Democratic Debate #1

[Derec]

What? You think Brown VS Topeka Board of Education ended segregation that minute? That year? That decade?

It outlawed segregation. There as resistance, yes, but achieving racial balance is another matter altogether, as are specific tools to try to achieve it.

Crap I remember politicians dodging questions about bussing 20 years later. In front of students.

Being against busing does not mean one is in favor of segregation. Those are two separate matters, and shame on Harris for conflating them!

 

[Derec]

It's easy to express distaste for busing as a contrived, awkward means of achieving "racial balance".

That's because that's exactly was busing is.

But racial balance in this case is just a proxy for equal quality of education. And Ms Harris is correct to criticize Biden's support for allowing local racists (wherever they might exist) to continue to deny blacks access to quality education, and to acknowledge that busing was the only way to counteract that injustice in the short term.

No, she is not. Or else produce any evidence that Biden was in favor of "allowing local racists (wherever they might exist) to continue to deny blacks access to quality education".
Busing is a bad policy that was opposed by most blacks as well. One reason is that it made it more difficult for parents to get involved in their kids' education when they attend a school across the city or across county, especially for poor parents who may not have a car.

Biden's failure to recognize that his stance at the time contributed to the perpetuation of that injustice, is why he "lost" the debate. It would have been a piece of cake for him to get on the right side of the issue, if his (old white male establishment*) ego hadn't compelled him otherwise.

Support for busing is not the "right side of the issue" and caving to pressure would have made him even weaker. The only way he could have won that exchange is to stand by his guns and explain why busing was a bad policy and how both black and white parents disliked it for good reasons.

It's amazing that now busing is considered some sort of litmus test in the Democratic party and these fools are wasting time beating each other up over a failed social policy from the 70s instead of talking about things that voters care about - and not just primary voters but general election voters in states that Democrats need to win to unseat Trump.

 

[Derec]

Oddly enough, I have to at least partially agree with Derec on this one. Busing was an extremely unpopular thing when it was initiated. It was unpopular among both black and white folks. It took black children out of the communities they lived in, removed them from their friends and the bus rides were often long and tiring. I'd have to check the numbers, but if I remember correctly, less than 10 or 15% of black folks supported busing.

Thank you. Exactly.

I do think Biden could have done a much better job in explaining his positions during the recent debate. I remember reading an old quote of his where he said it was an insult to black folks to think they needed to be sitting in a room with white kids in order to get a decent education. He was more in favor of spending more money to improve the quality of the education in poor minority communities. Unfortunately this is still an unresolved issue.

Yesterday I was listening to Smerconish in his car and he was quoting from a book by Biden explaining his stance on busing. He made a lot of sense and he explained it quite well. Where was that Biden on the debate night?

I am pleased to say that I currently live in a community where all of the schools are very integrated. But, the primary reason for that is that our neighborhoods are gradually becoming quite integrated. I can't say the same about most of the northeast, where I grew up.

Yeah, that took time but slow and steady is better than disrupting communities by ripping kids out of neighborhood schools.

I guess what bothered me a little about Harris, is that she has always been privileged, despite her mixed race. Her father was a professor at Stanford, and her mother was a physician. It's true that she was raised by her single mother after her parents separated, but she didn't suffer in poverty as so many other racial minorities did during their youth. She attended high school in Canada. I'm sure there were times when she was treated unfairly due to her race, but compared to the poor black people I've known personally, she had it extremely well. Oddly enough, my black friends and acquaintences never complain about the past. I've discussed racial issues in great detail with one of them, and still do on a regular basis. I have a tremendous amount of admiration for them, but then they are mostly all older adults, who have matured and become wiser from their past experiences. A lot of what we are seeing in this election is due to a generational divide. I hope this doesn't ruin the Dems chances of defeating Trump, which should be our primary priority imo.

If Dems get bogged down in issues like 70s busing or 90s crime bill (which was popular with black citizens and lawmakers at the time due to high crime rates especially in black neighborhoods) in the attempt to defeat Biden, they just might lose the general. As they say, Demcrats are great at snatching defeat out of jaws of victory. They need to look to the future, not fight past battles again.

Apparently, the Trump administration is a little scared of Harris. She certainly comes across as very tough. They are already starting up nonsense about her race, including some saying she's not black enough to identify as black, or was she really born in the US, since both of her parents were immigrants, etc. So, are we going to have to deal with another insane birther movement? OMG. I hope not.

I think she would be very formidable in the general, no question about it. He is right to be afraid.
The thing about race came from some black guy on Twitter. Don Jr. merely retweeted it. I am not aware of serious questioning of her birthplace though.
I can kind of see Ali's point. Both viable presidential candidates so far (unless Corey Booker breaks out, and I seriously doubt his vegan ass will break out) who have been classified as "black" do not come from a "black American" background but have one black (Kenyan, Jamaican) and one non-black (white Kansan, Indian) parent. Obviously the cultural background both Obama and Harris grew up in is very different than that of most black Americans, even affluent ones.

 

[Derec]

… And your point is?

That they are two separate issues. Harris was trying to insinuate Biden was against integration, when he merely opposed a particular policy that proved a failure and at the time was opposed by most people, including most blacks.

You probably don't know what she actually said to Biden. I doubt you watched the debate or sought out a clip, so here's a transcript:

I watched it. But then again, you are wrong on most things, so there.

It appears you want to separate the terms 'integrate' and 'busing' so you can accuse Harris of conflating them. But it was Harris' school district that linked them back in 1968 when it chose to integrate its schools by busing schoolchildren.

I stand by . I forgot the part about her linking Biden to segregationists because they also disapproved of busing. That smacks me of "guilt by association".

Integration was the goal, busing was the method, and Harris experienced and benefitted from both, at the same time and in the same place, as a child.

That does not mean it was a good policy, that Biden should have opposed it, or that support for busing should become yet another litmus test in the Democratic Party.
Already Warren expressed her support for busing.
Warren restates support for busing amid Biden-Harris duel

 

[Toni]

What? You think Brown VS Topeka Board of Education ended segregation that minute? That year? That decade?

It outlawed segregation. There as resistance, yes, but achieving racial balance is another matter altogether, as are specific tools to try to achieve it.

Crap I remember politicians dodging questions about bussing 20 years later. In front of students.

Being against busing does not mean one is in favor of segregation. Those are two separate matters, and shame on Harris for conflating them!

Brown v Topeka established that separate but equal education is inherently unequal and violated the principle of equal protection under the law. It paved the way for integration but did not establish integration.

Shame on you for trying a gotcha when your grasp of the history and meaning of landmark Supreme Court decisions and the resulting changes—and their timeline is so flawed and utterly mistaken.

There is plenty to dislike about all candidates and all people if that’s your bent. But at least go after something substantive. Your lack of rigor seems to betray other motives for attack.

 

[Rhea]

Oddly enough, I have to at least partially agree with Derec on this one.

It's easy to express distaste for busing as a contrived, awkward means of achieving "racial balance". But racial balance in this case is just a proxy for equal quality of education. And Ms Harris is correct to criticize Biden's support for allowing local racists (wherever they might exist) to continue to deny blacks access to quality education, and to acknowledge that busing was the only way to counteract that injustice in the short term. Biden's failure to recognize that his stance at the time contributed to the perpetuation of that injustice, is why he "lost" the debate. It would have been a piece of cake for him to get on the right side of the issue, if his (old white male establishment*) ego hadn't compelled him otherwise.

* I say this as an old white male myself

Biden would have done better to not shout at her as if his support for his own record overrode hers. He would have been better to say, "you are absolutely right that being the forefront of integration efforts at the age of 6 requires far more bravery than doing the same at 35 and from a room full of unintegrated lawmakers - and I honor you for that. I worked hard with what I had and from where I was, and the efforts of both of us were needed."


I am someone who also had experience with busing in the 70s as my white suburban high school was one of the schools TO which kids were bused. And Derec's characterization of how awful it was is untrue. The presence of 3 busloads of inner-city kids to my campus every day did not disrupt us one bit. If anyone had a racial problem with it, it had nothing to do with the behavior of those kids, it was their own racism at work. I went to school with them every day throughout high school, and on "switch day" was able to easily see how different the education environment was at their Boston school compared to my suburban one. That doesn't mean that their day was easy at my school. I did not see overt racism - but I wouldn't have (I was oblivious), and it still may have happened to them and made their schooling more difficult. So I applaud them for their fortitude and I acknowledge that they did nothing to bring anything upon themselves. And to do this at 6 years old really impresses me.

And I think Biden should have been impressed, too. That he wasn't, and was instead pugnacious was the wrong response to me.

 

[Rhea]

A little history that mirrors the California story:


From the perspective of the Boston voluntary busing program, "METCO"

The program was created as a work-around. The Massachusetts legislature had passed a law in 1965 that made the segregation of public schools illegal, but the Boston School Committee, the governing body of Boston’s public schools, consistently refused to integrate schools, so the state began allowing students living in highly segregated districts to attend schools outside the districts where they lived. Parents were told that METCO would probably go on for three years or so, until Boston schools had straightened out their integration attempts, according to Batson and Hayden.

So - the law was passed, and the school governance refused to do it. The date of the law doesn't matter in the lives of the kids.

METCO has been running from 1966 until today. It is struggling with state funding, but it continues to have a child volunteering for every seat available on every bus.

 

[blastula]

You guys do realize there was a study done recently that showed conservative women are happier overall than liberal women, right? The left has been scrambling to debunk it because they hate that those facts disagree with their feelings.

How happy do you think Melania is being married to a serial sexual assaulter who pays off porn actresses that he cheated on her with while she was pregnant? How happy has the serial cheater and assaulter ever been in any of his failed marriages?

 

[Trausti]

 

[ZiprHead]

You guys do realize there was a study done recently that showed conservative women are happier overall than liberal women, right? The left has been scrambling to debunk it because they hate that those facts disagree with their feelings.

How happy do you think Melania is being married to a serial sexual assaulter who pays off porn actresses that he cheated on her with while she was pregnant? How happy has the serial cheater and assaulter ever been in any of his failed marriages?

Doing a little research brought me here: Secret to happiness? Be a conservative woman

It cited this guy:  Arthur C. Brooks

Who wrote this: The Conservative Heart: How to Build a Fairer, Happier, and More Prosperous America

Looks far from a peer reviewed scientific study. Here's one review that touches on that point.:

I agree with most of the concepts, but far from a manifesto, this is merely a list of hypothesses supported by cute little anecdotes. I expected the head of a think tank to provide far more rigorous supporting evidence, as well as actionable policy suggestions. Instead, we got mostly opinions and conclusions which confused correlation for causation. Finally, I wish he would have presented evidence of the efficacy of the EITC, the one policy he endorsed. In my two years experience preparing income taxes for low income individuals and families, those who are supposed to benefit the most rarely understand and are able to complete the arduous worksheet required.

 

[Arctish]

That they are two separate issues. Harris was trying to insinuate Biden was against integration, when he merely opposed a particular policy that proved a failure and at the time was opposed by most people, including most blacks.


I watched it. But then again, you are wrong on most things, so there.

It appears you want to separate the terms 'integrate' and 'busing' so you can accuse Harris of conflating them. But it was Harris' school district that linked them back in 1968 when it chose to integrate its schools by busing schoolchildren.

I stand by . I forgot the part about her linking Biden to segregationists because they also disapproved of busing. That smacks me of "guilt by association".

Integration was the goal, busing was the method, and Harris experienced and benefitted from both, at the same time and in the same place, as a child.

That does not mean it was a good policy, that Biden should have opposed it, or that support for busing should become yet another litmus test in the Democratic Party.
Already Warren expressed her support for busing.
Warren restates support for busing amid Biden-Harris duel

Harris criticized Biden for boasting he was able to work comfortably with senators who "built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country". She also criticized him for "work[ing] with them to oppose busing". And you say you forgot about the first part, even though it came right before her personal anecdote about being bused to school and was directly, explicitly linked to it.

I don't think your criticism of Harris is based on your own interpretation of her words.

 

[Elixir]

You guys do realize there was a study done recently that showed conservative women are happier overall than liberal women, right? The left has been scrambling to debunk it because they hate that those facts disagree with their feelings.

I bet you, like most conservotards, never bothered to wonder why.

Happiness Gap Between Conservatives and Liberals Depends on Country-Level Threat

"In the present study, we investigated the much debated “happiness gap” between conservatives and liberals, approaching the issue from a multilevel person × context perspective. More specifically, we investigated whether this relationship depends on country-level threat. We used individual-level data for right-wing attitudes and psychological well-being from 94 large, representative samples collected worldwide (total N = 137,890) and objective indicators of country-level threat as the contextual variable. Our results suggest that, especially in countries characterized by high levels of threat, individuals with right-wing attitudes experienced greater well-being than individuals with left-wing attitudes. In countries with a low level of threat, this relationship was considerably weaker or even absent. Our findings corroborate the view that right-wing attitudes may serve a self-protective function, helping individuals to manage and cope with threat."

IOW, self delusion can help the weak-minded feel happiness when they are threatened. The more threats teh Donald creates and then magically does away with, the happier the base becomes with the delusion that he "alone can fix it", and the more unhappy becomes anyone valuing truth or peace. Certainly Donald never read up on this psyche shit - or anything else - but he has a visceral predatory sense that replaces conventional intelligence in certain sociopathic types. He manufactures threat after threat, claims to vanquish them and gets cheers from his trumpanzees, while the more rational grimace in horror and embarrassment at the transparent deceit. Putin does the same thing with his "patriots".
Seems to work pretty well, especially in Russia where "fake news isn't a problem".
At least it works well for Putin.
And for Trump, SO FAR...

ETA:

Indeed the enticement HL offers is not much different from that of a junkie - consume conservocrap because it feels good.

 

[blastula]

Yeah and you didn't have to look further that what he said in his post to see his spin is bullshit.

I'm sure said study was completely on the up and up, was peer-reviewed, and published in many respectable journals.

New York Times Says Religious Conservative Wives are the Happiest, Social Media Completely Loses It
https://www.faithwire.com/2019/05/2...he-happiest-social-media-completely-loses-it/

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/18/opinion/sunday/happy-marriages.html/

"The report found that 73% of wives “who hold conservative gender values and attend religious services regularly with their husbands have high-quality marriages.”

See the "and attend religious services." Yes, people who take part in community activities are happier. If you read the article it makes the spin even worse.



The very liberal are just as happy as the very conservative. Those who are committed to a clear, meaningful worldview are happier.

Also consider that it is largely based on self-reported data, and conservatives are more likely to lie about their happiness.

Conservatives report, but liberals display, greater happiness. - PubMed - NCBI

Luke Galen of Reasonable Doubts has done a lot of work on the topic of the prosociality of the religious vs. the secular, lots of studies listed at the bottom.

RD Extra: A Skeptical Review of Religious Prosociality Research with Luke Galen

Not to mention that happiness doesn't mean your belief is true.

 

[Toni]

That they are two separate issues. Harris was trying to insinuate Biden was against integration, when he merely opposed a particular policy that proved a failure and at the time was opposed by most people, including most blacks.


I watched it. But then again, you are wrong on most things, so there.


I stand by . I forgot the part about her linking Biden to segregationists because they also disapproved of busing. That smacks me of "guilt by association".


That does not mean it was a good policy, that Biden should have opposed it, or that support for busing should become yet another litmus test in the Democratic Party.
Already Warren expressed her support for busing.
Warren restates support for busing amid Biden-Harris duel

Harris criticized Biden for boasting he was able to work comfortably with senators who "built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country". She also criticized him for "work[ing] with them to oppose busing". And you say you forgot about the first part, even though it came right before her personal anecdote about being bused to school and was directly, explicitly linked to it.

I don't think your criticism of Harris is based on your own interpretation of her words.

I'm a big Harris fan but I will say that I thought it was unfair to go after Biden for outlining his willingness and ability to work with those whose ideology he finds repugnant. Biden is probably #6 on my list of favorites and I think he should not get the nomination. But we do desperately need people who are willing and able to work with those they disagree with. Otherwise, we've got what we have now, only with a different face. Not enough improvement.

 

[blastula]

Even if Harris wasn't fair (I think she was), what's fair is to criticize Biden for not being able to make the argument you are making or a better argument than he did. He could have been honest about his support of busing, and argued that busing was wrong, or he could have said that he sees now that he was wrong then. The way he answered was horrible.

I do agree with Derec that it's weird to make busing a litmus today. Harris can get away with it only because most people today have no idea what to think about busing, and will assume her take is right, especially the way Biden answered her which only reinforced her premise. (Harris was also very sneaky with how she started out "I don't believe you're a racist" which probably made many viewers wonder, "why is she saying that, are people calling him racist? I'll have to look into his racism more" so now they have associated Biden with racism. It was quite vicious of her. Much respect.)

The extremely pro-immigration litmus test on display was also weird. I greatly doubt taking a more moderate position will hurt among the general population (outside activist circles), and it very well could help you.

 

[Elixir]

happiness doesn't mean your belief is true.

Wins thread.
In fact, quite the opposite, it seems. Note that the greatest happiness levels show up at the lib/con extremes...

 

[Rhea]

happiness doesn't mean your belief is true.

Wins thread.
In fact, quite the opposite, it seems. Note that the greatest happiness levels show up at the lib/con extremes...

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."

 

[Rhea]

To add the whole quote and attribution:

“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality of happiness, and by no means a necessity of life.”


George Bernard Shaw

 

[Elixir]

To add the whole quote and attribution:

“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality of happiness, and by no means a necessity of life.”


George Bernard Shaw

Sounds like Shaw - and a great companion quote to "The evil LOVE it in Hell - it was made for them!"

 

[Half-Life]

To add the whole quote and attribution:

“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality of happiness, and by no means a necessity of life.”


George Bernard Shaw

Sounds like Shaw - and a great companion quote to "The evil LOVE it in Hell - it was made for them!"

Wrong. it was made as a punishment for them by God. God makes sure that you won't enjoy Hell.

What a juvenile take on Hell.