sides of the aisle.

Environmental racism isn't new. And, as has been conceded, it isn't an easy issue to address due to the tie to poverty.

That said much can be done on a local level so the idea that I trade it off by voting for Trump is wrong imo.

 

[junglejim]

Flint mayor-elect wants to explore ways to end Detroit water contract

Flint mayor-elect wants to explore ways to end Detroit water contract

Flint Mayor-elect Sheldon Neeley will explore ways to break off from the Detroit water system and connect instead to the Karegnondi Water Authority

www.detroitnews.com

It’s been 5 years. If it were so simple to do it locally, then why isn’t it done? One would think that five ****ing years would surely be enough to get clean god damn drinking water.

Truth of the matter is it just strains already poor communities who don’t have the budget to do it without state and federal spending. I can want to fix something all I want, but it’s completely useless without the resources.

Why couldn’t they have fixed HBCU funding locally? Why did it need federal tax dollars? (I’m in no way saying the federal tax dollars went to a bad place, I’m just point out the hypocrisy in this argument)

 

[boris]

The difference is that Biden wrote a law that was enacted. Trump has done no such thing.

The local level matters because the leadership in St. Louis, that you mentioned, is Democratic leadership.

And no, I am not disputing environmental racism. I stated it was important.

If you point me to an Executive Order Trump has done it might be helpful for a more 1:1 comparison. But a blanket Trump is dismantling environmental protections comparison to the crime bill Biden wrote is not quite the same.

And it isn't a trade off when you consider what can be done at a local level.

Does a politician have to write a law in order for their decisions to have negative impacts?

I'm still not seeing why the local level matters for this discussion. I'm talking about the Trump Administration's policies. To be clear, I'm not disagreeing that the local level can have an impact. I'm just interested in your thoughts about Trump's decisions.

Sure, the NY Times has kept track of Trump's rollbacks. I'm not trying to say they are an apples to apples to comparison, but that the Trump Administration is making policy decisions that have and will continue to negatively impact minority communities.

The Trump Administration Is Reversing Nearly 100 Environmental Rules. Here’s the Full List. (Published 2021)

The White House has dismantled major climate and environmental policies focused on clean air, water, wildlife and toxic chemicals. Here’s how it adds up.

www.nytimes.com

Unless you're trying to argue that his policy decisions will have zero impact it is a trade-off.

 

[dwalk31]

It’s been 5 years. If it were so simple to do it locally, then why isn’t it done? One would think that five ****ing years would surely be enough to get clean god damn drinking water.

Truth of the matter is it just strains already poor communities who don’t have the budget to do it without state and federal spending. I can want to fix something all I want, but it’s completely useless without the resources

The mayors of Flint have been Democratic for well over 5 years.

In fact, a Democratic mayor made the decision to switch the water supply (as a cost-saving measure) and caused the crisis.

And poor mismanagement by the city made a bad situation worse.

 

[junglejim]

The mayors of Flint have been Democratic for well over 5 years.

In fact, a Democratic mayor made the decision to switch the water supply (as a cost-saving measure) and caused the crisis.

And poor mismanagement by the city made a bad situation worse.

Thats the point. By doing all this locally all it does is force poor communities to choose between funding schools or other cost cutting measures. It has nothing To do with democrat versus republican and everything to do with tax revenues pouring into poor communities which does not happen. The point is poor communities don’t have the cash to throw at these issues so they themselves cannot and should not be solely responsible for enforcing things such as air and water pollution. It’s not a viable strategy and all it does is hurt poor communities even more in the long run.

But it’s pretty clear we will disagree on this issue so I’m going to leave it here before it turns into a rabbit hole of bull****

 

[dwalk31]

Does a politician have to write a law in order for their decisions to have negative impacts?

I'm still not seeing why the local level matters for this discussion. I'm talking about the Trump Administration's policies. To be clear, I'm not disagreeing that the local level can have an impact. I'm just interested in your thoughts about Trump's decisions.

Sure, the NY Times has kept track of Trump's rollbacks. I'm not trying to say they are an apples to apples to comparison, but that the Trump Administration is making policy decisions that have and will continue to negatively impact minority communities.

The Trump Administration Is Reversing Nearly 100 Environmental Rules. Here’s the Full List. (Published 2021)

The White House has dismantled major climate and environmental policies focused on clean air, water, wildlife and toxic chemicals. Here’s how it adds up.

www.nytimes.com

Unless you're trying to argue that his policy decisions will have zero impact it is a trade-off.

It seems we are actually not as far apart as it seems.

1. You agree strides can be made on a local level
2. You agree the environmental things done under this administration are not a 1:1 comparison to the crime bill written by Biden
3. I agree that policy decisions from the President have an impact

That said, the reason the local decisions matter to me in this discussion is because I don't consider it a trade off when local leaders can do a lot to impact those important issues.

Unlike mandatory minimums where local leadership can't do anything to change that. Or the three strikes law that local government can't do anything to change. Or federal ban the box legislation where local leaders can't do anything to change that.

Hopefully that makes sense.

 

[dwalk31]

Thats the point. By doing all this locally all it does is force poor communities to choose between funding schools or other cost cutting measures. It has nothing To do with democrat versus republican and everything to do with tax revenues pouring into poor communities which does not happen

Why don't the tax revenues trickle down to poor communities?

I'll wait.

This might be the day you understand my perspective.

 

[CoachMiller1981]

So apparently the Press Secretary said that President Trump is going to use executive order pertaining to Social Media. This should be interesting seeing as he is pissed off at Twitter for the whole fact checking thing. I wonder if Conservatives will throw a tantrum over this as they did when President Obama used executive order to make changes to the Affordable Care Act.

 

[junglejim]

Why don't the tax revenues trickle down to poor communities?

I'll wait.

This might be the day you understand my perspective.

most local communities are funded by property taxes assessed on property values. In poor communities property values tend to be lower which lead to reduced revenues. In most communities, their budget is spent on school and infrastructure. Whatever amount isn’t covered by local taxes generally comes from state taxes. Poor states tend to be less desirable to live, so to entice individuals and businesses, they institute lower tax rates which leads to reduced revenues and budget deficits (although many states have a budget deficit with high tax rates so not necessarily correlative). Then when these poor states dont have enough revenue they rely on federal funding for things such as schools and infrastructure. Approximately 75% of our federal budget is spent on defense, Social security, and Medicare/medicaid. About 15 percent (an amount far too low) is spent on education funding.

So to answer your question, poor communities stay poor due to repressed property values and largely being in poor or mismanaged states, and we have a federal government who would rather spend a trillion dollars a year on defense than spend a reasonable portion on education.

To make issues worse, we also have a party in power that decided we need to have one of the lowest federal tax rates of any developed nation, the reduced tax rate did not create the 5% GDP growth which was promised by a certain individual, and therefore the tax cuts did not asexually pay for themselves. As a result, instead of raising taxes, we have decided that our best bet would be to decrease programs such as the EPA, CDC, food stamps because that can be fixed with churches and a little Jesus.

But if you are asking why tax revenues don’t trickle down, it’s my opinion that we spend far too much on defense spending, not enough on education which would free money for localities, and have a stupid policy for allocating federal funding (standardized tests)

 

[boris]

It seems we are actually not as far apart as it seems.

1. You agree strides can be made on a local level
2. You agree the environmental things done under this administration are not a 1:1 comparison to the crime bill written by Biden
3. I agree that policy decisions from the President have an impact

That said, the reason the local decisions matter to me in this discussion is because I don't consider it a trade off when local leaders can do a lot to impact those important issues.

Unlike mandatory minimums where local leadership can't do anything to change that. Or the three strikes law that local government can't do anything to change. Or federal ban the box legislation where local leaders can't do anything to change that.

Hopefully that makes sense.

But do we agree that Trump's environmental policies are detrimental, and that they will have negative impacts on minority communities?

If we're talking about the local level, then we can see that California adopted a clean slate record relief policy for certain convictions and arrests. Clearly local leaders can do a lot to have an impact on criminal justice reform as well.

If Trump is making detrimental policy decisions at the federal level and we need to rely on local leaders to counter the decisions, why isn't the same logic isn't applied to Biden's crime bill?

 

[dwalk31]

So apparently the Press Secretary said that President Trump is going to use executive order pertaining to Social Media. This should be interesting seeing as he is pissed off at Twitter for the whole fact checking thing. I wonder if Conservatives will throw a tantrum over this as they did when President Obama used executive order to make changes to the Affordable Care Act.

The debate on whether to treat certain social media platforms as traditional public forums will be an interesting legal debate indeed.

And Trump's position would likely win, unanimously, at the Supreme Court.

 

[dwalk31]

But do we agree that Trump's environmental policies are detrimental, and that they will have negative impacts on minority communities?

If we're talking about the local level, then we can see that California adopted a clean slate record relief policy for certain convictions and arrests. Clearly local leaders can do a lot to have an impact on criminal justice reform as well.

If Trump is making detrimental policy decisions at the federal level and we need to rely on local leaders to counter the decisions, why isn't the same logic isn't applied to Biden's crime bill?

Yes to your first question.

Yes, Cali and other states can do a lot as it relates to criminal justice.

But local officials can't impact federal mandatory minimums, federal ban-the-box legislation for federal contracts, or the federal 3 strike laws. Thats the difference as it relates to the crime bill by Biden.

 

[dwalk31]

most local communities are funded by property taxes assessed on property values. In poor communities property values tend to be lower which lead to reduced revenues. In most communities, their budget is spent on school and infrastructure. Whatever amount isn’t covered by local taxes generally comes from state taxes. Poor states tend to be less desirable to live, so to entice individuals and businesses, they institute lower tax rates which leads to reduced revenues and budget deficits (although many states have a budget deficit with high tax rates so not necessarily correlative). Then when these poor states dont have enough revenue they rely on federal funding for things such as schools and infrastructure. Approximately 75% of our federal budget is spent on defense, Social security, and Medicare/medicaid. About 15 percent (an amount far too low) is spent on education funding.

So to answer your question, poor communities stay poor due to repressed property values and largely being in poor or mismanaged states, and we have a federal government who would rather spend a trillion dollars a year on defense than spend a reasonable portion on education.

To make issues worse, we also have a party in power that decided we need to have one of the lowest federal tax rates of any developed nation, the reduced tax rate did not create the 5% GDP growth which was promised by a certain individual, and therefore the tax cuts did not asexually pay for themselves. As a result, instead of raising taxes, we have decided that our best bet would be to decrease programs such as the EPA, CDC, food stamps because that can be fixed with churches and a little Jesus.

But if you are asking why tax revenues don’t trickle down, it’s my opinion that we spend far too much on defense spending, not enough on education which would free money for localities, and have a stupid policy for allocating federal funding (standardized tests)

You are conflating federal tax revenue with local property tax revenue.

Why can't local mayors take the property tax revenue from wealthy communities and dedicate it to issues/programs impacting poor communities?

This isn't a trick question.

The answer is that they can.

But, too often, they don't do enough. Instead they dedicate it back to the more wealthy communities and to increasing tourism, etc.

And the leaders of a lot of these large cities with large black populations are Democrats.

 

[CoachMiller1981]

The debate on whether to treat certain social media platforms as traditional public forums will be an interesting legal debate indeed.

And Trump's position would likely win, unanimously, at the Supreme Court.

You may be right, you may be wrong. We won't know until he signs the executive order. I can't guess either way as I don't know what President Trump is going to do.

 

[RustyShackleford]

The biggest driver of mass incarceration is state prisons. Not Federal

Changes in state laws, unequal policing, prosecutors over charging, and sentencing at the local level is what drives high prison populations

The method in which the Crime Bill threw fuel on the fire was that it have states so much money to do buffoonery. Not that it increased the federal prison population enough to drive mass incarceration.

To end mass incarceration, we mainly need to undo damage that was caused by practices at the state and local level.

 

[rexanglorum]

Most members of my family of the older generation already preferred Biden. I was trying to swing people over to Warren, and then Sanders after Warren was effectively done for. I have a struggle Trump supporter distant cousin. Old boy got a white wife, converted Republican and has 6 white passing kids. He’s been spewing anti-Obama stuff since 08, and now looks like a buffoon because he has to double down with Trump. Irony is all of his kids who are of age ended up being hardcore Bernie Supporters.

We love to see it, don't we, people?

In terms of my family, I got it the worse, my dad doesn't just support Trump, he basically is Trump or at least a gusano Trump. Born with a silver spoon in Nicaragua, went to boarding school in England, owned a construction company so he considers himself "blue collar" and a "forget American." He's retired now and listens to Sebastian Gorka and Mark Levin constantly. Otherwise, he smokes cigars, pontificates about how young people today have no gumption, claims to be the voice of Latinos (because a criollo represents all Latinos) and says that Latinos should support Trump, goes on bootleg Tony Montana rants about lost masculinity in America because of flouride.

In typical boomer fashion, politics is just a diversion so he doesn't mind having a wife who is a Warren supporter. He doesn't mind having three Bernie supporting kids nor one more who unironically supported Marrianne Williamson. he was hoping that Gen Z would be rightwing, he thought that socialism was a millennial pathology but his oldest grandson, cast his first ballot for Bernie this spring.

he does act as a good bellweather for what the GOP base is actually thinking. In summer of 2015, pundits were predicting that Trump would get no traction, never mind the fact that my dad started supporting Trump before Trump even stepped off that golden escalator. My dad hates John McCain (he voted for Obama in 2008 just to spite McCain) so I knew that Trump would have no problem trashing Mccain. My dad immediately rejected fellow white Latinos, Cruz and Rubio, calling them "Crazy preacher" and "globalist neocon," respectively. Seeing the media predict Trump demise and it never happening was hilarious--the material consequences were horrific, of course---but it was interesting seeing how poorly journalists understood how the GOP base actually made its decisions.

I got a lost cousins like that too.

Mans has internalized so much racism it is not even funny. He went to a nearly all white college and all them respectability politics he got hit with warped his mind. Dude legit believes he is a different race than African Americans because he is from a Caribbean. He gets mad a me when I call myself black and refer to all black people (especially African Americans) as my people. He be checking "other" on census form He Ninja level lost.

Mans nickname on the island since he was a kid is black, because he is so dark skinned. But he checking the other box.

Last time we where all on the island together and chilling with friends, I aired him out to them. They lit him up so bad, that I almost felt remorse. They told that man that white people be using cake soap (skin bleaching soap) on his mind. Having his brain looking like Vybz Kartel. Bruh I lost it so bad that when I came to my senses I was laying under a lime tree and my sides were hurting

I imagine it goes without saying but have you dropped this track on him every time he enters the room?

 

[Christian Pulisic]

Twitter won’t autoban neo-Nazis because the filters may ban GOP politicians

Motherboard releases report on what (and who) the algorithmic content filters would ban.

www.yahoo.com

Heh.