Displaying 1 - 10 of 2975 Forum Posts1 2 3 4 5 Next
  • Oct 17, 2017 11:25 PM
    Last: 1mo
    351

    The Bernie or Busters had very little to do with Hillary losing the election. It is doing nothing for building a Democratic win by fostering hostilities about an insignificant fact. The amount of spending by the the campaign was predicated on Hillary winning and the spending was more rewarding to favorite states than to secure votes in soft states. The amount of spending in solid blue states was almost astronomical compared to spending in states not guaranteed . There was frantic spending at the end to make up for the oversight when it was realized that the race was closer than ever expected. Some key states up to that time had not had even one visit. The idea that the election was stolen from Hillary means that those supporters are satisfied with that platform. A realization that that platform lost will enable the party to unify and build for the next elections. Anything else will guarantee Republican victories.

    In the latest Newsweek Story reporting on reasons for Hillary losing Bernie supporters are not even mentioned out of a list of 17 including Barrack Obama, the DNC and her own Staff.

    One of the biggest mistakes made was ignoring the Bradley effect. I said on here that people were lying to the pollsters because they were to embarrassed to say they were supporting Trump.

    There should not be such a vehement division in the Democratic Party. There should be absolutely nothing that causes diametrically opposing sides when it comes to the lower classes and working people.

    I think it is time to unite the party, United We Stand.

  • Sep 28, 2017 09:36 AM
    Last: 2d
    2.6k
    Carlitos Wrote: In a good economy, business competes for labor. Workers can change jobs with ease. The young are hired while they are still in college. And ‘on the job’ training is the norm. If you can ‘fog a mirror’, you can find a job paying living wages. That’s the definition of a good economy. We are nowhere close to that.
    " And ‘on the job’ training is the norm. " A prosperous economy has no problems finding workers. Marginal economies have complaints because they are looking for the most skilled experienced workers from the surplus of workers to replace existing workers. So they complain they can't find skilled workers so they get applicants to come in looking for better qualifications to replace existing workers. A prosperous economy will put people to work and teach them what to do and not complain.
  • Sep 28, 2017 09:36 AM
    Last: 2d
    2.6k
    Carlitos Wrote:

    Chet,

    Please elaborate or restate.

    Headhunting. Advertising for specific jobs and skills and hiring more talented experienced people to not add on but to replace existing workers.
  • Sep 28, 2017 09:36 AM
    Last: 2d
    2.6k
    Saying there is a shortage of skilled labor is another way of upgrading existing labor. Hiring but net number employed remains the same with the gain being in skill sets and experience. Good for business but bad for working class.
  • Oct 16, 2017 03:20 PM
    Last: 2mo
    263

    Well, I am starting to see a pattern of racial discrimination that I was not aware of. It is easy now to see that this happened because as you pointed out the 1934 Law was rooted in blatant racist practices.

    The GI Bill (1944)[edit]

    At the end of World War II, the GI Bill furthered segregation practices by keeping African Americans out of European American neighborhoods, showing another side to African American housing discrimination. When millions of GIs returned home from overseas, they took advantage of the “Servicemen’s Readjustment Act,” or the GI Bill.[19] This important document was signed in 1944 by Franklin D. Roosevelt, and gave veterans education and training opportunities, guaranteed loans for home, farm, or business, job finding assistance, and unemployment pay of $20 a week for up to 52 weeks if a veteran could not find a job.[20] This law allowed millions of U.S. soldiers to purchase their first homes with inexpensive mortgages, which meant the huge growth of suburbs and the birth of the ideal of a suburban lifestyle.

    African Americans were met with discrimination when trying to purchase a home in the overwhelmingly European American neighborhoods. The realtors would not show these houses to African Americans, and when they did, they would try and talk them out of buying the home. This discrimination was based on the fact that realtors believed they would be losing future business by dealing or listing with African Americans, and that it would be unethical to sell a house in a European American neighborhood to African Americans because it would drive the property values of the surrounding houses down.[21]

    This is far more direct and obvious. No doubt that it wasn't original but followed the lead of the National Housing Act of 1934.

  • Oct 16, 2017 03:20 PM
    Last: 2mo
    263
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Are those your words and your interpretation. Are you saying his purpose was to create segregated housing and his purpose was to sell only to white people?

    Yes, that's what I'm saying. I'm saying that because that is what the law establishing the FHA explicitly said.

    You may not like that, but facts (you know, the things that are true) don't care what you like or don't like.

    Chet Ruminski Wrote: My reading of similar material was neighborhoods were graded and as it turned out the worst grades went to the worst incomes, buildings etc that also happened to be people of color. Which at that time was representative of income/ethnicity.

    The question is whether the purpose was racial discrimination and segregation or the purpose was affordable housing that turned out to be racially discrimatory and segregatory.

    Racist by design or evolution. In either case still racist but important to know the "facts".

    Your "reading" doesn't matter. The law establishing the FHA was explicit. Black people were to be screwed over. Period. End of sentence.

    I know it hurts to hear your hero was a racist, but your hero was a racist. He also ushered in an era of discriminatory housing policies that made it so people of color couldn't get a mortgage. We are still dealing with his actions to this day. You may not want to admit it, but those are the facts.

    I am not denying that the results of those laws including the 1934 Law resulted in Racial injustices.. I am asking you if that was the purpose of the laws or was it a result of the laws. I know the neighborhoods were graded accordingly and somewhat prior by banks for suitability for credit. As it happened to be in that time period the worst neighborhoods were typically the lowest incomes and the lowest incomes were typically minorities. It was no secret that white neighborhoods were the better neighborhoods because whites had all the advantages. That is how the phrase "there goes the neighborhood" got started. Any person at that time that was grading neighborhoods for credit worthiness would have come up with the same grades.
  • Oct 16, 2017 03:20 PM
    Last: 2mo
    263
    jaredsxtn Wrote:

    This will come across as blasphemous to some, but I have come to accept that FDR isn't the knight in shining armor that I once considered him to be. This realization didn't come out of nowhere, but instead after countless hours of research and soul searching.

    It's true that FDR helped guide the American people out of the worst economic downturn in a generation, but it's also true that he injected steroids into Jim Crow laws in the south *and* the north. In the south, racism was blatant; in the north racism was economic. In that respect, FDR failed miserably and signed multiple pieces of legislation into law that created the bedrock of the institutionalized racism we are still grappling with to this day.

    The National Housing Act of 1934, which FDR signed into law, gave permission to the Home Owners' Loan Corporation to create "residential security maps," which were used to single out minority neighborhoods from receiving any federal funding. These minority neighborhoods were literally outlined in red and allowed banks to deny all mortgage capital to people living within them.

    Author Richard Rothstein recently explained on NPR:

    "It takes many people by surprise. This whole history has been forgotten. It used to be well-known. There was nothing hidden about it. The federal government pursued two important policies in the mid-20th century that segregated metropolitan areas. One was the first civilian public housing program which frequently demolished integrated neighborhoods in order to create segregated public housing.

    The second program that the federal government pursued was to subsidize the development of suburbs on a condition that they be only sold to white families and that the homes in those suburbs had deeds that prohibited resale to African-Americans. These two policies worked together to segregate metropolitan areas in ways that they otherwise would never have been segregated."

    So FDR signed legislation into law that "demolished integrated neighborhoods in order to create segregated public housing" *and* used federal dollars to develop suburbs "on a condition that they be only sold to white families."

    I fully understand that many people will retort with "he was simply doing the best he could during the times he was living in," but I just don't buy that. He picked winners and losers and the losers are still grappling with the housing choices he made nearly a century ago.

    I also fully understand that many people will vehemently disagree with my having the audacity to criticize a man countless Democrats look to as a hero and I am ok with that. I don't idolize anyone. It's important for us to understand history and why decisions made decades ago are still negatively affecting the lives of millions of people of color to this day.

    We can dig our heads in the sand and act like none of that ever happened, or we can learn from it. I understand many people will continue to dig their heads in the sand, but I'm choosing to learn from it.

    "So FDR signed legislation into law that "demolished integrated neighborhoods in order to create segregated public housing" *and* used federal dollars to develop suburbs "on a condition that they be only sold to white families."

    Are those your words and your interpretation. Are you saying his purpose was to create segregated housing and his purpose was to sell only to white people?

    My reading of similar material was neighborhoods were graded and as it turned out the worst grades went to the worst incomes, buildings etc that also happened to be people of color. Which at that time was representative of income/ethnicity.

    The question is whether the purpose was racial discrimination and segregation or the purpose was affordable housing that turned out to be racially discrimatory and segregatory.

    Racist by design or evolution. In either case still racist but important to know the "facts".

  • Oct 16, 2017 04:24 AM
    Last: 2mo
    120
    To start out all news has to meet certain criteria everyday. To make the News News Worthy a lot of factual information is omitted. News is News for profit. If a human interest is involved then their is no limit on negative attacks on a negative subject. e.g. the silicone breast implants. There was no limit on the negativity of silicone implants. So now they are using silicone implants again. Silicone Breast Implants Make a Comeback - WSJ Creates some doubt as to the veracity of what was reported about silicone implants in the first place. The same type of condition exists with Fukushima. Information prior to the event appeared to indicate that an accident like that would have had far more drastic and immediate results. There is no real clear idea of what is going on and how dangerous Fukushima is although it is potentially a world threatening conditioning. It would seem there would be a universal reaction dealing with Fukushima. The News is lacking in a lot of aspects and Fukushima casts a cloud on just about all the news. Trump commenting on anything has to be considered for entertainment purposes only because of his compounded practice of lying.

  • Oct 16, 2017 08:13 AM
    Last: 2mo
    251

    "What's so sad! is that Bernie or Busters will somehow find a way to blame centrist, rationally thinking Democrats for everything. They really do have no shame."

    Why not establish a sense of cooperation instead of an adversarial attitude. Certainly have to have more in common with the left side of the middle than the right side of the middle. United We Stand is a meaningful message. Adroit politicians in both camps could produce unity and take over government. But nothing can be done by advertising disunity and self interest.

  • Jun 24, 2017 10:33 PM
    Last: 2mo
    2.5k
    Dockadams Wrote:

    You can put that incrementaist bullshit back in your pipe and smoke it. You know what side I'm on by reading my posts on a nearly daily basis. I gave you some proof after your attempt to denigrate Clinton and democrats as a whole. No, wages are not what they should be, and everyone knows that the top 1% own most of the wealth in Amerika.

    I have noticed that you take pleasure in denigrating Mrs. Clinton too. I don't know you personally, but from my observations, In my opinion, I would say that you might be one of those voters who when Bernie lost, you sat on your ass at home and didn't vote for Mrs. Clinton, or you voted for Trump.

    I'll go one step further here and say some people using this forum claim to be independents or democrats, but after reading some of their posts, they're not either. I won't single anyone out because they know who they are, and know what they are, and they're not democrats by any stretch of imagination.

    Clinton signed into law the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. There was absolutely no good purpose for that law. The main thing it did was to expand enormously the classification of futures. Consequently that put an enormous amount of trading out of control. That attracted enormous amounts of money, money that could have and should have been used in our economy to create and finance jobs producing budnisses. That law, the CFMA, is probably the single most contributing factor to the 2008 collapse. My entire philosophy and purpose is to regulate the economy to benefit the people of the United States as one group. That is why I have a problem with the Clintons. They had put the lower classes very low on their priority list. Hillary Clinton would be President today if she pledged to work for good paying jobs, debt free education, health insurance for everybody and stabilizing the economy. It is really amazing to me that there is so much resistance on this sight to what should be the basic fundamentals of the Democratic Party. Whose side are you on???