# Reparation discussions will make it easy for Trump in 2020



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 3, 2019)

I've watched highlights of the 2nd round of debates between the democratic candidates and I think they are about to make a major mistake. I felt they wanted to "trump" one another on the reparations question but it's a tactical error. Here is why:

African-Americans already vote for the democratic party. -> no additional votes won
Latin-Americans don't care about reparations -> no additional votes won
A portion of European-American who lean towards the democratic party might not vote for them because of it -> votes lost

I can't believe this party is so short-sighted. They shot themselves in the foot by preventing Bernie Sanders vs Trump last time and now they are playing with fire once again. Well, at least we will have four additional years of the "Russia did it" meme. :/


----------



## Xzi (Aug 3, 2019)

Meh, progressive ideas ultimately won out in both debate nights, and that means lifting everyone up.  Most of the candidates pitching straight-up cash payout reparations are the ones polling at 0.5-2% overall, and polling at 0% with black voters.  The obvious pandering isn't going to do much for them, and they're likely to be weeded out by the next debate when the field narrows by about half.

OTOH, between Trump's China tariffs and the subsidies he has to pay to farmers as a result, taxpayers are already getting f'ed in the a twice over.  We might as well be paying reparations to the black community rather than paying them to industrial farming corporations.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 3, 2019)

Aren't Warren and Gabbard noteworthy candidates? I think they support reparations.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 3, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Aren't Warren and Gabbard noteworthy candidates? I think they support reparations.


Warren has expressed a general support for the idea of reparations, but she hasn't given any specifics on what form that might take.  It's likely her thinking is along the same lines as Bernie's: that helping to lift up all disadvantaged communities will benefit black communities in the majority.

Gabbard isn't quite at 2% in the polls and hasn't qualified for the next debate yet, though she is inching closer.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Aug 3, 2019)

on the other side, you have a guy who promised you the world and delivered on nothing in 4 years.
who said he was pro military but is now taking money from the military budget, who said he was pro farmers but destroyed their market and apparently isn't even giving them the socialist subsidy dollars he promised.
who said he was going to reduce the deficit like no one else and raised it like no one did before. who said he'd never have time for anything not-work related who spends more than half of his day watching tv and live-tweeting it and multiple days a week vacationing in his gold clubs earning taxpayer money from the secret service renting out rooms and golf carts from him.

but yeah, one talking point is going to ruin the dems. for sure.
the only thing ruining the dems chances since 2016 is dem voters being to lazy to go to vote. and considering last elections results, they better not make the same mistake again


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 3, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> on the other side, you have a guy who promised you the world and delivered on nothing in 4 years.
> who said he was pro military but is now taking money from the military budget, who said he was pro farmers but destroyed their market and apparently isn't even giving them the socialist subsidy dollars he promised.
> who said he was going to reduce the deficit like no one else and raised it like no one did before. who said he'd never have time for anything not-work related who spends more than half of his day watching tv and live-tweeting it and multiple days a week vacationing in his gold clubs earning taxpayer money from the secret service renting out rooms and golf carts from him.
> 
> ...



As you said, the choice is not just between Trump and the democratic candidate. They could abstain from voting. The democratic party is going to win long-term. Some of the trump voters have already died. Some democratic voters have come of age. The direction is clear (and rosy for the democratic party). But they should not rock the boat too much. They have done so in the first debate (that's why the 2nd one had the anthem in the beginning - I think) and exposed the "squad" to the main stream too much. The main stream is not as radical though; and their votes matter.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 3, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> As you said, the choice is not just between Trump and the democratic candidate. They could abstain from voting. The democratic party is going to win long-term. Some of the trump voters have already died. Some democratic voters have come of age. The direction is clear (and rosy for the democratic party). But they should not rock the boat too much. They have done so in the first debate (that's why the 2nd one had the anthem in the beginning - I think) and exposed the "squad" to the main stream too much. The main stream is not as radical though; and their votes matter.


You're absolutely correct in that we need to treat this as an uphill battle the whole way through, and I think all the candidates are doing that.  The reason isn't because the mainstream is super moderate, though, but rather because we've got gerrymandering, voter suppression, the electoral college, and now foreign influence to contend with.  Without the first three, the Republican party would've lost all relevance decades ago, and perhaps centrists like Hillary and Biden would've lost all relevance along with them.  

Taking that hypothetical to its logical conclusion, Bernie Sanders would be president now, and even the candidate he ran against would've been far more tolerable than Trump.  It's just too bad this country has drifted further and further from a true democracy over the years.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 3, 2019)

This reparations lark always seems like a solution in search of a problem, and if it comes in the form of handouts probably likely to cause more problems.

I am all for getting better facilities, education, services and whatnot for those places that are lagging a bit (I would say there are few things a government should be more concerned with) but framing it as reparations rubs me the wrong way in a big way.

Anyway I have not been paying attention to these debates. Are they likely to be fielding a vaguely notable candidate any time soon?


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 3, 2019)

Xzi said:


> and now foreign influence to contend with.


Please tell me, you mean Israel.
Because I don't see noteworthy Russian influence.


----------



## IncredulousP (Aug 3, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Please tell me, you mean Israel.
> Because I don't see noteworthy Russian influence.


*Sigh*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections


----------



## Xzi (Aug 3, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Please tell me, you mean Israel.
> Because I don't see noteworthy Russian influence.


Well their influence wouldn't be effective at all if it was right out in the open and easy for the public to see.  This is the one thing that Mueller was absolutely clear about though: Russia interfered with our election in 2016, and they've continued to interfere with our political system to this day.  The FBI has stated the same multiple times, and they even have to keep Trump in the dark about their cyber warfare operations targeted at Russia out of fear that he might leak that information.


----------



## Viri (Aug 3, 2019)

Any candidate that runs on reparations, will lose hard in 2020. Also bad mouthing a former popular President is not a very good idea. After seeing the debates, if I had to choose anyone on stage or a 3rd Obama term, I'd welcome Obama back with open arms.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 4, 2019)

Viri said:


> Any candidate that runs on reparations, will lose hard in 2020. Also bad mouthing a former popular President is not a very good idea. After seeing the debates, if I had to choose anyone on stage or a 3rd Obama term, I'd welcome Obama back with open arms.


I happily voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, but there's nothing wrong with criticizing some of his policy decisions.  His immigration policies were based too heavily in Republican appeasement, and the ACA did not go far enough toward ensuring that healthcare coverage and medications would become/remain affordable.

It's really a moot point though, because Joe Biden is no Obama.  He performs terribly in debates, and he relies entirely too much on Obama's popularity as a crutch.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Aug 4, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I've watched highlights of the 2nd round of debates between the democratic candidates and I think they are about to make a major mistake. I felt they wanted to "trump" one another on the reparations question but it's a tactical error. Here is why:
> 
> African-Americans already vote for the democratic party. -> no additional votes won
> Latin-Americans don't care about reparations -> no additional votes won
> ...


No one who was part of slavery back in those days are still alive so the people who'd get that "free" reparation money would be family members who'd be the ones benefiting from it.

Now, if anyone actually cares about slavery and not just "gimme money" then you'll find that slavery is still alive in different forms; Sex slaves, child slaves, war slaves, etc. The African continent gives the rest of the world the one thing a lot love - Chocolate and chocolate bars and who's behind it making? Children.

There's also a lot of people everywhere who go missing, some end up deceased while others may be forced into slavery.

I now feel like I don't want to eat/drink hot chocolate anymore but it's so delicious. Same goes for phones/tablets/etc made in China.

Products made from slavery and/or oppression.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 4, 2019)

So,erm...is this reparation thing really a thing, or just one question that gets thrown around under the 'look what our opponents care about lololol' ?

Not really have an opinion on the topic, but it seems to me there are plenty of topics more important at this point. And lots of loose ends without a real answer (who gets how much to do what with? )


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 5, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> So,erm...is this reparation thing really a thing, or just one question that gets thrown around under the 'look what our opponents care about lololol' ?
> 
> Not really have an opinion on the topic, but it seems to me there are plenty of topics more important at this point. And lots of loose ends without a real answer (who gets how much to do what with? )



First I should distinguish between the three types as it pertains to ethnic groups of people that come under discussion.

1) American Indians/Native Americans. Not a single ethnicity and more a tribe by tribe/nation by nation basis but I will lump it all together as most laws do.
2) Japanese internment camp victims.
3) Descendants of slaves.


1) is less talked about and the current treaties, land given over and whatever else have largely sorted things. You occasionally get people given odd parcels here and there, and the occasionally overstep but for the most part it is fairly settled and not really talked about much.
2) In case you were unfamiliar then during World War 2 the Americans dragged people of Japanese descent and stuck them in camps lest they decide to kick off on American soil. No crimes committed, no aiding war acts, no suspicions of anything, just people of Japanese descent (even multiple generations at times). North of 100000 people being taken here. Eventually this got ruled all kinds of unconstitutional. As this also saw people suffer during it, possibly lose businesses, possibly lose houses and other such possessions and you can still find people that lived it, suffered it, and were possibly born into it then you can make a case. I don't know how much is still pending here as most of it was resolved in the decades afterwards (record keeping was fairly good here).
3) So the US was a bit late to this ending slavery party (not quite as late as some of the Congo stuff for your country but let us stay on topic). 1865 was it nationwide, with many states outlawing it long before then (1780 being the first). Chattel slavery was no doubt horrific but when you will have an exceptionally hard time finding someone that even met someone that remembered it being outlawed (you are already looking at exceptional lifespans and young when it happened to in turn tell someone young at the end of their life to be exceptionally old today) then one does wonder why you would do things.

3) is what we are primarily concerned with for this thread and most discussions in general. It is a term that has been bandied about for years. Skip to about 3:30 if you want, maybe a bit before that. Or just watch the main skit (starts with a news anchor).
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x72ghp3

You could got a bit further for not everything ended in 1865 and was sunshine and rainbows from then on, especially not in certain parts of the US. Or if you prefer see Jim Crow laws (see segregation) which brings us up to 1965, and some also consider the reasons for the formation of ghettos in California and the like as people moved to escape those (see the Second Great Migration). Though again not everything happened overnight -- 1967 saw the US supreme court do Loving v Virginia to strike down a law saying races could not intermarry, one with similar laws in a bunch of other states. 1968 gave housing laws some teeth (also did some stuff for Indians but we can skip that one) and there was also a further one that year dealing with segregated schooling if you want to do Green v. County School Board of New Kent County.

If wealth is indeed generational then by theoretically denying people the chance* to do much at times until the late 60s (if not later) then some try to make the case there that things ought to be boosted, possibly with a fat cheque. Quite how said cheque gets to be calculated I do not know (is it means tested? What if your grandparents rocked up from Nigeria in New York in the 1970s? What if just one grandparent appeared then and the other from a free state going back to the 1700s? What if you are a mix?), even more so as records are understandably rather spotty. Others prefer to go with things like making sure black communities get a lift up with schools, further education grants, development grants, police, support services, healthcare and whatever else. Quite why it wants to be specifically black people rather than poor and underperforming in general I do not know (and no small amount of the people plumping for it would probably try to call me a racist for asking but hey).

*not that excuses much but one ought to look at the First Great Migration that happened from about the middle of world war 1 until about 1940 and what went there.

There have been bills put before congress for decades now https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/40 for the current one, https://ibw21.org/commentary/my-reparations-bill-hr-40/ for some more historical stuff from the people doing it. Introducing a bill is nothing special though but at the same time it also means it can't be dismissed entirely as a fringe conspiracy theory or nonsense term. At the same time it is more a concept pondered mostly by the fringe US left and a few of its people that organise around being black ( https://thehill.com/homenews/house/437286-reparations-bill-wins-new-momentum-in-house says the congressional black caucus leader expressed support for it, and it enjoyed something like broad support from many members there) much like the fringe US right have their own nutjobs that don't represent anything like the majority. I have not yet seen what happened here in depth to see if it is just politicians trying to garner support by saying the right thing, someone throwing in random terms in questions for giggles or genuinely held policy positions.


----------



## Captain_N (Aug 5, 2019)

I watched those debates. what a joke. the entire party has lost it. Its like a bunch of noobs in call  of duty team killing each other. they cant beat trump. Trump will troll the shit out of all of them. They better shape up for 2024.....


----------



## Waygeek (Aug 5, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I've watched highlights of the 2nd round of debates between the democratic candidates and I think they are about to make a major mistake. I felt they wanted to "trump" one another on the reparations question but it's a tactical error. Here is why:
> 
> African-Americans already vote for the democratic party. -> no additional votes won
> Latin-Americans don't care about reparations -> no additional votes won
> ...



This is a very strange take. Maybe y'know, they're actually concerned about the issue? 'Black shut up about the past or Trump does 8 years' is a weird take.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 5, 2019)

Waygeek said:


> This is a very strange take. Maybe y'know, they're actually concerned about the issue? 'Black shut up about the past or Trump does 8 years' is a weird take.


Seems like a fairly solid take from where I sit. If your would be candidates get side tracked talking about things few people would support, or indeed find the notion of to be offensive, and thus can't present a coherent and likeable candidate then in the confusion the opposition will take the easy win resulting from that.


----------



## qqq1 (Aug 5, 2019)

I will pay reparations in the form of rice crispy treats to the families of any slaves owned in the past by my families. Note that my families did not come to the USA until after slavery was ended. Looks like those rice crispy treats are all for me.


----------



## Doran754 (Aug 5, 2019)

The issue seems pretty straight forward to me, If you're currently a slave, you're entitled to reparations. If you're currently a slave owner, you should be paying reparations. Sorted.


----------



## chrisrlink (Aug 5, 2019)

shamzie said:


> The issue seems pretty straight forward to me, If you're currently a slave, you're entitled to reparations. If you're currently a slave owner, you should be paying reparations. Sorted.



then maybe you can tell that to the government, mainly for ww2/vietnam as in meaning the draft which in my eyes is a form of slavery because your forced into war despite your objections


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 5, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> then maybe you can tell that to the government, mainly for ww2/vietnam as in meaning the draft which in my eyes is a form of slavery because your forced into war despite your objections




You don't have to go if you REALLY don't want to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objection_in_the_United_States


Also, you left out Korea.


.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



FAST6191 said:


> First I should distinguish between the three types as it pertains to ethnic groups of people that come under discussion.
> 
> 1) American Indians/Native Americans. Not a single ethnicity and more a tribe by tribe/nation by nation basis but I will lump it all together as most laws do.
> 2) Japanese internment camp victims.
> ...




Each of those peoples got a shitty deal at some point, but they're not the only ones. For example, Chinese who worked at building the railroads in the West. They were absolutely 2nd class citizens, but they persevered. Italians, Irish, Polish, Germans who were transported directly from the boat that brought them across the Atlantic to coal mining jobs in Appalachia where they were paid in company 'scrip' money instead of US currency. If they left, that 'scrip' was worthless anywhere else and they would be penniless. They had to live in the company town, rent a company house (shack), buy all their clothing and food from the company store. They lived as captive property, and this went on for decades. Their descendants are still mining coal and living in an economically depressed shithole. Anyone talking about reparations for them for having to live like that that while NYC built itself into a city of skyscrapers on the coal they mined? Nope. And if a reparations law passed, the ultimate irony is they'd be taxed for it.


----------



## chrisrlink (Aug 5, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> You don't have to go if you REALLY don't want to.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objection_in_the_United_States
> 
> ...



though i wonder if those against nam who draft dodged some charged with treason exercised that right (even on religious grounds) were denied exclusion from the draft and thus forced to flee to Canada....also i believe trump should've never should've became #45 because he faked an injury to draft dodge that in itself should've excluded anyone from becoming president because it shows moral weakness


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 5, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Each of those peoples got a shitty deal at some point, but they're not the only ones. For example, Chinese who worked at building the railroads in the West. They were absolutely 2nd class citizens, but they persevered. Italians, Irish, Polish, Germans who were transported directly from the boat that brought them across the Atlantic to coal mining jobs in Appalachia where they were paid in company 'scrip' money instead of US currency. If they left, that 'scrip' was worthless anywhere else and they would be penniless. They had to live in the company town, rent a company house (shack), buy all their clothing and food from the company store. They lived as captive property, and this went on for decades. Their descendants are still mining coal and living in an economically depressed shithole. Anyone talking about reparations for them for having to live like that that while NYC built itself into a city of skyscrapers on the coal they mined? Nope. And if a reparations law passed, the ultimate irony is they'd be taxed for it.



Yeah I was going to go there next but was already wandering off topic, and those were the main ones getting any kind of traction/mindshare. Plenty of people have some kind of historical injustice and trying to sort that out to assign some kind of monetary value to it would be insane, and likely impossible.

To that end all that can really be done from where I sit is document the history (doomed to repeat and all that), and attempt to improve the living conditions for people at large now, which is what I reckon governments should be doing anyway (not a fan of the truly minimalist government approaches as a general rule -- properly executed* a bit of help goes a long way and pays off mightily in the long run).

*whether they will properly execute something is probably a different discussion. Instead I see the appearance of doing something (see also war on drugs, no child left behind, abstinence only and any number of other options) is too often the favoured approach... which pretty much sums up the reparations stuff here.


----------



## Viri (Aug 5, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> So,erm...is this reparation thing really a thing, or just one question that gets thrown around under the 'look what our opponents care about lololol' ?


The second one. They're pandering to their base. I know a lot of what a politician says or does is pandering, but this is like hard core pandering. Any politician that tries to use reparations to get into the White House, are going to lose pretty hard in 2020.




qqq1 said:


> Note that my families did not come to the USA until after slavery was ended. Looks like those rice crispy treats are all for me.


My ancestors were too busy starving to death in Ireland, and getting oppressed by the Russian empire.


----------



## Waygeek (Aug 5, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Seems like a fairly solid take from where I sit. If your would be candidates get side tracked talking about things few people would support, or indeed find the notion of to be offensive, and thus can't present a coherent and likeable candidate then in the confusion the opposition will take the easy win resulting from that.



'If'. But it's not the case.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 5, 2019)

Waygeek said:


> 'If'. But it's not the case.


Were they not discussing the patently absurd notion (one I would put on par with that wall lark) during a late stage debate to decide which person gets to run?


----------



## leon315 (Aug 5, 2019)

Xzi said:


> he might leak that information.


IF ur FBI can't even trust ur own president, the who can you trust?

BTW if FBI can have enough of evidence to prove Trump leaks top secret operation to any hostile country, can it be already considered Treason?


----------



## Waygeek (Aug 15, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Were they not discussing the patently absurd notion (one I would put on par with that wall lark) during a late stage debate to decide which person gets to run?



You're going to have to rephrase your post in such a way that it is understandable by native English speakers I'm afraid.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 15, 2019)

Waygeek said:


> You're going to have to rephrase your post in such a way that it is understandable by native English speakers I'm afraid.


I have been known to make a dense sentence or two but that was fine by all the metrics I normally use.

Still.

You say they were not discussing it. It being the fucking dumb cunt batshit insane idea of reparations for slavery from a current US government.
I say do we not have evidence of it being a discussion topic? Said discussion also happening to fall during a fairly late stage political debate from the only other viable competitor party for the US president?


----------

