Wanderlust
Regular Member
- Messages
- 136
- Reaction score
- 56
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Scandinavian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- I1-L22
- mtDNA haplogroup
- X2
From the comment section of that You Tube video posted by Wanderlust:
"Michelle Obama's sensitivity and outrage at Trump's crude talk seems contrived and selective. She seemed really comfortable with rolling out the red carpet at the White House for Hip-Hop and Gangsta Rap stars who brag about physically drugging and abusing girls, and calling them all kinds of horrible names. Hypocrisy. Nothing but leftist propaganda." / 143 likes.
Of course, another false equivalency.
1.) Are any of these "Hip-Hop and Gangsta rap stars" running for US President, arguably the most important office in the world?
2.) The Obamas have criticized the sexism, violence and materialism prevalent within certain corners of Hip-Hop and almost all of the rappers invited to the White House were part of initiatives to use their influential platforms in a positive, community outreach sort of way.
But as usual, context and facts are lost in these asinine, strawman arguments.
Around 1950-70 I think it was the peak of US economic power relative to the rest of the world.
Yes, that's true (finally). It's also worth noting that the policies responsible for America's "greatness" post WWII were "center-left."
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...ican-economic-history-told-in-1-graph/261503/
In the 60 years after World War II, the United States built the world's greatest middle class economy, then unbuilt it. And if you want a single snapshot that captures the broad sweep of that transformation, you could do much worse than this graph from a new Pew report, which tracks how average family incomes have changed at each rung of the economic ladder from 1950 through 2010.
Here's the arc it captures: In the immediate postwar period, America's rapid growth favored the middle and lower classes. The poorest fifth of all households, in fact, fared best. Then, in the 1970s, amid two oil crises and awful inflation, things ground to a halt. The country backed off the postwar, center-left consensus -- captured by Richard Nixon's comment that "we're all Keynesians now" -- and tried Reaganism instead. We cut taxes. Technology and competition from abroad started whittling away at blue collar jobs and pay. The financial markets took off. And so when growth returned, it favored the investment class -- the top 20 percent, and especially the top 5 percent (and, though it's not on this chart, the top 1 percent more than anybody).
Moreover, there have been studies conducted that show the US economy usually does better under Democratic Presidents.
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/the...nomy_does_better_under_democratic_presidents/
The results of a broad range of studies are clear, then: Progressive policies are better for economic growth, better at creating a racially equitable society, better at strengthening the middle class and better at reducing unemployment.
Last edited: