or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trump is #2 in GOP Field - Page 224

post #3346 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLMountainMan View Post


You're getting awfully worked up over the government forcing people to work to make things they otherwise wouldn't make. What's the big deal?

Of course, we are debating this in a thread about a proud supporter of eminent domain for commercial purposes, so it's not all that off-subject.

 

Every time a "conservative" says they support Trump, I use the Kelo v. New London example.  When did conservatives stop pretending to care about private property rights?

post #3347 of 8748
It seems like Trump has a fairly legitimate grievance with the la-Raza judge?

This guy is a member of an org that gives scholarships to illegal aliens and has called for a boycott of Trump in writing. That seems like it would be well over the threshold for a conflict of interest in most arenas, I don't know about the judiciary specifically.
post #3348 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

It bears repeating that there were "whites only" lunch counters because the government did not allow integrated restaurants, not because the cooks had moral objections to selling their food to black people.

 

This is not really accurate. Sure, there were a lot of instances in which state and local government-sponsored discrimination occurred. However, setting aside the not unimportant distinction that it was the business owners and not the cooks making decisions to segregate lunch counters, there most certainly were businesses that had moral objections to selling their food to black people. The most famous instance of refusing to serve black people food was at the Woolworth in Greensboro, NC in 1960. The Greensboro sit-ins, which were a major part of the civil rights movement, were about changing the company's segregation policy, not the law.

 

Your statement just really isn't accurate and attempts to paint a picture that it was the government, not people, being responsible for segregation. Of course, many individuals and businesses had moral objections to selling food (and other items) to black people, and they often had state laws that allowed them to discriminate, accordingly. It was a combination of both private citizens having issues with black people and state and local governments creating laws that supported it. Far too simplistic to say it was just the government.
 

post #3349 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennglock View Post

It seems like Trump has a fairly legitimate grievance with the la-Raza judge?

This guy is a member of an org that gives scholarships to illegal aliens and has called for a boycott of Trump in writing. That seems like it would be well over the threshold for a conflict of interest in most arenas, I don't know about the judiciary specifically.

 

 

San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association ≠ National Council of La Raza

post #3350 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Every time a "conservative" says they support Trump, I use the Kelo v. New London example.  When did conservatives stop pretending to care about private property rights?

For the thinking Trump supporter, it's a matter of strategy vs tactics.

You can make a reasonable case that when the demographics of a country start to resemble Brazil, the policies and social-trust of that country will also converges toward those of Brazil. I'll note here that the tea-party platform is not getting a lot of traction in Brazil.

So if you care about conservatism, what's a more pressing priority: immigration or 'Sperging out over Kelo?

The same principle applies with Trump's un-PC "gaffs." It's a strategy not to apologize, as opposed to having some nitty defensive argument within the opposition's frame. The merits of the grievances are secondary staying out of the left's traps, because there will always be more.

The GOPe's preferred approach has been the micro-tactical-- fighting all the little battles on principle, on rules dictated by the opposition. Trump is trying something different.

One of these approaches has a 40-year track record of getting it's ass kicked by yodeling communists..
post #3351 of 8748
Raza means family in Mexican lingo too. For instance when I was a kid my dad would tell my mom "Ay que llevar la raza al parque, para que jueguen." Which translate to let's take the kids (family) to the park, so they can run around.

Of course raza also means race, but Mexicans in particular use it a lot to identify with family.
post #3352 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalb916 View Post

This is not really accurate. Sure, there were a lot of instances in which state and local government-sponsored discrimination occurred. However, setting aside the not unimportant distinction that it was the business owners and not the cooks making decisions to segregate lunch counters, there most certainly were businesses that had moral objections to selling their food to black people. The most famous instance of refusing to serve black people food was at the Woolworth in Greensboro, NC in 1960. The Greensboro sit-ins, which were a major part of the civil rights movement, were about changing the company's segregation policy, not the law.

Your statement just really isn't accurate and attempts to paint a picture that it was the government, not people, being responsible for segregation. Of course, many individuals and businesses had moral objections to selling food (and other items) to black people, and they often had state laws that allowed them to discriminate, accordingly. It was a combination of both private citizens having issues with black people and state and local governments creating laws that supported it. Far too simplistic to say it was just the government.

 

Not to mention that the laws reflected the will of the majority, and people largely supported the Jim Crow laws. They could certainly have changed them through the democratic process, but didn't and showed no signs of doing so. Fought tooth and nail not to, in fact. The whole South threw a fit and turned Republican after the Civil Rights Act passed, which doesn't seem to be the action of a group just passively following the arbitrary rules of government.


Of course government power gave the bigots additional power, but it doesn't change the underlying motivations.
post #3353 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post
 


My argument was that government forced people to discriminate.  I used an example of a railroad company that wanted to allow a black person in a first class car with white people.  That black man was arrested for violating the law.  In this case, black people could have been served exactly the same as white people by the railroad company if it weren't for the law (and the railroad company did allow the man to sit in the first class car which is why he was arrested).  Where are you getting lost?

I'm getting lost everywhere with your logic.  Yes, in that one case, the state forced people who did not want to discriminate to discriminate.  You are correct in that example from a case in the south in 1896.  Extrapolating from that case the lesson that governments (entirely or primarily) discriminate, whereas private citizens and businesses do not do so, is, however, absurd.  Do you think the state law reflected the minority view in the state or, rather, a majority view (such that it was enacted into law in the first place)?  How does the existence of state laws of this kind invalidate the notion that we should have a FEDERAL law preempting these types of state law? Or, in the absence of these state laws, this behavior in general (assuming citizens and businesses discriminate)?  You seem to divide the world into the people vs. the government and suggest it is only the one or the other acting and, because in this case a government law was to blame, government laws are therefore to blame for discrimination (without distinguishing between state and Federal law and between whether the state law enacted popular views in that place and at that time).  So yes, I'm completely lost.

 

You said you might be of this view because you haven't been discriminated against.  At least you are honest in that regard.  What if you, your children, your parents, your grandparents, etc... suffered daily discrimination and prejudice on account of your skin color or ethnic background?  Would you say to them, "Relax, we don't need any laws, the free market will eliminate this sort of behavior on the part of large publicly traded corporations and maybe some boycotts of local businesses can work for everything else.  Let's sit back and give this 20 - 100 years or so."?

post #3354 of 8748

The idea that this country should roll the rules back so that ethnic, racial and religious minorities can be legally discriminated against and disenfranchised in order to fulfill dreams of ideological purity tickles me.  

post #3355 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by budapest12 View Post
 

I'm getting lost everywhere with your logic.  Yes, in that one case, the state forced people who did not want to discriminate to discriminate.  You are correct in that example from a case in the south in 1896.  Extrapolating from that case the lesson that governments (entirely or primarily) discriminate, whereas private citizens and businesses do not do so, is, however, absurd.  Do you think the state law reflected the minority view in the state or, rather, a majority view (such that it was enacted into law in the first place)?  How does the existence of state laws of this kind invalidate the notion that we should have a FEDERAL law preempting these types of state law? Or, in the absence of these state laws, this behavior in general (assuming citizens and businesses discriminate)?  You seem to divide the world into the people vs. the government and suggest it is only the one or the other acting and, because in this case a government law was to blame, government laws are therefore to blame for discrimination (without distinguishing between state and Federal law and between whether the state law enacted popular views in that place and at that time).  So yes, I'm completely lost.

 

You said you might be of this view because you haven't been discriminated against.  At least you are honest in that regard.  What if you, your children, your parents, your grandparents, etc... suffered daily discrimination and prejudice on account of your skin color or ethnic background?  Would you say to them, "Relax, we don't need any laws, the free market will eliminate this sort of behavior on the part of large publicly traded corporations and maybe some boycotts of local businesses can work for everything else.  Let's sit back and give this 20 - 100 years or so."?

 

You mean like my ancestors who certainly were?  There were Irish, Germans, and Jews among my ancestors.  Was their treatment as bad as blacks in the South?  Almost certainly not.

 

You are acting like the Federal government has clean hands when it comes to discrimination.  They locked up more than 100k Japanese Americans on the basis of their national origin.  That was in 1941.  In 1947, the federal government prohibited the Levitt corporation from selling houses to blacks in Levittown.  It wasn't until 1968 when the federal government repealed laws requiring racial segregation for low income housing.

 

Does it really matter if a law was popular when it passed?  The government is still going to enforce it.

post #3356 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hombre Secreto View Post

Raza means family in Mexican lingo too. For instance when I was a kid my dad would tell my mom "Ay que llevar la raza al parque, para que jueguen." Which translate to let's take the kids (family) to the park, so they can run around.

Of course raza also means race, but Mexicans in particular use it a lot to identify with family.

But is this the way the word is used when speaking of the various "La Raza" organizations/movements? Isn't it more shaded to me "the people?" Doesn't it more mean something along the lines of creating a mestizo "race?" I think trying to say it's not about creating an "in group" is fairly specious.
post #3357 of 8748

It is hard to imagine that we have come so far from the Civil Rights Act that people have deluded themselves about the depth and breadth of the institutional racism that pervaded the white south under Jim Crow. The Idea that these laws would have passed away, on their own, in any reasonable length of time is ludicrous. The Civil Rights act opened the eyes of many southerners to the inequities of that social order but without it I believe we would see many of those laws still in place today

post #3358 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


But is this the way the word is used when speaking of the various "La Raza" organizations/movements? Isn't it more shaded to me "the people?" Doesn't it more mean something along the lines of creating a mestizo "race?" I think trying to say it's not about creating an "in group" is fairly specious.

 

Here's what the organization itself says:

 

What does the term “La Raza” mean?

The term “La Raza” has its origins in early 20th century Latin American literature and translates into English most closely as “the people” or, according to some scholars, “the Hispanic people of the New World.” The term was coined by Mexican scholar José Vasconcelos to reflect the fact that the people of Latin America are a mixture of many of the world’s races, cultures, and religions. The full term coined by Vasconcelos, “la raza cósmica,” meaning “the cosmic people,” reflects an expansive, inclusive view of the mixture inherent in Hispanics and that Hispanics share a common heritage and destiny with all other people of the world.

http://www.nclr.org/about-us/faqs/

post #3359 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post
 

 

You mean like my ancestors who certainly were?  There were Irish, Germans, and Jews among my ancestors.  Was their treatment as bad as blacks in the South?  Almost certainly not.

 

You are acting like the Federal government has clean hands when it comes to discrimination.  They locked up more than 100k Japanese Americans on the basis of their national origin.  That was in 1941.  In 1947, the federal government prohibited the Levitt corporation from selling houses to blacks in Levittown.  It wasn't until 1968 when the federal government repealed laws requiring racial segregation for low income housing.

 

Does it really matter if a law was popular when it passed?  The government is still going to enforce it.

 

Certainly not but it's not a contest.  I agree with all of your points in your second paragraph even as I fail to understand how they support your argument in any way.  Your third paragraph - you make it sound like the government (state government) subverted the will of the people.  Rather it reflected the will of the people.  Generally people expect the laws to be enforced.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


But is this the way the word is used when speaking of the various "La Raza" organizations/movements? Isn't it more shaded to me "the people?" Doesn't it more mean something along the lines of creating a mestizo "race?" I think trying to say it's not about creating an "in group" is fairly specious.

 

Ummm, this seems like the height of specious to me.  Where do you get all those assumptions from? 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbernine View Post
 

It is hard to imagine that we have come so far from the Civil Rights Act that people have deluded themselves about the depth and breadth of the institutional racism that pervaded the white south under Jim Crow. The Idea that these laws would have passed away, on their own, in any reasonable length of time is ludicrous. The Civil Rights act opened the eyes of many southerners to the inequities of that social order but without it I believe we would see many of those laws still in place today

And even if it did not open their eyes, it provided some measure of protection.  Period.

post #3360 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hombre Secreto View Post

Raza means family in Mexican lingo too. For instance when I was a kid my dad would tell my mom "Ay que llevar la raza al parque, para que jueguen." Which translate to let's take the kids (family) to the park, so they can run around.

Of course raza also means race, but Mexicans in particular use it a lot to identify with family.

But is this the way the word is used when speaking of the various "La Raza" organizations/movements? Isn't it more shaded to me "the people?" Doesn't it more mean something along the lines of creating a mestizo "race?" I think trying to say it's not about creating an "in group" is fairly specious.


Strictly along the lines of my experience with the movement ,as a white resident of a nearly 100% hispanic area of East San Jose from the early to mid 70s  , is that it was an organization focused on cultural pride and address of social inequities. It was compromised of second or more generation US citizens (Chicanos) and Its connection to Mexico or a mestizo race was simply coincidental at best.@Hombre Secreto

is invited to correct any misinformation as his experience is of LA and a more personal nature

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field