bmdrocks21

Affirmative Action is one of the biggest barriers to improved relations among different racial groups. There is the obvious reason: AA leads to resentment by the individuals that are discriminated against based on characteristics they are born with in favor of others who have far lower test scores.

Under the current status quo, there is a heavily discriminatory system. Take for instance, the MCAT:

With MCAT scores of 24-26, admittance rates for racial groups to medical school are:

With MCAT scores of 30-32:

In other words, where Whites and Asians have a very remote chance of admittance, Blacks have a 50/50 shot. Where Whites and Asians have a 50/50 shot, it is a near guarantee for Blacks. This will obviously lead to increased anger when certain groups with vastly superior scores are discriminated against for admittance and scholarships entirely based on characteristics they cannot control. This same pattern emerges for GPA, SAT score, and other indicators of scholastic and professional merit. But this argument is obvious and has been repeated ad nauseum. 

I think that for another reason, abolishing Affirmative Action will improve relations long-term. This is because the government's allowing of a racial basis for beneficial treatment inherently leads to the incentive to exploit that beneficial treatment. This creates an unending incentive to claim that a racial or ethnic group is oppressed simply so that it can reap the rewards of being a supposedly downtrodden group.

Previously, in the 1930s (before Affirmative Action), there was vehement protests when the census created the category of Mexican American instead of including them as White. Previously, LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens) was very pro-assimilationist and patriotic. https://www.heritage.org/civil-society/commentary/the-invention-hispanics-what-it-says-about-the-politics-race

Hispanic is in general a meaningless term related to racial/ethnic identity. As a study of the term puts it "The Latino classification is distinct from all other racial or ethnic classifications employed in the United States as it is not based on shared physical appearance or geographical origin, instead Latinos are those who hail from a portion of the territories that once belonged to the Spanish Empire regardless of their ancestry or physical appearance. The diversity within the Latino classification means that it is unclear what is being measured when the Latino classification is used..." https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/soc4.12836

This absurd term that means little in terms of cultural heritage or customs was created because having a racial minority status could reap rewards for such groups. There was a political and economic incentive to create aggrieved classes of people. That is why the term was adopted in the early 1970s, just as this Affirmative Action policy was created, allowing specific benefits based on racial classification. It was a categorization created to achieve power and receive government money.

In order to heal racial divisions, which are now apparently much worse than they have been within the past twenty years, very likely due to recent calls for "equity" meaning equal outcomes, which would require much more vicious discrimination than ever before. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1687/race-relations.aspx

In order to heal race relations, we must eliminate the incentive for groups of people to demonize others and manufacture or renew long past grievances in order to receive governmental, scholastic, and professional benefits, while also rewarding assimilation to the American way of life. I'm convinced that, had we continued to will that people assimilate to American culture after the end of segregation and had not created systems of legalized discrimination in favor of minority groups, the race problem would be all but nonexistent today.

The arrest of a career criminal, who was under the influence of drugs and resisted arrest, had their incident caught on video camera. This video was sent to the press and a deceptive clip eventually led to massive riots.

Sounding familiar? It should, but not for the reason many of you are expecting.

I'm talking about the arrest of Rodney King. King, who was on parole for a robbery, attempted to flee police at over 100 mph because he did not want to be caught driving under the influence. After eventually being cornered, he was ordered to lay on the ground, which he refused to do. Four officers attempted to execute an unarmed arrest on King, who was 6'4 and well over 200lb, but he threw them off. They unsuccessfully tried to use a taser, and he charged at them. Then, they began using their batons, but he kept trying to get up to flee until eventually eight officers were able to cuff him.

The video aired by the media showed none of the violent resisting of arrest or the charging at the officers- only the beating completely out of context.

An article from the Missouri Kansas City Law School noted that the deceptive clips "turned what would otherwise have been a violent, but soon forgotten, encounter between the Los Angeles police and an uncooperative suspect into one of the most widely watched and discussed incidents of its kind".

I'd think that the fentanyl overdose of a career criminal after resisting arrest would have also fallen back into obscurity without the meddling of the media that grossly misrepresented the case.

The LA Riots resulted after the police were not charged in King's beating, as the jury was shown the full clip with all of the facts present. After 5 days of massive riots and $1 billion in damage, the national guard quelled the savage mob.

However, some of the police were eventually charged by the DOJ with "depriving King of his civil rights". This moment taught the mob one important lesson: rioting works. If you riot enough, you can get a conviction, and today, you can get over a billion in donations for looting and burning business. With last year's riots fresh in the mind of Chauvin's jury, they knew that for the safety of themselves and their city, they must convict Chauvin.

So, we must take similar lessons. The national guard quelled the mob nearly instantly. We must not hesitate to deploy any means necessary to uphold the safety of the public from rioters and to protect the sanctity of our justice system. We only have the mere semblance of being a First World country when we allow officers to be sacrificial lambs to please angry mobs who deify felons. We cannot accept living under the tyranny of these unhinged, violent activists and opportunists.

To stop the mob, we need, as Patrick Buchanan once said about the LA Riots "the one thing that could stop it: force, rooted in justice, and backed by moral courage."

So, it has been seeming like any disparities among races are always just tossed up to "White Racism" or "Systemic Racism", and I was simply wondering, at what point do you consider minorities to be people who are responsible for their own actions?

Are we assuming that all cultures and peoples are the same and that any disparity at all is because of racism? How much disparity in SAT scores and household wealth needs to be closed before you blame individuals for making bad choices like having kids out of wedlock?

And how does this apply to disparities in which White people are lower in achievement? Asians from many cultures and countries have the highest IQ scores and earn much higher incomes than White people.

Black women are 3x more likely to die during childbirth than White women, but Hispanics are 13% less likely to die than White people. Are White women making bad health decisions and Black women are suffering from this unspeakable racism on the part of White doctors, and it is of no fault of their own?

Maybe telling people that all of their problems are because the White man is keeping people down is causing them to act irrationally. Maybe they don't try as hard to finish high school, because 'what is the point'? The evil White man will keep you from succeeding anyway.

It seems to me that removing personal agency from people is only going to cause more harm than good. You can fight the occasional racism when you find it, but it by no means is rampant like lefties try to make it out to be. 

So lefties in particular, let me in on this: At what point do you blame people over a boogeyman?

I feel like a lot of conservatives jump on the "fiscal responsibility" and "low spending" bandwagons, while the conservative movement throughout history has centered around the family.  Almost a quarter of abortions are because of monetary concerns.

Many married couples both have to work to be able to buy a house, car, and the average age for having a first child now is 26.9 years old. This number was 21.4 in 1970. This includes a lot of concerns such as decreasing fertility and parents having less children. This has resulted in an aging population and people with an average birth rate of 1.77, which is below replacement. So, our population is decreasing without considering immigration, leading to a cultural shift.

Based on a shifting culture and many people having to put work over children for a significant point of their life, I think that below is a great position that conservatives in America should support.

So, Hungary has recently released a seven-point plan to support families.  It goes as follows:

Is there anything you would like to add or criticize if you would consider yourself a conservative? (The libs and lefties can offer input, too, I guess. I'm assuming you would have different reasons for supporting or criticizing such a policy than that I have outlined, though).

This will be a list of all states and D.C. showing the cost of living from lowest to highest. Some of these states are up for debate whether they are Red or Blue, and feel free to dispute some of them. I believe that this shows a clear trend that living in a Red state is much cheaper and explains why homelessness appears to be a much larger issue in Blue states (semi-response to another thread about homelessness). It is also meant to show how drastically the two styles of governing affect the prices of goods, housing, utilities, etc.

B: Blue

S: Swing

R: Red

1 Mississippi (R)

2 Arkansas (R)

3 Oklahoma (R)

4 Missouri (R)

5 New Mexico (B)

6 Tennessee (R)

7 Michigan (B)

8 Kansas (R)

9 Georgia (R)

10 Wyoming (R)

11 Alabama (R)

12 Indiana (R)

13 Iowa (R)

14 Nebraska (R)

15 Ohio (S)

16 Kentucky (R) 

17 West Virginia (R)

18 Texas (R)

19 Idaho (R)

20 Louisiana (R)

21 Illinois (B)

22 North Carolina (S)

23 South Carolina (R)

24 Arizona (R)

25 Wisconsin (S)

26 Florida (S)

27 Utah (R)

28 North Dakota (R)

29 South Dakota (R)

30 Virginia (B)

31 Minnesota (B)

32 Pennsylvania (B)

33 Colorado (B)

34 Montana (R)

35 Delaware (B)

36 Nevada (B)

37 New Hampshire (B)

38 Washington (B)

39 Vermont (B)

40 Maine (B)

41 Rhode Island (B)

42 New Jersey (B)

43 Connecticut (B)

44 Maryland (B)

45 Alaska (R)

46 Massachusetts (B)

47 Oregon (B)

48 New York (B)

49 California (B)

50 Washington D.C. (B)

51 Hawaii (B)

This article basically goes through how Democrats from Blue states leave them because of their stagnant growth to find jobs in Red states, where housing is actually affordable and most of their income isn't going towards taxes.

But here is the kicker: they continue to vote for the very policies that made their home state a stagnant, homeless-ridden sh*thole. 

So, why are all of these leeches coming to Red states to take jobs and then destroy the growth that the good policies created?

Not only immigration, but also emigration are creating an electoral nightmare for Republicans. While we are gaining Pennsylvania and Michigan from emigration, we are losing Georgia, Florida, and eventually Texas. Not a good trade in the very least!

This is partially taken from another thread, as I wasn't given an answer at all.

But honestly: why do conservatives only seem to care about low taxes, or at least make that their main priority?

I can understand why GOP politicians do it, whether that be from being corrupt or appeasing self-interested voters.

Having low taxes is good, but that isn't related to what "conservatism" is. It is about maintaining order, promoting traditional American values, preserving culture/the family, and rejecting egalitarianism, to simplify it for the thread.

Was it the "Reagan Revolution" that hyperfocused us on taxation?

As cultural marxism and moral relativism are penetrating the American consciousness, as the cornerstone of our communities- the Church- is being spit on and demonized by the media and religion is dying off, our history is being erased as monuments are defiled and destroyed, big tech is censoring conservative opinions, universities are indoctrinating students, among other things.

All neocons can seem to advocate for is war and raising our debt by lowering taxes. Why have the majority of supposed "conservatives" ignored all of these much more pressing social issues?

What have conservatives actually "conserved" over the past 50 years? I am starting to think the meme of "conservatives are the liberals from ten years ago" is reality and not just a joke.

I just wanted to get a feel for what the community's opinions on the future are.

Trump hasn't taken very drastic measures thus far to bring back a lot of the troops from the Middle East, deporting all illegal immigrants, and taking more drastic actions to reduce drug prices (he said in 2016 he wanted Medicare negotiating drug prices). He has kept a lot of promises, but these are some glaring areas that not a lot of progress was made on.

Do you believe that he hasn't pursued some of these issues because he doesn't want to upset special interests that would do everything they could to prevent reelection? Will he have more conviction when reelection isn't a concern of his? Or did he not believe in them at all?

Also, I wanted to get the feelings of the community on what types of candidates will run after Trump is out of office, whether that be this November or in another 4 1/2 years. Will they continue running more nationalistic and populist-like candidates, or will they return to the typical Bush neo-con-type presidents? I have heard a lot of support for having Pence run, but I'm not sure that he is palatable to most independents or that he can be as confrontational when he needs to be. 

So, in the future:

For Conservatives: who do you want to run in 2024?

For Liberals: who is a Republican that you could potentially see yourself voting for in 2024?

3M, an AMERICAN company, was caught exporting protective gear to foreign countries while their home country was experiencing a crisis. Should companies have some sense of loyalty to their home country, at the very least during times of emergency like we are experiencing? I would certainly argue that they should. Our good markets and taxes are what made them successful, so they should in turn have a duty to help us.

3M says that they don't want to jeophardize their trade relations with other countries under an export ban. They would much prefer that we countries get into bidding wars with one another. Canada is worried that their medical workers may be imperiled when an export ban is implemented.

This really shows the issues with globalism/free trade. We, for many medical devices and drugs, have China create them for us. They are a borderline-hostile regime. Our country's safety should not be dictated by foreign powers, nor others be based on ours, as Canada and Latin America will soon learn. Outsourcing critical industries is a mistake.

Perhaps people will begin to adopt protectionist and nationalist policies in the future, at the very least I hope we do! I certainly support pro-market policies during times when these devices aren't critical for our national security, but this conflict of interest cannot be tolerated during a pandemic.   

There have recently been calls by politicians such as Bernie Sanders to raise corporate income taxes, and this is a very foolish proposition. He would like to see it raised to 35% https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/14/bernie-sanders-would-raise-corporate-tax-rate-to-35percent-ban-stock-buybacks.html

Lies in the media have been spread about "corporate windfall profits", making these propositions seem great to those who don't truly understand how businesses operate in the context of the economy. The public perception of profits as of 2015 was that companies have a 36% profit margin. The reality is that, based on 212 industries combined, the average profit margin is 7.5% and the median profit margin is 6.5%. When you have these liberal politicians and media pundits constantly lying, this is exactly what you get: people believe corporate profits are 5x what they actually are, and then they support policy positions based off of this misinformation. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/the-public-thinks-the-average-company-makes-a-36-profit-margin-which-is-about-5x-too-high/

Additionally, consider exactly what happens when you tax a corporation, outside of the obvious effects of making America a less attractive country to start a business or invest in. How will these new taxes affect consumers? Corporations consider taxes to be just like any other item that costs them money- an expense. To adjust for these expenses, they will raise prices for their products. So, consumers end up paying the tax issued by the corporation. I will not pretend that this works in reverse as a sort of "trickle down economic" effect either. The only thing that will reduce prices for consumers is competition. You stimulate competition by eliminating barriers to entry and free up markets shackled by high taxes and expensive indirect costs such as regulation that small businesses and startups have difficulties complying with. They may not have the capital or lawyers necessary to make sense of thousands of federal, state, and local regulations.

Now, for anyone who disagrees, I would like to ask you: how do you believe a $15 federal minimum wage, more mandated family time off, more expensive regulatory compliance, and other such programs associated with the Democrat platform will make America a place that any foreign company wants to create jobs or a country in which our current companies will be able to remain globally competitive? Do you believe that this will have no effect on long-term economic growth, unemployment levels, or inflation caused by rising costs of products?

For anyone who doesn't want to raise corporate taxes, let me know anything I missed or if there are any misrepresentations of my position that I might have made.

Thanks to anyone who reads my mini-rant. Hope you have a nice day! :^)

The SCOTUS just voted 5-4, along ideological lines, to allow new changes to legal immigration. It will allow immigration officials to take into consideration whether or not a legal immigrant will become a public charge and rely on public assistance.

This seems rather pragmatic to me: why would you let someone in the country who will end up costing you money? We are a country, not a charity, and being a charity is precisely why we are racking up trillions in debt.

So, anyone feel free to post your thoughts on this new development. I have heard this may be a good way to stop chain migration.

If any lefties would like to explain why we shouldn't be allowed to engage in financial responsibility, I am all ears.

This 2020 presidential election is pushing for "free" colleges. Proponents of this system have some good points. I don't believe that it is a good idea to impose high levels of debt on students, which may take them over a decade to pay back.

I have recently learned about a system called an income share agreement. Now whether this is the schools or private individuals offering the loans is irrelevant. An income share agreement would be the school or investor agreeing to pay for the schooling of the student and in return, they would receive a portion of the income from the student for a predetermined number of months after they graduate.

For instance, they may pay for your pilot school, and then for the next 8 years, they investor would receive 6% of your monthly income. This is a great incentive because as the student succeeds, the investor succeeds as well. These investors then have a strong, vested interest in your success (unlike now, how even a bankruptcy will not forgive the debt. They will get it back sooner or later.). It is also great because, if you are unemployed, you don't have any obligation to pay a dime to the investor for that month. You won't ever have to struggle to pay them back.

This will push students towards majors that are more productive and lucrative. The investors would require a smaller percentage of the income and smaller payback periods for these more lucrative majors. If you study something that has few available jobs or low income, they will want that extra security. So, a pilot may pay for 8 years, while a teacher or someone studying performing arts may have to pay for 12 years. Currently, the government doesn't distinguish between majors as far as I know. They just treat those getting gender studies and business degrees the same way, with little regard for the risk of losing money.

I think this is the best possible system. It is better than the silence of most conservatives on the matter and the "free" college propositions of many Democrats. And since it leads people towards higher paying, productive majors, it will be much better for our economy,

Let me know what you think.

Smoking while pregnant raises risk for preterm birth, low birth weight, sudden infant death syndrome, and birth defects. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/substance-abuse/substance-abuse-during-pregnancy.htm

Additionally, alcohol is linked to cognitive debilitation and other issues for the child.

This usually causes irreparable harm to another being, the child, and therefore should be considered as some sort of child neglect or child abuse. At the very least, this child should be taken away. It should probably also be illegal to sell either substance to a pregnant woman. As far as I know, all of these are merely discouraged, but not illegal.

What is your opinion on this? The only thing that I could see causing issues is the cutoff point(by when does the pregnant woman know that she is pregnant and is still neglecting her responsibilities). 

As they currently stand, I am anti-union. I don't believe they should be abolished because everyone has a right of association, but they severely need reformed. I am reading a book that briefly went over the problems with them, and I want your opinion on what it said.

1. Every state needs right to work laws. These laws essentially state that if a company has a union, not everyone has to join. That is, when union representatives negotiate contracts, you aren't forced to join and pay dues to the union just because you may benefit from it. Losing your job for not wanting to join a union is coercion and unduly gives unions extra funding and power from people who may not support them.

2. Unions should not be involved in politics. Union members are forced to pay dues, and billions of dollars of these are spent on political efforts. Some unions also help people get out to the polls, or say they support a certain candidate. As far as I know, union members don't get a vote as to who gets this money, so people may be supporting a candidate that they don't like just because they joined the union. The concentration of power in these few top union leaders to manipulate politics should not be allowed. 

3. Unions should be company-wide, not industry wide. Companies often operate in different states from one another and there are different costs of living, corporate cultures, and lifestyles. This will cause inefficiencies, as not all companies can afford the same things. Additionally, this again gives too much power to unions. Unions are not a government, meaning they should not be able to force an entire industry to either comply with union demands or go bankrupt. In the same way it is illegal for corporations to collude and price fix, it should also be illegal for a large union to wage fix for multiple companies.

If all of these regulations were placed on unions, I might see myself supporting them. If you know of any additional regulations or have any criticisms, let me know.

:D

I would like to conduct a poll on the current enforcement of bans. PinkFreud was just banned "by request". There is no information as to why a respected member of the community has been banned. I'm not his biggest fan, but I certainly would like him on the site to keep things interesting. Dr. Franklin seems to get a temporary ban about every two weeks. This makes the site border line-objectively less enjoyable when people I enjoy talking to are removed from the site permanently or for over a week. It is also less enjoyable having to walk on egg shells when talking to people here.

I believe we need more transparency on why temporary bans occur, as well as information on either who requested a "ban by request" or at least some reasoning.

Permanent bans should not be shrouded in mystery. 

Let me know your thoughts on how a reform to banning should look or why it should stay the same.

Thank You! :)

I personally believe in fair trade. I would like it to be as free as possible. It is best for consumers that way. However, China has historically used protectionist policies which hurt us at their benefit. I think it is best to threaten to use and potentially use high tariffs on Chinese goods until they agree to practice freer trade with the US. Using free trade with them give us no leverage with which to negotiate better trade deals. 

Do you guys believe that we should use tariffs to make China make a better trade deal with us, or do you believe there is a better way to accomplish that goal?

The Irish Republican Army was a paramilitary group that fought against the British invaders. Were their acts justified based on Britain's maltreatment of the Irish, or did they go too far?

Lyndon B Johnson was the worst president in history. His war on poverty actually caused rates of poverty to stop declining, as it offered strong incentives to not work. The model cities program is part of what made Detroit the economic wasteland that it is today. His methods of escalation and botched foreign policy probably prolonged the Cold War and Vietnam War, which caused the death of thousands of American soldiers. His Great Society programs caused huge deficits and caused stagflation. Overall, terrible president.