Visa Ban

Quote: RonC

You can be right in "legacy admissions" being wrong and wrong about characterizing them as "AA for whites"...they are two different things. It is easy to argue that "legacy admissions" hurt the entire pool of applicants for a university because they reserve a spot for someone who will not make the student body based on their qualifications alone. It is way too much of a stretch to make that "racist" since it impacts every applicant not granted "legacy" entry.

"Racism" is wrong but there are all kinds of wrongs that aren't "racist"...again, cheapening the word does nothing to help fight actual "racism."

It's silly to debate what the label(s) should be. In all cases, we're talking about a program that evaluates candidates for college admission based on demographic factors rather than academic qualifications.

It's debatable whether it's a good idea to redress unfairness by being unfair in favor of a formerly discriminated-against group. Those in favor of it say that merely leveling the playing field isn't good enough to right past wrongs. Those against it say that if discrimination is wrong, it's wrong, even with the noblest of intentions. I subscribe to the latter view, which might surprise our resident Trumpers, who see me as a one-dimensional eyes-bugged-out rabid liberal.

It could be argued that AA as it was was racist, in that racism is viewing a person or persons solely or primarily by their race when that characteristic is not germane (as in, college admissions shouldn't take race into account one way or the other).

Quote: pew

On a related subject the political spectrum has become skewed. I wish someone would inform the little darlings in colleges across the nation that anarchist's are on the far right not the far left. the extreme left is totalitarianism.

The amount of state control is not exactly a left/tight thing. Anarchists can be socialist or libertarian. So it's hard to put on one extreme or another.

Fascism was born from Socialism, but became very much anti-communist and is described as a far right wing movement. It certainly these days tends to comes from extreme conservative groups.

At the fringes, the left/right spectrum breaks down, and the two-dimensional grid used to look at politics is more useful.

Quote: TheCesspit

The amount of state control is not exactly a left/tight thing. Anarchists can be socialist or libertarian. So it's hard to put on one extreme or another.

Fascism was born from Socialism, but became very much anti-communist and is described as a far right wing movement. It certainly these days tends to comes from extreme conservative groups.

At the fringes, the left/right spectrum breaks down, and the two-dimensional grid used to look at politics is more useful.

Left and right has broken down just like much of the language we use these days. That's my point. Fascism? I didn't know Obama was conservative. Oh well live and learn. What is the two dimensional grid that you speak of?

Quote: pew

Left and right has broken down just like much of the language we use these days. That's my point. Fascism? I didn't know Obama was conservative. Oh well live and learn. What is the two dimensional grid that you speak of?

It should really be circular and not linear. Hitler and Stalin are given as right/left examples, but looking at them it is hard to tell them apart. Stalin killed more people but Hitler gets credit for being more evil. In the end what matter for the average person on the street.

German industry was the envy of the world while Russia was a starving basket case. If you were not a persecuted group your quality of life was probably better under fascism. But in the end that is just a more comfortable prison.

Quote: AZDuffman

It should really be circular and not linear. Hitler and Stalin are given as right/left examples, but looking at them it is hard to tell them apart. Stalin killed more people but Hitler gets credit for being more evil. In the end what matter for the average person on the street.

German industry was the envy of the world while Russia was a starving basket case. If you were not a persecuted group your quality of life was probably better under fascism. But in the end that is just a more comfortable prison.

It's pretty much come down to one thing. It used to be more government (government can and should be a force for good) vs. less government (government is an instrument of oppression and individuals know best how to serve their own needs). But conservatives seem to be in favor of more government when it comes to military spending, adding to the tools of oppression, and building stupid, useless walls that cost twenty billion dollars. Liberals favor less government when it comes to certain issues such as immigration.

The one thing that separates the right from the left in this country: Look at that guy over there. He's poor, he's disadvantaged, he's suffering, he needs help. But he's not one of US.

Liberals: Awww, let's help the guy. Everybody should pitch in and contribute to saving his butt.
Conservatives: Kill the mother****er.

I'm not in favor of either approach, actually. But this seems to be the only real area where the left/right lines don't blur.

Quote: pew

Left and right has broken down just like much of the language we use these days. That's my point. Fascism? I didn't know Obama was conservative. Oh well live and learn. What is the two dimensional grid that you speak of?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass
Or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart
Or if you want to see where your own ideals fit:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Obama was no Fascist or Socialist. Sorry, I can't tell if that was sarcasm or not, but just like the Donald is no neo-fascist (at least it doesn't look that way to me right now, though some of Bannon's policies have aspects of in-group nationalism), Obama is not either.

Quote: AZDuffman

It should really be circular and not linear. Hitler and Stalin are given as right/left examples, but looking at them it is hard to tell them apart. Stalin killed more people but Hitler gets credit for being more evil. In the end what matter for the average person on the street.

German industry was the envy of the world while Russia was a starving basket case. If you were not a persecuted group your quality of life was probably better under fascism. But in the end that is just a more comfortable prison.

Russia's starving basket case industry did manage to get on a war footing, move industry east and then come back and churn out enough materials and men to take down the Germans. Admittedly with vital supplies from the Arctic convoys.

Both were massively in favour of the state over the individual. Just espoused in very different ways. Communism (or Karl Marx's version of it) had gone well by the wayside by 1939. The level of state planning was massive in Russia, of course, something I don't think Nazi Germany ever tried.

I'm glad I never lived under either regime.

Quote: TheCesspit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass
Or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart
Or if you want to see where your own ideals fit:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Obama was no Fascist or Socialist. Sorry, I can't tell if that was sarcasm or not, but just like the Donald is no neo-fascist (at least it doesn't look that way to me right now, though some of Bannon's policies have aspects of in-group nationalism), Obama is not either.

Ineersting. I'd like to see that first one graphed out. It would probably be all over the place with a blob in the middle. Yes sarcasm but I didn't think it needed to be labeled, kinda takes the thorn off the rose so to speak.

Quote: Nareed

Among other nasty, stupid things, Golden Boy has placed white nationalist Steve Bannon in the National Security Council, and booted out the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This means he's placing politics before national security. So when he signs his discriminatory, security theater diktat banning even lawful legal residents fro entering the US, you know he's playing politics to his supporters.

It's hard to know which gossip to believe and which gossip to dismiss, but several news outlets are reporting that Trump didn't read the fine print on the executive order which installed Bannon on the National Security Council:

Quote: Fox News

President Trump was reportedly not fully briefed on the executive order he signed that allowed his chief strategist Steve Bannon a seat at the meetings of the country’s top national security efforts.... Trump was frustrated over the executive order and reportedly demanded to be looped in on the executive orders earlier in the drafting process.

This leak gives Trump some deniability for some of Bannon's shenanigans ("I had no idea what Steve was doing!") but it also makes Trump look weak and not fully in control. Trump is supposed to be calling the shots, not Mr. Bannon.

" It's hard to know which gossip to believe and which gossip to dismiss " Ignore the ones that show Trump in a favorable light. Believe everything negative about Trump. That's what Stinky told me to do. Especially when the source is a reliable source , someone inside the administration, high unnamed officials, etc.