4403

The suggestion that a social safety net is inherently incompatible with a diverse population is just…so implicitly racist I don’t even know where to start.

Like, really? You’re saying that the only reason why Denmark, Germany, the UK (which itself is pretty diverse from what I understand, but I guess we’re supposed to ignore that fact for now) have relatively successful social safety nets is because their populations are homogeneous?

Or if that implication isn’t outright racist, it’s at least an acknowledgement that up until now, diverse populations don’t have a good social safety net because they’re too focused on making sure their tax dollars don’t go to non-white people? Or what specifically is the implication supposed to be? That white people are happier being poor, but slightly less poor than non-white people, than they are just happy when a rising tide lifts all boats and everyone is better?

The fact that the United States is so diverse is why we should be trying things that work in other countries - because the United States is supposed to be fucking better than those other countries, and we become better by taking all of the ideas of the best and brightest people of our diverse population and make things better for everyone by using the vast resources available to us!

4404

Yes, I think the implication in @Strollen’s post is exactly opposite of reality.

To whit: the creation of racial politics as a means for preventing the expansion of, and a justification for reducing, the social safety net was a deliberate and conscious act of conservative elites. That in order to prevent working class voters from forming a political bloc capable of enacting those types of programs that racial animosity was formented as a wedge to drive white working class voters to support policies that actively undermined social programs.

Which is to say that a social safety net would not fail because we are diverse, but rather we fail to have a social safety net because of cultivated animosity over our diversity.

4405

It implies that a substantial part of the United States is racist. That makes social safety nets politically difficult, as opponents cast them as benefits to “the other.” From Reagan’s “welfare queens” to the current hysteria over illegal immigrants getting ACA benefits, that is how the GOP fights socialized benefits they don’t like. They simply tell their base that brown people get them.

We can nonetheless become a more progressive country. But it won’t happen without dragging at least part of the GOP along, and the ease with which they respond to tribalist appeals is a political reality.

4406

Does Canada count?

4407

Which of course doesn’t need to be implied because it’s a known fact.

I do believe there is a conservative mind out there. And they’re not racist, and they believe in efficiency and balanced budgets, and that capitalism remains one of the best economic tools we have even if it not the only tool or best in every case… but they sold their souls to the Republican party of today. And on occasion they come out try to wipe the muck off and explain how they’re different, too often pointing to Ronald Reagan, who does not have a good with most minorities, and they talk about state rights sometimes even while trying to gloss over the fact that there is opposition constantly against the “wrong” state rights, and then this individual vs. the state.

Where are these conservatives who would normally be appalled at the idea of a cop entering someone’s home, with a warrant, and not on duty and just shoot someone. Where are these conservatives when the individual states push for say Net Neutrality? Where are these conservatives while giant corporations don’t pay their taxes at all but are afforded even more tax cut?

The problem with whatever is left of the conservatives, even if we generously allow them to make these claims despite the evidence of otherwise, this group is not willing to lose anything for their convictions. They will stand with the Republican party or often just not vote at all. There is a risk if this group still exists and actually fight for what they say they believe in, that the Republicans will lose. And they’re largely not interested in taking that risk.

This conservative view seems to be a value so long as it is safe, with safe being that the Democrats can take advantage of the conflict.

So they just stop wiping that muck off and acknowledge they’re wallowing in it. I’m not telling them to stay in the muck, but in order to get out of it, they have to do more.

4408

Before making the claim, I checked the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States and https://www.indexmundi.com/united_kingdom/demographics_profile.html, along with dozen other countries.

I’m defining diversity, as racial, ethnic, or religious but only where it matters. (So it matters, in India, the Middle East, and Burma, not so much in Europe, North America). I’d argue the prejudice that Muslim see in both the US and but especially Europe is as much by ethnicity Arabs/Middle Easterns as religion.

The US census bureau also separately classified ethnicity as Hispanic or Non-Hispanic it is 17%

In the case of Canada, they don’t collect racial info as explained here. As the author says “There are no big surprises here. Canada is a whiter country than the US. We have a much larger Asian population and a much smaller Black population.”

I found no source that had the US at 77% white, multiple sources had us 72% but only 62% if we are including white non-Hispanic. There are many countries with similar or greater diversity to the US (Yugoslavia pre-break up and even today Serbia and Bosnia have more ethnic diversity than the US) Many countries in Africa, Pakistan, Indonesia to name a few, none of which provide good social services.

Singapore is a good counterexample a country with similar (but less) diversity to the US, and a good safety net. As conservative, I’d love to use Singapore as model for the US social services. Practically, I question how well we could scale their system such as force medical saving, from a City-State of 5 million to the US. But who knows if we could cane people who didn’t save for retirement or health care, maybe it would work.

4409

From your Wikipedia link:

Whites constitute the majority of the U.S. population, with a total of about 245,532,000 or 77.7% of the population as of 2013.

Your own link is estimates that Canada is 79% white. It’s right there in the second table.

Are we only including white non-Québécois in Canada, or white non-Scots/Irish/Welsh in the UK?

4410
4411

I’m saying a more homogenous society makes deciding anything easier. Look how easy it was for QT3 to come together and say Trump is the worse president ever.

In the case of social service, they are particularly hard to get done, because it requires people to give up something (in the form of taxes) to help others. I’m not saying this is good, but rather it as Nesrie say, what it is. Nor is unique to the US. A big part of the complaint of the nativist party in Europe, is we are giving money to these Arabs/Islamist and they don’t have our values.

But that isn’t my main point at AT ALL. It is very simply that Democrats are screwing up by focusing almost exclusively on changing things at the Federal level while ignoring the state level. I see it on P&R and on Facebook everything is about Congress, the President, Scotus and nothing about state politics or issues.

Gay marriage legalization didn’t happen at the Federal level it happened first at the local level, but what really matter was getting state laws changed. We are seeing the same thing happen at the legalization of Pot. In the case of Pot the federal government, classification of marijuana as class 1 drug, restrictions on banking etc. make it really hard for states to do this but despite the obstacle, this happening. If California wants to try single payer health care, conservative will support that, even if Trump Republican scream no. But if you try a do single payer at national level without first doing it successfully at state level we will scream like hell.

4412

We’re not entirely homogeneous and there are several members who have said they do not participate in P & R because their opinions and their point of views would not be welcome or the experience would be unpleasant or the strife just too much to want to deal with… pick one.

If someone on this board, several even, feel Trump is a great president, they do not feel comfortable in saying so. Unfortunately, when it comes to society, at large, you can’t really opt-out as you can here.

4415

Did you check out Australia? We are pretty diverse here nowadays - a full quarter of the population was born overseas (16% from China or India). Arabic is the 3rd most commonly spoken language after English and Mandarin, etc., etc.

Of course our population is still only 30 million but we’re probably a better comparison than Singapore.

4416

i agree with you. I think it is good thing on the discussion that there is a diversity and it unfortunate and understandable that people are uncomfortable when they don’t feel free to speak up here.

I’m just saying that it would be easier to achieve consensus on the worst President of all on time and issue a public condemnation on the QT3 board than do do so at the country at large. It would be hard to achieve consensus on the 2017 or 18 game of the year or top 10 war movies. :)

4417

But the objection I take with your idea, at least as it’s presented here, is that the reason we can’t come to consensus is mostly due to diversity, and that a less diverse population would lead to a better outcome… That plays right into the racists’ hands in this country. They want to claim that diversity is bad and doesn’t have benefits, which is imply not true.

4418

Ok well then I failed. We are a diverse country on all dimension, racial, ethnicity, but primarily political. Diversity is a strength not a weakness, but it does make it harder to achieve consensus. Rather than trying to achieve things solely at national level, we can and should do more things at state level. It is much easier to achieve to consensus because most state aren’t purple they are red or blue.

As conservative, I’m going to be skeptical of change for changes sake, and pointing to some state-size European country as an example is not all compelling for me.

Take mail-in ballots, I don’t like the idea at first, but Oregon has been doing for years and no great political disaster has occurred in the state. My issues about ballot fraud, you addressed, and now that I know that ballot have to arrive by election day my concerns about delay the counting also have been eased. I’m now not going to fight if Hawaii or the nation want to move to mail in ballots. It is certainly more convenient and when it comes to voting for some of the more obscure offices, it will be handy to have the ballot handy as do google searches on the candidates. The Oregon experience is quite valuable to me. If Oregon had voted to repeal mail-in ballots that would have also been good to know.

I hear the liberal complaint oh what about all the people in state XYZ, that are deprived of their right to smoke dope, mail-in ballot, get free healthcare, marry who they want etc. My answer is 1/2 loaf is better than none, and look doing things at state level as opportunity to prove us conservatives wrong.

4419

If you think, say, converting the U.S. health Care system to single payer is about “change for change’s sake,” then I don’t think you’re coming at it from the same place as those who propose it.

4420

I’d like to take credit, but I think there were a couple Oregonians explaining out system. I think someone from Washington explained theirs which, if I recall correctly, had a more generous return on the ballot, like post-marked by instead of receive by.

See I can’t accept this answer for all things. I simply can’t. Some people might claim that makes liberals unable to meet half-way and refusing to budge but here’s the thing, if left up to the South, there would literally still be second class citizens in this country, actual citizens forced to sit at the back of the bus, unable to get basic necessities like groceries and gas, and not able to go through the front door to accept awards or stay in the same hotel as their peers. If left to the states, that shit would still be law. There would also not be interracial marriages, and those laws are not actually that old. There are people, boomers, alive today that could not marry in those states. And we’d have separate but not at all equal schools, still. How do we know this, because the federal government had to keep getting involved to make this shit happen.

There is no half-way when you treat people as less than. I will not accept 1/2 or a third or 3/4ths of a loaf that says some asshole in a Republican state is allowed to treat other human beings, other citizens, as a lesser person. You do not cross the table for that kind of a negotiation.

4421

Yep, this is shit where the racist troglodytes (read: Republicans) need to be drug, kicking and screaming and frothing Alex Jones-branded nutritional supplements at the mouth, into fucking modernity where everyone is a human being and needs to be treated like one. Also they’re going to need to accept that global warming is real and we’re going to do shit about it before we all burn.

Want to compromise? Go argue about which route the new state highway’s gonna take. The rest of this shit isn’t up for argument anymore.

4422

The word diversity is the same as the word liberal for the trumpets. A bad word. Made a bad word by them for them.

What I tell you three times is true. A magic spell to change the meaning of words. Actually from The Hunting of the Snark. By Lewis Carroll.

4423

I don’t think that’s possible. The deeply rooted racism of generations doesn’t go away like that. I think we just have to outvote them, and then hope that their kids are less racist than they, and so on. I do believe that’s happening, even in your state, in a frustratingly slow two-steps-forward one-step-back way.

In the meantime, again, we just have to outvote them.

4424

To be clear, that is what i was implying. They’ll live in the world where equality’s properly enshrined in law and stew and spit venom and eventually die bitter and ideally unloved and alone!