Identity politics, the downfall of our nation

a reply to: infolurker

Bad analogy. Most people voted for Trump only because his policies and issues or against the policies of Hillary.

I was/am a Rand Paul supporter myself but when given the choice between Trump and Hillary there was no question on who to vote for.

you are not the only one
somehow this fact keeps getting left out

seems no one wants to admit how bad of a candidate she was

a reply to: tinner07

Are you kidding me? Politicians only know politics AKA garbage. At least a businessman knows how to run a business (government, same thing) and make our business (country) successful

Liberals are too busy trying to get 2+2= 5 effectively govern.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: infolurker

Bad analogy. Most people voted for Trump only because his policies and issues or against the policies of Hillary.

I was/am a Rand Paul supporter myself but when given the choice between Trump and Hillary there was no question on who to vote for.

you are not the only one
somehow this fact keeps getting left out

seems no one wants to admit how bad of a candidate she was

The current crop of candidates and their stated positions don't give me any hope that they understand this at all. They missed it and seem to have no clue.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: infolurker

Bad analogy. Most people voted for Trump only because his policies and issues or against the policies of Hillary.

I was/am a Rand Paul supporter myself but when given the choice between Trump and Hillary there was no question on who to vote for.

you are not the only one
somehow this fact keeps getting left out

seems no one wants to admit how bad of a candidate she was

The current crop of candidates and their stated positions don't give me any hope that they understand this at all. They missed it and seem to have no clue.

Oddly enough, the positions the dem candidates are taking, make me extremely hopeful, and confident that Trump will have 4 more years to solidify his vision.

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: infolurker

Bad analogy. Most people voted for Trump only because his policies and issues or against the policies of Hillary.

I was/am a Rand Paul supporter myself but when given the choice between Trump and Hillary there was no question on who to vote for.

you are not the only one
somehow this fact keeps getting left out

seems no one wants to admit how bad of a candidate she was

The current crop of candidates and their stated positions don't give me any hope that they understand this at all. They missed it and seem to have no clue.

Oddly enough, the positions the dem candidates are taking, make me extremely hopeful, and confident that Trump will have 4 more years to solidify his vision.

That was my point. They current crop of candidates have merely doubled down on the mix of identity politics and policy positions that made Hillary such an unpalatable choice last time around, but even as bad as she was, she came close. This time, they've doubled down on it, meaning they've squared the crazy.

The policies are whackier and even more unworkable/outside the mainstream, and they're even more strident in their hostility toward anyone who would dare dream to vote against them. It didn't win before, and they were working in a poor economy where they could pretend to offer better times. Now they're offering even more insanity in a pretty good economy.

I'm just not going to assign Trump a win because well ... let's be honest. He's Trump. As much as I like what he's done, he's also the biggest weapon against himself plenty of times.

My “complaints?” That’s fairly dismissive. Do you realize that there are probably hundreds of studies across dozens of fields that support what im saying? That is separate from what to do about it.

We can’t talk about solutions until you are acquainted with the same evidence and research.

Again, the so called myth of the meritocracy is fairly well debunked. It’s a national myth that is beautiful and I wish was true but actually can be harmful if false. I’m well aware that this is part of the conservative world view. I’d be happy if we actually had one.

Care to discuss that before we move on? That was my point in relation to the op’s assertion that a meritocracy existed.

If you guys really need it I can provide a list of citations and evidence.
a reply to: Mach2

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: CADpro
You're a big racist Nazi for even mentioning this. /s

I know. I'm white and a male, so everything that's wrong with the world. And yet, I embrace my ability to survive. I feel like such a horrible person.

i'm white too and a male and i don't know what you are talking about.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

The meritocracy exists the same way the free market does in this country and for the same reason -- government gatekeeping.

Someone's a little grumpy...lol.

When a minority group who has been mistreated in the past actually gets to be treated like everyone else, that's typically something everyone can be happy about.

But if punching puppies and kittens is your thing, so be it. Most people are socialized better though.

a reply to: ghaleon12

Explain how that works though.

Some person with a penis and testes that function can now simply say he's a woman and walk into any women's changing room in the country now.

No man with the same functional equipment can do that.

How is one biological male not being treated differently than another? And why am I as a biological woman protected from one of those biological males, but not the other?

Okay I mean I get your point. It’s a hypothesis for why it doesn’t.

Let’s play a thought experiment though. If we lived in a relatively libertarian society with little government intervention, do you really think that every meritorious poor kid would have the same opportunities as a meritorious rich kid (even if you argue that’s the poor kids parents fault)? Also, because people are tribal and go with what they know and will be advantageous, do you not think that many wealthy or connected families won’t be more likely to give opportunities to the kids and family of other powerful people they know.

Third, severe malnutrition under five years old in the form of stunting usually creates life long cognitive disabilities, and hence obviously less ability. Such malnutrition is due to poverty usually.

These are a few things, and not the only ones, that won’t just go away if the government does.

I’m just not sure that human nature and such realites allow for having a 100% meritocracy, even without gov.
a reply to: ketsuko

If a transgender drag queen named Bob wants to be president, I'm old school enough that I think Bob should have some other qualifications besides his sexuality crisis

And if Bob has the qualifications? Then what?
Let's not pretend like Bob's 'sexual crisis' wouldnt bother you.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Thanks to fast food and processed food, malnutrition and poor nutrition occurs across more then just extreme poverty these days in this country.

But look at what happens in the so-called elite institutions:

On the one end, you have Affirmative Action gatekeeping where policies assign points to entrance exam and scores to weight things positively for certain ethnicities and negatively for others so that some have to actually score higher in order to be considered and others don't have to score as high as the stated standard score.

Then you have classes filing lawsuits because stereotypical standards have been admittedly applied to their applications to keep their ethnicity from becoming a dominant one on campus.

At the other end, you have extremely rich parents bribing to get their children into elite institutions in defiance of the standards.

And what's left is a very thin slice left over for the rest.

Some of that is government gatekeeping and some is what you're grousing about. Either way, it's wrong because neither so-called remedy helps the ones who truly deserve to be helped. You can't deny that much. It's not about helping the disadvantaged. It's only about helping the "politically expedient" disadvantaged. It's not about helping the best and brightest either, but only about helping the ones it's most politically expedient to help.

The problem is that in order to make things a true meritocracy ... you have to set standards, and the long and short of it is that if certain groups do not meet those standards at levels that some would like to see, they cry "racism" rather than examine why in more detail. Truthfully, some cultures do not value education the same way others do and that's part of the picture though not all. So the standards become racist all of a sudden, and you see phantom points added to scores to weight them to make them less racist. You see people writing papers to explain how math has become racist. All kinds of crazy like that rather than examine why some groups underperform as a phenomena tied to their circumstances rather than a problem of the tests, subjects and standards.

originally posted by: tinner07
a reply to: infolurker

And what does that say for the fools who would actually vote for someone based on being the 1st of something regardless of qualifications or policies? Leftest virtue signaling and feels will be the death of this country.

You mean like voting for a business man instead of a politician for President?

That's exactly why he got elected. America is sick of the same ol', same ol' politician BS. Politicians have and still are running this country into the ground with a complete lack of concern for the peoples best interest. The Democratic party is currently proving that to us in spades. They don't care about the citizens of this country, they care about votes and once they get their votes, they're not going to care about them either.

I think a better question to ask yourself is, how did we get to the point where someone like Trump could get elected? That in its self speaks volumes of how bad and inept our current political arena has become.

I would rather have a businessman negotiating deals abroad than I would another yes man politician that will say and do anything for a donation to his latest and greatest foundation of the week.

originally posted by: tinner07
a reply to: network dude

Long long ago, in a land far, far away, you were chosen for your position, or elected to your position based on your merit, you hard work, your accomplishments. You had to prove yourself before you got the golden ticket and the brass ring.

And now under trump you just have to have been a CEO of a business in the industry that any Govt.dept. is meant to regulate.

Your bias is showing. All presidents reach into the pot regarding CEOs and appointments. Forbes has an article for President Obama stating he hired 1000 from the Forbes list of top companies. What os your point other than to troll?

The Surprising Thing About Obama and America's CEOs

President Barack Obama, who made few friends in corporate board rooms early in his first term as he pressed for tighter regulations on banks and remarked on the “fat cats” who helped precipitate the financial crisis, heads into his final year in the White House having built – or rebuilt – alliances with chief executives of the nation’s biggest companies.

The president and his top advisers have kept an open door for CEOs of Fortune 100 companies, keeping almost 1,000 appointments with them, a Reuters review of White House records shows.

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

If a transgender drag queen named Bob wants to be president, I'm old school enough that I think Bob should have some other qualifications besides his sexuality crisis

And if Bob has the qualifications? Then what?
Let's not pretend like Bob's 'sexual crisis' wouldnt bother you.

If Bob was willing to do the work, and not flaunt his sexuality, not make himself a distraction, and had the credentials, Bob would be as good as Dave or even that guy Stuart. But unless you are hiring for a circus, don't go for the clowns.

I will say that I don't think Obama was entirely elected on just being the first black man. He did seem like he had a lot of good things going on at first glance. Like if you were even slightly left, it was hard not to like him at first. He certainly was one of the best orators we've seen in a long time (which he thoroughly abused over the years). He was also very (VERY) talented at ducking and dodging and changing the subject. Because he was so likable (Meaning that like I said, if you were a liberal, it was tough not to like him) he could get away with outright lies and blatant manipulation of his base and no one would call him on it. No one on the left, at least.

The right wing pundits have never really been all that good at what they do and they have certainly never been any real match for the left when they are on their game. And they were on their game during the Obama years.

One problem has been that the actual makeup of the right wing base is a lot more splintered (deep down) than the makeup of the liberal base. I mean, for example, on the right, you have people who are deeply religious and then you have people who are complete atheists. You have people who love big government and people who hate it. You have people who are extremely racist and sexist and people who are the complete opposite. You have people who are very pro-2nd Amendment and then you have people who couldn't care less about the 2A. The left can EASILY expoloit any one of these contrasts and cause chaos on the right.

Trump frankly represents (in a liberal mind) the absolute worst of everything conservative and he is easily the worst thing that has happened to the American right since Nixon.

originally posted by: network dude
I am aware, and I do vote in every election, unlike I did in my youth. But I certainly won't feel guilty for saying it, of believing it. I'll just feel bad for the younger generation who thinks that what you look like is more important than who and what you are. It seems we have come full circle. I never understood the term "reverse racism", but I may be starting to get it.

"Reverse racism", sounds like "reverse" identity politics, yes?
And around and around we go.....

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
My “complaints?” That’s fairly dismissive. Do you realize that there are probably hundreds of studies across dozens of fields that support what im saying? That is separate from what to do about it.

We can’t talk about solutions until you are acquainted with the same evidence and research.

Again, the so called myth of the meritocracy is fairly well debunked. It’s a national myth that is beautiful and I wish was true but actually can be harmful if false. I’m well aware that this is part of the conservative world view. I’d be happy if we actually had one.

Care to discuss that before we move on? That was my point in relation to the op’s assertion that a meritocracy existed.

If you guys really need it I can provide a list of citations and evidence.
a reply to: Mach2

Not necessary, as I stipulate as to the fact that problems exist. Why argue something where there is nothing to argue.

If you don't care ti discuss realistic solutions, then yes, it is just "complaining" for the sake of complaining.