Donald Trump

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

That mess all ends with an inaugural speech where the newly appointed promise us "I will take out the trash," so we can have some time hoping that those who promised they'll do the job do the job, distracting us from the fact that government isn't doing it's job, and won't.

It's a matter of perspective and who the 'job' the government is doing is supposed to be benefiting. We live in a country where sensible bank, wall street and campaign finance reform never get passed. Where the CEO's and the top earners continue to keep making enormous gains while average workers wages stagnate and to have even more fun the government made the effective tax rates of those average workers 2-3 times what it is for the top earners.

The government is doing plenty of work, it's just not for you.

"

LostForm wrote:

"

Disrupted wrote:

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Well, if people like Sadiq Khan keep winning, it won't be bad.

Ill just quietly leave this here...

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2016/03/30/sadiq-khan-there-are-too-many-white-men-on-transport-for-lon

aha, that click bait. 16 white men, 3 white women on the transport board, a push to jack public transport fees by his opponent which the board has embraced. A push by tory party to explain that 16 white men and 3 white women are 100% representative of the population in London. Not alex Jones technique described above at all, that title

so... you are ok with people losing their job cause they were born "wrongskin" (or "wrongsex")?

just making sure Im understanding this correctly. Im with a terrible headache so it could be just me (im serious, I suffer from cluster headaches, its hard to think straight sometimes)

first off, the impetus of the article is that the (potential? or has he won?) mayor is proposing to scrap increases to the cost of public transportation, and he is being attacked because he is saying the lost revenue is less important than not raising the cost for people (usually economically disadvantaged) relying on public transportation, and its not really lost revenue at all because it is estimated revenue due to the price increases in the future. So they say but the board agrees with the changes, and he says but the board is not representative of a lot of the economically disadvantaged people that rely on the transportation, and diversity in the board would change the board's argument, that 16 white men and 3 white women is no way representative of the population of London. To which you reply he is taking away the jobs from white people. nice.

"

LostForm wrote:

first off, the impetus of the article is that the (potential? or has he won?) mayor is proposing to scrap increases to the cost of public transportation, and he is being attacked because he is saying the lost revenue is less important than not raising the cost for people (usually economically disadvantaged) relying on public transportation, and its not really lost revenue at all because it is estimated revenue due to the price increases in the future.

So they say but the board agrees with the changes, and he says but the board is not representative of a lot of the economically disadvantaged people that rely on the transportation, and diversity in the board would change the board's argument, that 16 white men and 3 white women is no way representative of the population of London. To which you reply he is taking away the jobs from white people. nice.

Ah, Im sorry, I dont use SJW lenses that lead me to think that white people dont know poverty and cant empathize with other people.

I really like how you think trump is an extremist yet clearly discredit the blatant racism from this man. but hey, kill whit- I mean, fuck meritocracy and all that, the problem is not on how the board thinks, its clearly in their color and sex (or rather, they think that way due to that), which as some have sooo eloquently pointed out, like being right wing, its the devil.

Funny thing is, I totally get his position on not increasing the cost of public transportation. Im just not gonna pretend he isnt racist just cause he's a muslim or something.

and yes, pretty sure he is the Mayor now

"Funny thing is, I totally get his position on not increasing the cost of public transportation. Im just not gonna pretend he isnt racist just cause he's a muslim or something."


So you get why he would hold his position on freezing the fares.


You understand his position that they havnt lost revenue because he did not decrease the cost of public transport, that he is proposing less estimated revenue in the future than the plan issued by the board, but will be a boon to the individuals using the transporation.


but you refuse to accept the board might be against the proposal because they are not being empathetic to the needs of people using the public transportation. and go on to say that because they are white it is a mortal sin to accuse them of not acting empathetic towards the population, and that maybe is their solidarity and distance from the problem that is squashing the empathy.




You understand I pointed out the practice of taking a sound decision and trying to root it in extremism as a way of changing the talking points? and how ironic it is that you would accuse me of being a racist against white people because I pointed out that article is written in an alarmist fashion?

given that the mayor clearly lays out his reasoning for the comments, defends his position, and they come to the conclusion he is 'trying to have it both ways' and completely give a pass to the tory candidate as 'did not respond'(who hadn't released any policy plans on the matter also pointed out by the governor as very unusual for London politics).

But nah man, I just hate white people, you got me pegged, and trump's policy plans, if we can call very flip floppy vague plans of 'greatness' policy plans, are super good, I am just an extremist for not supporting mass deportation, tagging and tracking, and outright ban on a religion.


I did get the board count wrong in my last post, 13 men, not 16.

"

LostForm wrote:

but you refuse to accept the board might be against the proposal because they are not being empathetic
You understand I pointed out the practice of taking a sound decision and trying to root it in extremism as a way of changing the talking points? and how ironic it is that you would accuse me of being a racist against white people because I pointed out that article is written in an alarmist fashion?

all in your head, what I have a problem with is how he worded it. He clearly made a relation to their race and sex and them being unable to be empathetic and you seem to have no qualms with that, which by relation what would that make you?

there's no trying to make it, its the mans words. "too many white people".

Now being serious, I dont think you are full of hate myself, I think you are just yet another victim of the gradual conditioning of normalization of discrimination towards whites due to regressive left attitudes being pushed.
In a country where stupid teenagers can get arrested for criticizing minorities on twitter, this is the mayor London got. I am not surprised.


EDIT: and yeah, trump has a fuckload of stupid things. but I'd say the only real crazy one is the kill families. investigation and penalty if support was given is ok, killing of innocents is not.

I was just pointing out the contradictions, you can clearly see the problems with trump (whether they are exaggerated or not), why cant you see the problems with this man?

I never said this man is a good man or not racist, just that this position about fares and his position that the board is not representative of the population of London are well explained, and that bringing in racism to the discussion is an attempt to undermine his points without arguing against them, and that you bought it hook line and sinker, as you are now trying to have a conversation about racism.

"

LostForm wrote:

I never said this man is a good man or not racist, just that this position about fares and his position that the board is not representative of the population of London are well explained, and that bringing in racism to the discussion is an attempt to undermine his points without arguing against them, and that you bought it hook line and sinker, as you are now trying to have a conversation about racism.

it wasnt brought to the discussion, it was already there.

he said it.

he explained his position clearly. The article is painting it as racism without discrediting any points he made except to say he is 'trying to have it both ways' with no counter point, no other possibility other than he only hates white people because he said the board is all white people, more than 3:1 men to women, and that London is not 100% white people 3:1 men to women (this is fact though you may call me racist for seeing nonwhite people in London)

"

Disrupted wrote:

He clearly made a relation to their race and sex and them being unable to be empathetic and you seem to have no qualms with that, which by relation what would that make you?

there's no trying to make it, its the mans words. "too many white people".

Now being serious, I dont think you are full of hate myself, I think you are just yet another victim of the gradual conditioning of normalization of discrimination towards whites due to regressive left attitudes being pushed.

It's not a gradual normalization of discrimination but rather a gradual revelation to the larger population that white people are poor enough at assuming the conditions of minorities in a manner specific enough that there is a need for said minority to have direct represention in whatever way, aka naacp etc.

The real question isn't about a racism towards white people but rather why we as a people at large need that direct representation to accurately represent their needs. At this point I'm not so sure this represents a racism towards the majority race or a failure in empathy of said race but rather just human nature.

As far as I can tell from me and my experiences it just makes a person feel a little better when they see someone in a position of power in the government or otherwise that looks like them and their family.

So for whatever reason, a sociologist might need to way in, there does appear to be enough real race bias in this context that it does behoove a person to want to see direct representation.