Lessons to be learned from the Kavanaugh Hearing

[Belz...]

Voter ID are problematic because they often impose financial hardship on poorer individuals in order to obtain the necessary ID. (Even 'Free' voter ID cards can have secondary costs associated with them... time spent visiting the government office to apply for the ID, costs of obtaining supporting documentation.)

A higher proportion of black and hispanic people live in poverty compared to white people. Thus, any law that targets poor people (such as voter ID laws) will have the secondary effect of harming minorities more than white people

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in some places felons have also a harder time voting, which is one way in which the war on drugs or "tough on crime" policies can be used to disinfrenchise black people.

 

[Belz...]

Look, I get you're trying really hard to make voter ID racist. It's not. Everyone follows the same rules, and laws -- regardless of ethnicity and sex. Period.

Are you suggesting we need different laws for people based on ethnicity??

You can't possibly be ignorant of the fact that laws can disproportionately affect certain groups regardless, and can be indeed designed that way.

 

[River]

so how does your "real world" meritocracy work?





If you check the thread, I've never talked about a 100% inheritance tax as anything but a thought experiment, and have made it clear that it would be futile to implement one, since parents would always seek to subvert it.
Such a tax would also not nullify the advantage of being raised in a stable family which fosters curiosity.
Asking about your views om such a tax was never more than a test of your conviction for Merit.
Now we know the extend of that.

My bold. It works by rewarding people based on performance. The end.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

In all this, one of the things I'm wondering is how Anthony Kennedy feels about his replacement by Kavanaugh.

Screw Kennedy.
The fact that he was sometimes a swing vote is a testimony how far right-wing the court was before Kavanaugh, not an indication of Kennedy's moderation.
He knew exactly that his replacement would be at least as far-right as Gorsuch.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is meat to the story that Kennedy resigned to hide the involvement of his son in Trump's affairs ... though at present I don't know that that would fit, logically.

 

[Border Reiver]

No, it would seem from your descriptions you have a very strict vision of what you deem to be meritocracy, and that would include a basic reset button on every person that begins with exactly the same economic and social advantage, and physical and mental advantage.

This is not the real world.

And that is not what is being argued.

The basic position is that you initially stated that life should be based on merit, without factoring in other considerations.

Other people pointed out that this is an excellent idea, but that it ignores a number of factors that will still end up favouring certain persons, regardless of intentions. And indicated that a full meritocracy would require a 100% inheritance tax to ensure that everyone actually achieved their position based solely on their own merit.

Everyone agrees that a 100% meritocracy of that sort is unachievable and undesirable.

You seem to be the only one arguing that point.

The others are basically stating that there needs to be a way to better raise those on the bottom part of the social scale so that those people of merit can rise.

By all means keep up this excellent example of strawmanning.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

My bold. It works by rewarding people based on performance. The end.

In your reward system, would an extremely over-performing Janitor earn as much as an over-performing Fortune 500 CEO?

 

[River]

And that is not what is being argued.

The basic position is that you initially stated that life should be based on merit, without factoring in other considerations.

Other people pointed out that this is an excellent idea, but that it ignores a number of factors that will still end up favouring certain persons, regardless of intentions. And indicated that a full meritocracy would require a 100% inheritance tax to ensure that everyone actually achieved their position based solely on their own merit.

Everyone agrees that a 100% meritocracy of that sort is unachievable and undesirable.

You seem to be the only one arguing that point.

The others are basically stating that there needs to be a way to better raise those on the bottom part of the social scale so that those people of merit can rise.

By all means keep up this excellent example of strawmanning.

My bold. You're quite presumptuous there. I've never inferred anything about a reset button, or 100% inheritance taxes, or any of that nonsense. Don't imply that I have.

 

[River]

In your reward system, would an extremely over-performing Janitor earn as much as an over-performing Fortune 500 CEO?

Nope. Why should they? You seem to think meritocracy involves some type of evening of the playing field mentally, physically, economically, and socially. Where on earth did you get that from?

 

[TomB]

That's not true meritocracy. 100% inheritance tax is ludicrous. That implies that only ones accomplishments can benefit ones self, and no one else. Going to be hard to live that way, for many reasons. Especially as a child. Or are you suggesting this "gifting" should end at a certain age for children from their parents? Are we not allowed to give gifts to people we please or gifts we choose? Who regulates who can be given what, and how much?

Ludicrous...

I'm not suggesting anything. From what I can see, you are the one suggesting meritocracy.

Just pointing out that your "meritocracy" includes giving people advantages for the merits of others.

 

[Segnosaur]

Look, I get you're trying really hard to make voter ID racist. It's not. Everyone follows the same rules, and laws -- regardless of ethnicity and sex. Period.

And there we go. I showed exactly how voter ID laws harm minorities more than white people. and you deliberatly stuck your head in the sand.

Now we know... you're a troll. Not that I had any doubt.

Are you suggesting we need different laws for people based on ethnicity??

We need laws that do not treat people of different social statuses differently. That will help aleviate the racism.

Since you're a Trump supporter, I assumed you're racist. Your posts reflect that perfectly.

Also, there's this.
Are these things are also racist?
[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/bVDfHRS.jpg[/qimg]

I believe you've posted this list before. And this list has been debunked before. The fact that you keep reposting it does not make it accurate. It means you're incapable of understanding.

Your list is bunk because:
- Many of the items in the list don't require ID (e.g. adopt a pet, visit a casino, etc.)
- Of the items on your list that DO require IDs, either the identification requirements are lower (e.g. applying for a job only requires a social insurance number, not photo ID), or the activity itself requires the individual to already have significant resources (such as renting a car).

So, why should we have any respect for you if you keep reposting the same debunked nonsense?

I understand gerrymandering perfectly. I also understand its mostly GOP that benefits from it...

Then at this point you should shut up and accept that the GOP is by far the worst offender.

...but that does not absolve the DNC of any benefit at all from it.

Please point to all the districts where the democrats are currently benefiting from Gerrymandering. Go ahead.

You also must've missed where I advocated for fixing the problem...

Hot air. Empty rhetoric. Advocating 'fixing the problem' and then suggesting they do the exact opposite shows that you're not really interested in 'fixing the problem'. You are A-Ok with racism. You should be proud.

...and asking also that politicians be required to live in the districts in which they represent.

Which of course truly is a proposal which is worthless when it comes to addressing racism.

 

[River]

I'm not suggesting anything. From what I can see, you are the one suggesting meritocracy.

Just pointing out that your "meritocracy" includes giving people advantages for the merits of others.

No, it includes the ability to gift things you've earned or acquired to others. Including your children. Without that, good luck becoming an adult.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Nope. Why should they? You seem to think meritocracy involves some type of evening of the playing field mentally, physically, economically, and socially. Where on earth did you get that from?

You misunderstand -intentionally.

If you believed in merit-based reward (as you said), the Best at any job should get the same compensation, regardless of the wealth created: after all, they are equally worthy in their performance.

Now, on top of inheritance, you also want to bring in added-value consideration.

Consider that a trust-fund baby will, by providing investment capital, contribute more to the added value of the economy than even the best Janitor ever could.
Is it in line with your Meritocracy that one person has to work very hard to get less than someone who doesn't have to work at all?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Are these things are also racist?

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/bVDfHRS.jpg[/qimg]

Why would you keep posting this when it is clearly false? When was the last time you needed an ID to buy alcohol? It's been at least 15 years for me.

 

[River]

And there we go. I showed exactly how voter ID laws harm minorities more than white people. and you deliberatly stuck your head in the sand.

Now we know... you're a troll. Not that I had any doubt.


We need laws that do not treat people of different social statuses differently. That will help aleviate the racism.

Since you're a Trump supporter, I assumed you're racist. Your posts reflect that perfectly.

I believe you've posted this list before. And this list has been debunked before. The fact that you keep reposting it does not make it accurate. It means you're incapable of understanding.

Your list is bunk because:
- Many of the items in the list don't require ID (e.g. adopt a pet, visit a casino, etc.)
- Of the items on your list that DO require IDs, either the identification requirements are lower (e.g. applying for a job only requires a social insurance number, not photo ID), or the activity itself requires the individual to already have significant resources (such as renting a car).

So, why should we have any respect for you if you keep reposting the same debunked nonsense?

Then at this point you should shut up and accept that the GOP is by far the worst offender.


Please point to all the districts where the democrats are currently benefiting from Gerrymandering. Go ahead.


Hot air. Empty rhetoric. Advocating 'fixing the problem' and then suggesting they do the exact opposite shows that you're not really interested in 'fixing the problem'. You are A-Ok with racism. You should be proud.

Which of course truly is a proposal which is worthless when it comes to addressing racism.

LOL, implying racism to someone that wants equal treatment and laws for everyone? #liberalism101

Don't like what someone from opposition says; imply racism.

I've advocated for fixing gerrymandering. I also advocate for implementing a federal or state voter ID that is free. Have fun with your identity politics.

If you're calling people like me racist; it might be time to look in the mirror.

 

[Thermal]

Another lesson learned from the Kavanagh hearings: the discussion in USA Politics about it is psychotic. As is the Warren ancestry discussion. People lose their minds when tribalism takes over.

 

[River]

Why would you keep posting this when it is clearly false? When was the last time you needed an ID to buy alcohol? It's been at least 15 years for me.

I still get carded occasionally as an ego boost. It doesn't make the law different for someone based on race does it? Neither does voting, or requiring ID for it. We require ID for much less important activities in this country, and we should absolutely require it for one of the most important activities in this country. If you feel like it's too much to ask, don't vote.

 

[Thermal]

Why would you keep posting this when it is clearly false? When was the last time you needed an ID to buy alcohol? It's been at least 15 years for me.

As is buying R rated movies and the like.

One can only assume that some Republicans want to make sure certain people cannot vote.

 

[Lurch]

That's not true meritocracy. 100% inheritance tax is ludicrous. That implies that only ones accomplishments can benefit ones self, and no one else. Going to be hard to live that way, for many reasons. Especially as a child. Or are you suggesting this "gifting" should end at a certain age for children from their parents? Are we not allowed to give gifts to people we please or gifts we choose? Who regulates who can be given what, and how much?

Ludicrous...

The accumulated wealth fully taxed upon one's passing is helping the community. That's what taxes are about. It's not like the money disappears into a black hole.

Not that I'm advocating a 100% rate here.

But the fact is that in unchecked capitalist societies, because wealth earns wealth, the natural trend is toward increasing inequity between the haves and have-nots. That leads to economic crashes, '29 being a particularly awful example. We're heading there again, maybe no to so bad, but perhaps worse than '08.

How meritorious for a child to have bequeathed to him obscene wealth that is frittered away during a life of sybaritic excess.

How meritorious for a child to have handed him the wealth that buys education and status leading to high positions.

In the real world of humans, a system based purely upon merit is an utter impossibility. A noble ideal in some respects, but one that goes against our very nature. We have a lot of evolving to do first.

 

[River]

You misunderstand -intentionally.

If you believed in merit-based reward (as you said), the Best at any job should get the same compensation, regardless of the wealth created: after all, they are equally worthy in their performance.

Now, on top of inheritance, you also want to bring in added-value consideration.

Consider that a trust-fund baby will, by providing investment capital, contribute more to the added value of the economy than even the best Janitor ever could.
Is it in line with your Meritocracy that one person has to work very hard to get less than someone who doesn't have to work at all?

Entirely false. The entire concept is performance based?

If one worker sells 8 apples, and another sells 30 (both put in the same amount of work and sales calls) in the same time period who gets paid more? Which one profits the business more?

If the owner of the business employs 100 people per business, and owns 10 businesses, should he make the same amount as the person selling the apples for his company?

Your concept of meritocracy is broken....

 

[Thermal]

I still get carded occasionally as an ego boost. It doesn't make the law different for someone based on race does it? Neither does voting, or requiring ID for it. We require ID for much less important activities in this country, and we should absolutely require it for one of the most important activities in this country. If you feel like it's too much to ask, don't vote.

All my kids have ID which has their home address on it. Thing is, they attend school elsewhere during semesters. They could all have their voting eligibility challenged under Republican voting ID restrictions if they didn't respond to a mass mailing, which they might not get in time.