Gaidin you and I know the reparations aren’t aimed at Asians and Arabs.
Gaidin you and I know the reparations aren’t aimed at Asians and Arabs.
Yea but to force people to pay more money based on race you have to pass a law. Along with the governments “we’re giving them money “ law. That is then a tax. Based on race. You are taxing based on race. And you have to get this law through Congress and if you do that you will then hope it sticks through the courts.
All that time you didn’t want things done to you based on race and even amended the constitution for it you are perfectly willing to flip the script for a dollar. Good to see the greed come out.
Last edited by Gaidin; June 25, 2019 at 06:01 PM.
One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Gaidin I was just attacking progressives who want reparations. I’m not here to discuss the likelihood of them happening.
Except assume for thirty seconds they manage reparations. You and I both know that whatever they run on it will be funded neutrally lest it get struck down. It’s one thing for the government to spend its money where it wants. It’s another for it to racially target people via a tax no matter the endgame.
One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Reparations would be made by and on behalf of the government/nation. If you feel it would thrust present day white people in a position of guilt vs present day black people, then that is really a choice you make and not something you can project upon others who might think reparations of some sort are worthy of consideration (that's about as far as Dem presidential candidates go). IMHO you're overly sensitive to 'threats to white people'. Be careful you don't develop a victim complex of your own.
Last edited by Muizer; June 25, 2019 at 07:09 PM.
"Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -
That has something to do with the fact that notion of reparations is, in fact, holding nation responsible for past alleged "injustices". Obviously, if such politicians think that such injustices need reparations, they can use their personal wealth for that and leave taxpayer's money to be spent on taxpayer's needs, not on some Democrat apparatchik's virtue-signaling tantrum.
Muizer’s point is that politicians are elected to represent the people and the country. If they feel reparation is necessary that is their prerogative. Because gathered tax money is theirs to spend. We elect them for that function among many others. My point is don’t target a racial tax if one doesn’t want this to collapse faster than many other legal maneuvers we’ve seen die.
One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Politicians are nothing more then hired administrators. They must be held responsible to make sure that their decisions represent interests of their constituents. So spending tax funds on something entirely unrelated from such interests isn't something they should be able to do. Its like if an elected politician just took millions out of budget and donated them to some KKK group.
Evidently. That is what reparations are about: an admission by a government or organization that its past incarnation caused harm. And if it's a government doing it, then it's doing it on behalf of the nation. For 'the people' it is admitting their ancestors did wrong, not assuming guilt themselves, as Basil seems to think.
That would be personal charity then, with no symbolic value whatsoever.
Anyway, IMHO a government can make such gestures on behalf of a nation (not as in people who live there today, but as in the historical political entity). What is true that such a gesture would not carry much weight unless it is made with broad, bipartisan, support. An executive order or heavily contested legislation passed with a slim majority would largely invalidate the mostly symbolical value it's supposed to have.
"Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -
Quick, amend the Constitution to say what they’re allowed to or not allowed to spend money on as a government before 2021.
Until and unless the Constitution says such things the only time your whims matter is at the ballot box. Tell me do you even participate in the Democratic Primary?
Last edited by Gaidin; June 26, 2019 at 04:42 AM.
One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Again, why should people, majority of which can hardly trace their lieanage past a few generations assume their own guilt?
But that's the thing - only a small minority of leftists think that nation is to be held responsible for "past injustices". There isn't any broad support for "reparations" even among the Democrats.That would be personal charity then, with no symbolic value whatsoever.
Anyway, IMHO a government can make such gestures on behalf of a nation (not as in people who live there today, but as in the historical political entity). What is true that such a gesture would not carry much weight unless it is made with broad, bipartisan, support. An executive order or heavily contested legislation passed with a slim majority would largely invalidate the mostly symbolical value it's supposed to have.
So an elected politician has a right to spend taxpayer funds on say donations to KKK or to SS veterans?
What the heck? I just said explicitly that that is not what it's about!
I just said that it would be pointless if such a thing were pushed through without wide backing. No point saying sorry if you don't mean it.Originally Posted by Muizer
"Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -
I’m not sure what you think you’re going to catch me up in here. One of the elected politicians purposes for existing is to budget collected taxes as funds. Right now there are no limits as to what they can and cannot spend that money on past the sheer economical value of the American dollar.
If you want limits, put limits into law in such a way that they have no choice but to comply.
Example: there is a legislative limit on government money being spent at abortion clinics. If Congress wanted to suddenly line item money for them their congressional power of the budget would override the law that screws with the Executive. But Congress wouldn’t be able to argue with Amendments giving them budgetary rules. This isn’t a truly complex line of thought.
One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Tulsi Gabbard apparently did well in the first round of debates, which is great because she's one of the few who's not completely evil or crazy.
The German newspaper "Die Süddeutsche" sees this candidates as winner and loser of the first TV debate:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
And tomorrow you'll be on your way
Don't give a damn about what other people say
Because tomorrow is a brand-new day
For whom sanders and warren are “too white”?
Decriminalising illegal crossing is one way to lose the election in 2020. You want Trump to paint you as the open borders party? Castro’s policy would give him all he needed.
Yeah pretty much.
You had the usual identity politics :wub:, somebody on Twitter summarized:
-Beto: ''look I can speak Spanish''
-Booker: ''I can't believe you did that trick before me''
-De Blasio: ''I have a black son''
-Booker: ''I'm actually black''
-Warren (thinking) : ''don't say it, don't say it'' -referring to her fraudolent Native American heritage.
Then you finally have someone who cares about the country and shines. Duh.
Ya Julian Castro was a big winner alright, I mean his demand for tax payer funded abortions for transgender MtF will surely go over well in the rust belt.