Post New

MAGAs fiddle as Trump destroys Americas balance sheet...

U.S. Budget Deficit increased by an alarming 20% last month to $291 Billion

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/12/us-deficit-grows-t...

The worst deficits since the last time Trump was president!
Viewing Trump's economic policies, it becomes very clear how Trump managed to go bankrupt 6 times...
Trump Taj Mahal (1991)
Trump Castle (1992)
Trump Plaza Hotel (1992)
Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts (2004)
Trump Entertainment Resorts (2009)
Trump Entertainment Resorts (2014)

"Happy Birthday Jeffrey — and may every day be another wonderful secret." ~DJ Trump, NYC Pedophile

When asked about the bankruptcies, Trump replied: "I've never been bankrupt".

The worst deficits since the last time Trump was president!
Viewing Trump's economic policies, it becomes very clear how Trump managed to go bankrupt 6 times...
Trump Taj Mahal (1991)
Trump Castle (1992)
Trump Plaza Hotel (1992)
Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts (2004)
Trump Entertainment Resorts (2009)
Trump Entertainment Resorts (2014)

I mean....this doesn't mean that Trump's a moron. It doesn't even mean that he's a bad businessman.

I know, I know. It sure doesn't seem that way.

But if you can get a bank to loan one of your SPE companies a million dollars against your ten thousand so that you can bet that $1.01 million on "red" on the roulette wheel, and you keep the winnings (minus repayment) if it hits and you just have that entity declare bankruptcy if you lose....is that not a smart bet?

That's a very exaggerated example, but there's lots of real estate developers that try to run their businesses that way. Make risky bets with other people's money - the riskier the better. It's an art to get banks and equity partners to come into your deal with a waterfall that gives you massive upside and modest downside - but if you can get away with it, it's awesome for you.

Trump made a huge bet on AC with other people's money with a small percentage of huge upside and a massive downside potential. He never went bankrupt - he barely had any money at all in those deals. But he stood to make a gazillion dollars if it hit, and lose very little if it failed - so who cares if there's a very slim chance of it succeeding, or if it failed?

I mean....this doesn't mean that Trump's a moron. It doesn't even mean that he's a bad businessman.

Taking lots of high risks with other people’s money (the equivalent of heads I win, tails you lose) is one of the definitions of being a bad businessman.

And this time, it’s not the “banks” money at risk. It’s all of our money.

Con artists may make lots of money, but that doesn’t mean they’re good businessmen. It means they’re con artists.

Taking lots of high risks with other people’s money (the equivalent of heads I win, tails you lose) is one of the definitions of being a bad businessman.

Why? Sounds like a very profitable business to be in. And it takes a rare talent to be able to accomplish that with other people's money in debt. It's very common to do it in equity, that's basically the entire Silicon Valley financial system, but most people can't get banks to take the other side of that deal.

Trump's business isn't - and wasn't - in running casinos. It's in running a development company. And these deals turned out great for that business. He was able to take over the Taj with Other People's Money and get a billion dollars to put into it. All upside for him, no downside. The bet turned against him when interest rates skyrocketed and the Taj went into BK, but he was able to cut a deal where the banks only took half the equity interest to restructure the debt. So he still had the massive upside on his potential, just a bit less - and still was in the deal. Then he was able to set up a public offering for a new entity to take out everyone's interest in the property at close to par (about $900 million) - meaning he made out like a bandit on his equity, and kept a lucrative stream of income for his brand name on the hotel. That new entity then went bankrupt, but again not any problem for Trump's actual businesses.

Trump's actual business - running a development company - performed amazingly through all this. He was enormously successful at that. It's the nature of real estate development, which is in some ways like poker. Some deals will succeed, some will fail - and the key is to make sure you lose less on the deals that fail than you win on the deals that work. Some developers like to operate in the area where none of their deals fail, but none of them are massive home runs (low variance). Others work in the high-risk/high reward area (high variance), and their most important skill is making sure that when their deals fail, they're not the ones holding most of the losses.

I expect that's why Trump keeps pointing out - correctly! - that he never went bankrupt. Some of his SPE's did - but that's why you have SPE's in the first place! So that they go bankrupt, and not you!

so the logic here is trump is a moron because he (uniquely) could get away with even more lucrative activity (drugs, cybercrime, etc...), but is not doing so on a scale that would be lauded by MAGA as biz genius.
got it.

i still see him personally looting 10s of billions in taxpayer money as the endgame before 2028, via crony projects. and never seeing prison.

"I expect that's why Trump keeps pointing out - correctly! - that he never went bankrupt. Some of his SPE's did - but that's why you have SPE's in the first place! So that they go bankrupt, and not you!"

You make some fair points. In my opinion, his "success" is attributed to his lack of morals, not because he's some kind of business genius.

"so who cares if there's a very slim chance of it succeeding, or if it failed?"

LoL, the investors in those failed casino's ???? And I'm sure Trump didn't let loose
with a diarrheaic stream of fantastical claims of how it is a sure thing ( but in a legally
deniable way, lol ).

I know you don't mean that quoted statement literally. What I find bewildering is that
voters can look at Trump's litany of failures and think: Let's hitch America's wagon to the
shining star that is Trump. But hey, that's where we're at, at this moment in time.
I'm sure glad all of his campaign promises are coming true, though. I am astounded
at how low the prices of groceries and vehicles have gotten #sarcasm

I have been contemplating a new truck purchase. Did some online perusing of inventory and
prices. New plan,lol, drive the wheels off the current well functioning truck. Thanks Trump.

I know you don't mean that quoted statement literally. What I find bewildering is that voters can look at Trump's litany of failures and think: Let's hitch America's wagon to the shining star that is Trump.

I did mean it literally. But I meant it from the point of view of Trump and the folks who are involved in his business (the real estate development) rather than the casino business. His business is the development of the project, not whether the project works on an ongoing basis.

Voters didn't think he was a failure. Some of the businesses he was part of developing failed, to be sure - but after Silicon Valley worked its way into the American concept of business, that's not a negative mark anymore. Nowadays, if you've never failed, you've never taken enough risks. In a political environment where voters were looking for a change candidate, rather than a status quo candidate, that was a huge plus.

You make some fair points. In my opinion, his "success" is attributed to his lack of morals, not because he's some kind of business genius.

Since he has no scruples or morals, that sort of business was perfect for him once he learned how to give legally non committal and evasive answers.

In a political environment where voters were looking for a change candidate, rather than a status quo candidate,

Perhaps. But I'm just going to come out and say it. A lot of voters were looking for a racist. A white, male, racist. And that's exactly what they got.

Look at it from the white, male, racist perspective. In 2008, McCain lost to Obama. The guy at the top of the ticket (McCain) was a traditional Republican. Willing to work with Democrats to promote a bland Republican agenda. That didn't work. He wasn't openly racist. Heck, he probably wasn't racist at all. So they just stayed home. They sure weren't going to vote for Obama, and McCain wasn't going to pull out the stops to help them. So why bother voting?

In 2012, Romney lost to Obama. That uppity black guy in the White House, was still there. It's the "White" House. (Wink, wink, nudge, nudge). We've got to do something about that. Romney isn't a racist, either. Sure, we'll vote a bit, particularly because we've got some local racists running for the state houses and Congress.

Along comes 2016 and a real, honest to God racist is running. Even better, he thinks a woman's place is at home, barefoot, pregnant, and doing what her man tells her to do. Couldn't ask for more. But wait! There IS more! Our racist misogynist is running against a woman! We gotta vote for this guy!

So finally, FINALLY, we've got a candidate we can back. Sure, he's a little shady, but they're all shady. If they weren't how come our people weren't winning more?

Viola - the "change" candidate wins.

But then they discover that their "change" candidate is also kind of dumb when it comes to politics. Sure, he gets a couple things done pretty fast, but then it all falls apart. Worse, he screws up a global pandemic and really pisses off the Democrats in the country. All of a sudden, Democrats are fired up to vote and do so in record numbers in 2020. (As does our side, but we racists kind of depend on those "woke" folks being too lazy to actually vote.)

In comes the old man who promises to right the ship. He does his best, but the racist vote manages to hobble him in Congress. The old man tries to run again, but is clearly not up to the job. The Democrats then do us a great favor. They put a black woman at the top of the ticket. The perfect storm for the racist vote and they misogynist vote to get together and defeat her.

So instead of an old, frail man, or a highly competent but black AND female candidate, we're back to racism and misogyny. Democrats are too stoopid to actually get out and vote. They'd rather argue over the process of selecting a candidate, and that argument causes way too many democrats to stay home in protest. So instead of looking at the big picture, they cede control of Washington to the racists because their own process for selecting a candidate was not perfect.

Now we find out that the old racist, misogynist guy is also a budding fascist. And once you elect a fascist, history tells us that you are not rid of fascism again until it is violently overthrown.

Well done, my fellow Baby Boomers. I thought our legacy was just going to be a screwed up planet. Looks like we're also releasing the largest and most powerful fascist nation ever known onto our children and grandchildren.

Hopefully, they can find a way to fix this mess.

--Peter

And all the while the businesses were circling the drain, how much of their cash was he sucking out in management fees, and licensing fees, and consulting fees, and administrative fees, and salaries for his spawn, and ... ?

Perhaps. But I'm just going to come out and say it. A lot of voters were looking for a racist. A white, male, racist. And that's exactly what they got.

I'd put it slightly differently. A lot of voters weren't necessarily looking for a racist - but they were looking for someone that didn't think that they, or their beliefs or the institutions they supported, were racist. Certainly that's the larger number than the ones who actively wanted a racist.

And once you elect a fascist, history tells us that you are not rid of fascism again until it is violently overthrown.

Does history tell us that? Right-wing conservative populist-nationalist groups lose all the time. Trump lost in 2020. Berlusconi lost in Italy. A similarly right-wing populist conservative government was elected in Poland, and voted out in 2023. Etc.

I don't think Trump will try to stay in office when his term ends, and I don't think that the GOP nominee (whoever it is) is a lock to win. I do think that unless the Democratic party figures out a way to stop bleeding support, especially among younger men of all races, they can certainly lose that election.

Trump's brand of right-wing populism is winning elections here for the same reason right-wing populism is flourishing all over the world. It has a lot of political appeal. A lot of voters like it. There were never very many voters in the "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" box that certain third-party hopefuls (like Howard Schultz) thought were out there. But there were a lot of "socially conservative, fiscally liberal" voters out there. Trump wrenched the party towards those folks and away from former leadership - and that helped him build the base he has.

And all the while the businesses were circling the drain, how much of their cash was he sucking out in management fees, and licensing fees, and consulting fees, and administrative fees, and salaries for his spawn, and ... ?

A lot! Probably tons of cash! Which is why he's certainly not a moron, and why it's probably not accurate to use these bankruptcies to argue that he's not a good businessman. He set up these deals so that his personal financial success was not tied to the success of the underlying companies. That in itself shows a fair amount of acumen. And then once those deals were set up, he made sure that he made a ton of money and got his profits up front, leaving everyone else to hold the bag.

I'm not sure that makes him a "bad" businessman - or at least, not "bad" in the sense of being incapable or incompetent, rather than "bad" in the sense of being a bad person.

I love that a fossil fuel CEO is being quoted ---good - Exxon, Chevron, and so many others are great for the country and world.

"And all the while the businesses were circling the drain, how much of their cash was he sucking out in management fees, and licensing fees, and consulting fees, and administrative fees, and salaries for his spawn, and ... ?"

I don't have a link, as it was back in the '90s, but Trump and Wall St took his Casinos public, and Trump gutted them like Paulie and the GoodFella's gutted that restaurant in the movie.

I actually contemplated investing in the 1990's DJT, but further reading led to finding out that there were an enormous amount of people who thought of Trump as a 2 bit con man, and luckily I read some of their criticisms against him. I think there was even an old TMF article that
stated that investors should take a hard pass on investing any money in DJT. They were accurate,
DJT was just a Trump piggybank, he took his usual screw everybody else over path, as far as a
fiduciary duty to shareholders ( I cracked myself up typing that, Trump and fiduciary duty
to shareholders, lol )

So he was basically a good businessman in the same way that Bernie Madoff was. The difference is that Madoff promised people a return on their investment. Trump never did that, nor did he promise anyone a return of their investment.

A lot! Probably tons of cash! Which is why he's certainly not a moron, and why it's probably not accurate

A mob boss, then.

That allows for his ferral intelligence.

"The media is — finally! — noticing that Trump is becoming less and less coherent. But why isn’t it reporting on something almost every lawmaker and journalist in Washington knows — that Trump is remarkably stupid?
I don’t mean just run-of-the-mill stupid. I mean extraordinarily, off-the-charts, stupifyingly stupid."

"He claimed that magnets don’t work in water, that the Civil War was unnecessary because it should have been negotiated, and that no one would know who Lincoln was if he hadn’t gone to war."

"Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called Trump a f—king moron."

"Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, former White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, and even Rupert Murdoch all referred to Trump as an idiot?"
(Technically, Murdoch called him a "f—king idiot.")

"Trump’s chief economic adviser Gary Cohn described Trump as dumb as shit, explaining that Trump won’t read anything — not one-page memos, not the brief policy papers; nothing.
He gets up halfway through meetings with world leaders because he is bored."

"But Trump is an extraordinarily talented conman."

https://robertreich.substack.com/p/seriously-how-d...

but they were looking for someone that didn't think that they, or their beliefs or the institutions they supported, were racist.

Is there any practical difference between a racist and someone who doesn’t acknowledge racism when it is pretty clear?

Besides, the guy they got - Trump - is an actual racist.

—Peter

It has a lot of political appeal.

That seems to be true. But if people want racism and giving up rule of law for expediency, what can Dems do? Turn to the dark side, too?

I understand that you need to win elections, but it appears that younger men want expediency and racism. They want the rules erased from the barn wall.

We have to find a way to win without succumbing to that attitude. But I don't know how, other than pointing out what they are losing under maga leadership.

" Perhaps. But I'm just going to come out and say it. A lot of voters were looking for a racist. A white, male, racist. And that's exactly what they got.

I'd put it slightly differently. A lot of voters weren't necessarily looking for a racist - but they were looking for someone that didn't think that they, or their beliefs or the institutions they supported, were racist. Certainly that's the larger number than the ones who actively wanted a racist."


Good morning Al, thought I would check in on you. Has it occurred to you that millions of liberals got tired of being told the " border is secure" and that Joe is, " healthy, alert, fully engaged, and capable of serving another 4 years"? Didn't I warn you in 2023 that HUGE lies were going to get Trump elected?

You can do better bud; I gave up on most of the others here, I had hope for you. Stay healthy, I'm looking for your take on why Newsom- Aoc is the 2028 future of the party. Take care.

but it appears that younger men want expediency and racism. They want the rules erased from the barn wall.

To be clear only uneducated, low-income men want expediency and racism:
That is the only demographic Trump actually won...
Trump lost college educated women 61% to 37%.
Trump lost non college educated women 53% to 45%.
Trump lost college educated men 49% to 48%.
Trump won non college educated men 61% to 37%. (MAGA)

Throughout history, tyrants have understood that their major enemy is an educated citizenry.
Slaveholders prohibited the enslaved from learning to read. Nazis burned books.
Trump, Putin and Xi attack Universities, censor books and silence the free press. Ignorance is the handmaiden of tyranny.

"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." ~Thomas Jefferson

"I love the uneducated!" ~Donald Trump

It has a lot of political appeal.

That seems to be true. But if people want racism and giving up rule of law for expediency, what can Dems do? Turn to the dark side, too?

That's a goooood question. I don't have a good answer. If young men want to be racist, but no seen as racist - how do you appeal to that? The answer might be in finding out what else appeals to them that we can appeal to. Do they want houses or condos, a family, a decent job, but do they also see immigrants as taking jobs meant for them? Or lowering wages? Once that sets in, how do you counter it? Because it's likely to be a little bit true to a certain extent.

It looks likes they don't mind the Federal takeover of policing in the cities, and are happy with the idea of few immigrants making it across the border. Immigrants don't like that either. That border has been used as a cudgel since the beginning of the GFC,and probably prior, so it's a couple of decades now.

Trump, Putin and Xi attack Universities, censor books and silence the free press. Ignorance is the handmaiden of tyranny.

I agree. But that's not a solution for the next few cycles. If the Dems can maintain control for a decades (give or take), implement an aggressive education agenda (sorta like the GI Bill), that might be a good long-term solution. It doesn't help with MAGA in the here and now. And racism is an even more difficult issue. Just when you think it is going away, it rears its ugly head. We went from a black POTUS to a white supremacist in less than two decades.

I understand that you need to win elections, but it appears that younger men want expediency and racism.

I don't think they want racism as that term would have been commonly understood in the 70's and 80's. Maybe even as late as the 1990's. I don't believe that they want it to be tolerated or acceptable for people to engage in or display active animus against members of a minority race in public or professional settings.

But they don't want to be called or treated as racist for a lot of things that are called and treated as racist by the modern Democratic party. They want to be able to have objections to affirmative action, to be in favor of stricter enforcement against unlawful immigration, to be supportive of more stringent law enforcement, and to believe in/support a more positive telling of America's history - even though doing any or all of those things might have a negative impact on minority communities.

That's racist under the Ibrahim X. Kendi definition of racism (which is that anything which isn't anti-racist is racist), and softer ones besides. But they don't think it's racist. They are tired of being told that being open and accepting of people from other races and cultures in their own personal hearts and minds isn't enough to not be racist. That they're bad people for not joining the fight against "structural racism."

IOW they believe that it's wrong to refuse to hire a black person and we don't have to purge everything named after Thomas Jefferson. That

Is there any practical difference between a racist and someone who doesn’t acknowledge racism when it is pretty clear?

Depends on how you define "pretty clear."

There's a wide range of behaviors and existing institutions that are labelled as "racist" today that would never have been as recently as a few decades ago. Is opposing decriminalization of certain drugs racist? Is opposing affirmative action programs as implemented a few years ago racist? How about advocating for increased policing or longer jail terms for property crimes? Or more rigorous border enforcement against illegal entry? Or even that colleges should still use the SAT, or allow buildings to be named after Thomas Jefferson?

Not everyone in the Democratic coalition would consider some or all of those things racist - but every one of those things would be considered racist by someone in the Democratic coalition. It would be very hard to rise to any position of leadership within the modern Democratic party if you believed that all of the things I mentioned were not racist. So it's not surprising that Democrats are losing ground among groups that hold more conservative viewpoints on these things who were formerly in their coalition (like union members or male Latinos).

Can the Democrats find room in the party for these folks, who agree with them on a lot of economic positions but which their hardcore progressive base think are racist for believing stuff like I listed above?

That's racist under the Ibrahim X. Kendi definition of racism (which is that anything which isn't anti-racist is racist)...

That is a bit extreme, I agree. But I don't think that's what's going on at all.

They are being called "racist" for voting for a racist. The policies of the latter being clearly racist, deporting brown people without trial (have they deported any white folks without a hearing...there a lot of white "visa overstayers" in the country). Removing references to minorities (including CMH recipients) on government websites. How is that not racist by any definition?

...and to believe in/support a more positive telling of America's history - even though doing any or all of those things might have a negative impact on minority communities.

If you're having a negative impact on minority communities, how is that not racist by any definition? Your actions should be either neutral or positive, or you likely are discriminating against that community.

They don't want to be called racist, but by pretty much any definition, they are. And they want to be open about it. Would they ever vote for a black POTUS, even if he were Rep? I suspect not.

As for history, it is what it is. There is a lot of positive to American history, but also a lot of negative. It's important to know about both, even if some of it is really unpleasant (e.g. slavery). That old trope "he who forgets the past is destined to repeat it".

Is opposing decriminalization of certain drugs racist?

I don't see a connection to race there. I'd prefer to follow the science on the effects of various drugs that are criminalized or de-criminalized.

Is opposing affirmative action programs as implemented a few years ago racist?

Opposing all forms of affirmative action? Probably. Questioning whether affirmative action programs are accomplishing their intended goals or whether any specific program is still necessary? Not racist. Again, I would follow the dismal sciences of sociology and economics to deal with those questions.

How about advocating for increased policing or longer jail terms for property crimes?

Again, statistics and science. How do longer jail terms affect recidivism? Does increased policing reduce crime rates? Is the cost of more police more or less than the losses from crime?

Or more rigorous border enforcement against illegal entry?

Illegal entry? No. Deportations for minor infractions after legal entry? Possibly. Depends on the statistics again.

Or even that colleges should still use the SAT,

That's up to the colleges, not the politicians. I'd again defer to statistics and on the ground facts.

or allow buildings to be named after Thomas Jefferson?

That's a tough one that I'm not going to answer off the cuff.


But none of those are situations to which I was referring. I'm talking about things like refusing to rent apartments to blacks simply because they're black. Or calling the police because a black man is walking along the street. Or calling ICE to report two people conversing in Spanish.

These are forms of blatant racism in the here and now. There will always be struggles in the gray areas. But there are the ends of the spectrum where racism is clear and always deplorable. Trying to use the gray to hide the black and white leads to the one thing that Jedi makes sense on - which I'd describe as pointing out the speck in your neighbor's eye while ignoring the log in your own.

If Democrats want to be relevant again, they've got to highlight the black and white issues and not get bogged down in the shades of gray. And if they DON'T get relevant again, I fear we're going to fall off the cliff of fascism that we're standing on with our toes hanging over.

--Peter

...or allow buildings to be named after Thomas Jefferson?

That's a tough one that I'm not going to answer off the cuff.

I don't think so. Jefferson was an architect of our nation. There might not have been a USA without Jefferson. That significant a figure in anyone's history needs to be remembered. Just don't white-wash (no pun intended) over the warts. He was a remarkable man, but still a human being subject to human frailties and the realities of the time in which he lived.

It's not really a close call for me. I know what he did, both good and bad. Depicting him as some noble figure in 3/4 profile, looking slightly upward, in front of a waving American flag is the stuff of jingoism. But sweeping him under the rug is arguably worse.

And while statues weren't mentioned, I'll mention them. The victors get the statues. Saddam had a lot of statues, which were all torn down when his regime collapsed. Same with Hitler. Same with the Confederates (Jefferson Davis, etc). Defeated nations generally don't get to keep their statues.

They want to be able to have objections to affirmative action,

I don't consider having an objection to affirmative action as racists per se, but it can be. The Asian objection to being unable to get into Med School, etc., isn't due to racism. It's because of the perception that they lost out on the good school due to affirmative action because the Asian quota was filled. I once watched the District Director in my area show me the ethnicity breakdown across the various pay grade levels in the district and got the perception that I was competing in the "white boy" slot against other white boys.

to be in favor of stricter enforcement against unlawful immigration,

I was floored when I realized the cartels had set up a business to advertise around the world and charge up to $30,000 to get you to the US border. I don't want that and I think no one does. And pregnancy vacations to give birth in the US and have a migration link. We DO want to take our fair share of people endangered in their homeland, but we can place caps and limits. We need the money to be able to process people back out the door quickly.


to be supportive of more stringent law enforcement,

There's a time and place for that. Not everyplace is an inner city or urban barrio though.

and to believe in/support a more positive telling of America's history -

Just give it to them straight, they'll figure it out.

even though doing any or all of those things might have a negative impact on minority communities.

Improve the transit out of the barrio to areas that have jobs.

Do they want houses or condos, a family, a decent job, but do they also see immigrants as taking jobs meant for them? Or lowering wages?

Being able to buy/own housing, etc means they MUST have a decent-paying job. Immigrants will not be able to take those jobs, buy houses/condos, etc. So the initial statement is a contradiction with itself, i.e. a paradox that can not be resolved.

The policies of the latter being clearly racist, deporting brown people without trial (have they deported any white folks without a hearing...there a lot of white "visa overstayers" in the country). Removing references to minorities (including CMH recipients) on government websites. How is that not racist by any definition?

Because they're treating white people terribly, too, and tossing them out without hearings. It made the news! Remember the German tourists who were detained for more than a month (even though they were perfectly willing to just go home)? Or the Canadian one?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/11/germ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/us/mooney-canad...

If you're having a negative impact on minority communities, how is that not racist by any definition? Your actions should be either neutral or positive, or you likely are discriminating against that community.

That's the rub. Most people who are being removed are brown...because most people who have crossed into the country illegally are brown. So if you just enforce the existing laws - even if you were doing it for reasons that have nothing to do with race - there will be a greater impact on brown people than white people. The big cultural divide between the Ibrahim Kendi view of racism and the "old-school" 1970's school of racism is exactly based on whether policies that aren't motivated by animus based on race but have a completely foreseeable disparate impact on people of different races are "racist."

I don't see a connection to race there. I'd prefer to follow the science on the effects of various drugs that are criminalized or de-criminalized.

It's the disparate impact connection. The folks arrested under drug laws, especially possession laws, are disproportionally brown or black. Therefore, enforcing those laws reinforces the prison pipeline and the carceral state, saddling a disproportional number of brown/black defendants and their communities with criminal records and missing members.

I'm talking about things like refusing to rent apartments to blacks simply because they're black. Or calling the police because a black man is walking along the street. Or calling ICE to report two people conversing in Spanish.

I think most Trump voters fully agree the first is racist and have no trouble with it being illegal. Or that the other two are probably racist, and agree that shouldn't be done - that if literally the only thing going on is that a black man is walking on a street, or that two people are talking in Spanish, that calling the authorities is not okay. But I think they'd dispute whether any of the folks they vote for believe that it's okay.

I remember a few tourists, yes. They were just tourists, not migrants. Roughly 10% of the "illegal" population in the US is European (and, likely, white). So you would expect 1 in 10 deportees to be white. Are they? Might be, but I highly doubt it. And how many whites are getting a hearing versus brown people? I suspect it's more than 1 in 10. Nevermind the ignoring of the law (hearings, asylum, etc).

It's true they are treating everyone terribly. The next Dem POTUS needs to purge ICE, and restore integrity and professionalism to that organization.

Population statistics aren't racist. It's selective prosecution (or persecution) that is racist. Be it whom you incarcerate, or whom you snag for deportation.

It's selective prosecution (or persecution) that is racist.

Arrest them all and have them prosecuted by the ICC for crimes against humanity.

That's a goooood question. I don't have a good answer. If young men want to be racist, but no seen as racist - how do you appeal to that? The answer might be in finding out what else appeals to them that we can appeal to. Do they want houses or condos, a family, a decent job, but do they also see immigrants as taking jobs meant for them? Or lowering wages? Once that sets in, how do you counter it? Because it's likely to be a little bit true to a certain extent.

On TMF, Wendy recently posted an article about young people wanting financial security over anything else (including starting a family).

Here's a link: https://discussion.fool.com/t/young-adults-priorit...

So, as EB is saying, campaign on wallet issues. I have no idea if that will be enough, but it should have some traction, and Dems are -IMHO- more concerned about financial issues of the ordinary people than Reps are. For this cycle, that would have to be ACA credits, and SNAP cuts (at the minimum). Also, something like 300K people who used to work for the government are now unemployed. If there isn't any government hiring, that reduces the opportunities of young people (and older people, for that matter).

If young men want to be racist, but no seen as racist - how do you appeal to that?

I don't think the premise is correct. I don't think young men especially want to be racist. Rather, I think that young men mostly don't have the cultural capital that the modern Democratic party requires you to have to not be racist. It's not enough to just not care whether someone's white or black - there's a whole host of behaviors, positions on issues, and language you have to observe in order for the progressive base of the party to deem you to not be racist. And I think a lot of young men - and especially non-college young men - don't have that.

And looking at racism almost completely misses the point. Democrats aren't losing young men because of race. They're losing them because of gender. Democrats have adopted a set of policy priorities (not positions - priorities) around taking care of women. "The future is female."

That's not going to appeal to a lot of younger men. Either to their self interest, or their sense of fairness. Older men (like me, sigh) live in a world where women definitely still exhibit signs of worse economic outcomes. But young men live in a different immediate environment. Girls are kicking boys' butts in school. Girls do better in school all throughout primary education. There's a massive gender gap in academic performance. The overwhelming majority of high school valedictorians (~70%) are female. 60% of college students are female - and more of the female college students will graduate than the male ones.

Young men didn't rally around Trump because they were looking for racism and saw it in him. They rallied around Trump because they were looking for someone who didn't think that "the future is female," and saw that in him. That he fundamentally rejects what they perceive as the feminine orientation of progressivism generally, and the Democrats specifically.

It made the news! Remember the German tourists who were detained for more than a month (even though they were perfectly willing to just go home)? Or the Canadian one?

Sure. The token white liberals from nations that Trump couldn't make deals with. Not impressed.

Where are the raids on Russian mafia?

there's a whole host of behaviors, positions on issues, and language you have to observe in order for the progressive base of the party to deem you to not be racist. And I think a lot of young men - and especially non-college young men - don't have that.

U probably don't have it either then. I remember well, when i was told at work that the use of the word 'oriental" was out. That it had a pejorative aspect that was deemed unsuitable. Rankled me, but I adjusted. Then later I lived on a part of an island known as Negros Oriental. A twofer! Nut it was an old name, and in the interior part of the island lived an isolated tribe of Negritos, one of the few remaining tribes of Negritos and the island had been named after them. I still do use the term migger as part of quotes, but I heard it from kids while growing up. So I'm sympathetic with them to a degree. You may not be racist, but some of the requirements to not be considered racist sure look arbitrary.

And looking at racism almost completely misses the point. Democrats aren't losing young men because of race. They're losing them because of gender. Democrats have adopted a set of policy priorities (not positions - priorities) around taking care of women. "The future is female."

"The future is female" I've never heard until just now. We should take care of women, but they have choices we don't get. There is no opt out of the competition and become a Mom for men. And today, most Moms have to work to have a good life. In Southern CA,I'd meet women who would tell me that what they wanted to do was stay at home and be a Mom. So if you wanted them, you had to be willing to be both incomes, and siome guys could do it for a while, then bust and divorce, and she moves on to another income generator. I'm only beginning to get involved in the Dem party around here, but locally, it's mostly female. There are so many Republican men here I just completely stay away from politics, but they've asked me and I say "slightly left of center" and... silence.

That's not going to appeal to a lot of younger men. Either to their self interest, or their sense of fairness.

It doesn't appeal to me. But women were the better students where I was. There were just limited opportunities - teaching, nursing, now you can set sights on being an exec in a company, but not back then.

Older men (like me, sigh) and me live in a world where women definitely still exhibit signs of worse economic outcomes.

They did for me too. But that's because of the limited avenues and slots that were available. My older sister got a Doctorate in Costume Design and spent most of her life editing papers at low income. She got cancer early, two of her vertebra acted up and she gradually went from cane to walker to wheelchair to bedridden and death. She had lots of disappointments.

But young men live in a different immediate environment. Girls are kicking boys' butts in school. Girls do better in school all throughout primary education. There's a massive gender gap in academic performance. The overwhelming majority of high school valedictorians (~70%) are female. 60% of college students are female - and more of the female college students will graduate than the male ones.

I understand that. There is no 'choose the softer life of being a Mom', where you get a 9 to 5 as a receptionist. You have to take on the rough jobs or settle for mediocre money - lots of slings and arrows. I could see some guys resenting that. Some women thrive on that, but they should have a choice. I'm reminded of the woman that passed as a man in the Union Forces during the Civil War - not everyone can pull that off, nor would they want to.

One of my brother's daughters is an exec in well-known company and her husband is the stay at home Mom. Works out for them.

"there's a whole host of behaviors, positions on issues, and language you have to observe in order for the progressive base of the party to deem you to not be racist. And I think a lot of young men - and especially non-college young men - don't have that."

I remember back in the '80s, when The Cosby Show was the top rated show in America. It was
not a portrayal of the average Black family in America, but it did show Black people dealing
with the some of the same issues and frustrations as every family in the USA dealt with
( albeit, the Cosby family was high income ). I had friends who absolutely hated that
Blacks were "grabbing the spotlight". And The Cosby Show might have led to the social opinion that "Blacks were Cool", along with hip hop, the NBA and NFL, etc. And then Madison Avenue started depicting interracial couples and even families in their commercials. I had White friends who were not happy at all over that. Remember some of them saying words to the effect "I'm not going to have that bullshit forced on me ".

I spent a fair amount of time playing hoops in the Black part of town, and I was definitely
the minority, if not the only White person there. I was known to a lot of them, but by no means friends ( went to different schools, lived in different part of town ). After awhile, I got
the distinct impression that most ( not all, lol) of them liked me. The games got pretty
rough, you definitely didn't want to be perceived as a punk ( soft ), but it all went
pretty good, most of them time. Most important thing I learned from all of that was not
becoming a better basketball player, it was learning what it felt like to be The Minority, even if was only for a couple of hours.

Racism is a lack of critical thinking, it's letting emotions override logic.
So it is right up there with everything else festering just beneath the surface in America.
I know for a fact that there are White people struggling out there. But it s a class struggle, not a race struggle. Whites need to learn that. Or MAGA gonna be around till the Country burns down.

But it's a class struggle, not a race struggle. Whites need to learn that. Or MAGA gonna be around till the Country burns down.

Democrats need to learn that. The last several years have seen the national party really emphasize the need to fight white supremacy (which lurks in nearly every system and institution) and to dismantle the patriarchy (ditto). It's hardly surprising that's cost them support among economic classes that they've traditionally done well with.

But I don't think Democrats will learn that, because it is also a race struggle. There really are severe problems that exist as a legacy of past discriminatory practices, and there's no way to remedy them without causing some less-than-maximal outcomes among whites and men (and especially white men). You can't fight white supremacy without removing whatever unfair benefits that accrue to white people under those systems....which means white people will be worse off under the new system than the old unfair one. Ditto the patriarchy.

You can't fight white supremacy without removing whatever unfair benefits that accrue to white people under those systems....which means white people will be worse off under the new system than the old unfair one. Ditto the patriarchy.

Reckonings can be painful. No doubt.

The alternative is to allow the unjust systems to continue, or to reassert unjust systems that we thought we were leaving behind- as Trump is currently attempting- not only in matters of race, but class, sex and economy as well.

Reckonings can be painful. No doubt.

The alternative is to allow the unjust systems to continue, or to reassert unjust systems that we thought we were leaving behind- as Trump is currently attempting- not only in matters of race, but class, sex and economy as well.

These might not be alternatives, though. It might not be possible to actually have a reckoning against majority groups in a democratic system. If you try to impose painful things against the majority, they'll vote you out of office.

It's one thing if you're able to credibly persuade the majority that a reckoning is necessary and just. But if you aren't able to do that, trying to impose a reckoning on a group that thinks it's neither necessary nor fair is a recipe for electoral disaster.

It's one thing if you're able to credibly persuade the majority that a reckoning is necessary and just. But if you aren't able to do that, trying to impose a reckoning on a group that thinks it's neither necessary nor fair is a recipe for electoral disaster.

That’s our dilemna.

"It's hardly surprising that's cost them support among economic classes that they've traditionally done well with."

When I said Whites, I was meaning working-class and poor Whites. I don't think they are doing well under Trump, or even previous GOP Presidents. Either that, or all of the stories about how the working-class has been under attack since Reagan are BS. Can't have it both ways.

I've seen interviews of Whites saying that they want to do away with any affirmative action, that
they are focused on looking forward,lol. Of course they don't want to look back at slavery, and it's legacy. But OK, American Whites want a level playing field for all, from this day forward.
The MAGA White males ain't gonna be too happy about Women outperforming them financially, but hey, level playing field for all.

My main point is that working class of all races are in the same boat, and they've been getting
rolled over for decades now. If they were smart, they'd direct their outrage toward the upper crust, not each other. But MAGA and the GOP seems to weave an appealing story to them.
Not saying Dems don't have a hand in this income/wealth inequality, but they seem to try to at least try to help the working class. ACA comes to mind. But from what I've read of the BBB, the ACA subsidies are going to get hit hard, which is going to hit the working class hard.
But hey, who needs an esoteric product/service like healthcare ?? #sarcasm

When I said Whites, I was meaning working-class and poor Whites.

I know. Those are the groups that Democrats used to do well with. Now they don't.

Not saying Dems don't have a hand in this income/wealth inequality, but they seem to try to at least try to help the working class.

They try to help the working class in a very specific way. But working-class and poor whites are also very well aware that they are not very highly valued parts of the current Democratic coalition. Especially white men, and absolutely not white men who have cultural or social ideas that depart from what the "elite" part of the party wants.

IOW, they want to interact with working-class and poor Whites almost entirely as economic actors, with leave to disregard any other interests, opinions or beliefs about any other aspect of society.

Which is certainly a choice....but it sends a very clear signal to working-class and poor Whites that they don't really have much of a place in the party. That leadership opportunities are, of course, not in the cards. Intersectionality, and all that - if one group is oppressed all are oppressed, so you can't be important in the Democratic party if you disagree with the party line on any single issue. But not only will they be iced out of leadeship roles, but also that no one in the party will care much about what they think about any issues other than a very limited subset of economic ones. We'll talk to you about union regulation, but we don't care what any of your union members think about climate change or immigration or the like.

Democrats want these folks to self-identify almost entirely, perhaps even exclusively, on the basis of their class. They do not, and will not. So we need to figure out how to find a place for working class White men (and latino and black men) who hold more conservative views on things.

Democrats need to learn that. The last several years have seen the national party really emphasize the need to fight white supremacy (which lurks in nearly every system and institution) and to dismantle the patriarchy (ditto).

We can do that within reason. "You cannot legislate morality," is a truism. Passing a law won't change anyone's morality. We can blunt the effects of racism, but we aren't going to be able to eliminate it. Xenophobia isn't necessarily racism, but it can be. So we have to be able to adjust and move around so that no one remedy for racism becomes a wedge issue creating resentments (justified or not) that threaten to derail what progress we have made. We're headed backwards now - is it worth it?

If the progressives want to abandon us because we're not progressive enough, tell em that attitude elected Trump - so how's that working out for them? Perhaps they should be more practical - otherwise it's all headed to the shredder. I hate seeing all the progress torn apart because... resentments?

As for being represented, I've never felt represented - even under Obama. I'm used to not getting what I want, and it doesn't bother me. (But the whole world would be 100% better if I got what I wanted, because I share.)

The last election Dems lost due to 1. perceptions on inflation, and 2. immigration.

Post New

Macroeconomic Trends and Risks FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.