The Democrat Utopia

[DevoHusker]

 

 

[FrantzHardySwag]

5 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

 

 

The inclusion stuff is becoming a nightmare and hypocritical as f#&%. You can't get mad at "All Lives Matter" then turn around and make a "Woman's Rights" movement be about more than Women. The BLM movement is to promote equality for the Black community. The Woman's Rights movement is to promote rights for women. And there's enough misinformation out there, don't start editing the quotes of deceased historical figures. 

[nic]

15 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

 

 

How did they even think of this? I was watching AOC comment on the Texas abortion law and she used “woman”, “birthing person” and “menstruating person” all in one commentary. She can’t even get it right. Are we going genderless? I guess the universities won’t have to worry about Title IX for munch longer.

[B.B. Hemingway]

18 hours ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

The inclusion stuff is becoming a nightmare and hypocritical as f#&%. You can't get mad at "All Lives Matter" then turn around and make a "Woman's Rights" movement be about more than Women. The BLM movement is to promote equality for the Black community. The Woman's Rights movement is to promote rights for women. And there's enough misinformation out there, don't start editing the quotes of deceased historical figures. 

 

What's odd is that it's being pushed by the same people who stand with science on every issue but gender. They must of skipped biology class. 

[RedDenver]

3 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

What's odd is that it's being pushed by the same people who stand with science on every issue but gender. They must of skipped biology class. 

I think changing RBG's quote was ridiculous, but you're missing an important distinction here: sex vs gender. Science can only tell us what biological parts someone has, not how that person thinks or feels about issues including gender and self-identification. As an example, think about whether a man should wear women's dresses. There's nothing in science that says that's incorrect based on biology, it's simply the way we think about what is allowed for each gender.

[DevoHusker]

 

[RedDenver]

11 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

I thought she might mean among OECD countries, but the US is second worst poverty rate among OECD countries, so even though the US is even worse on that comparison, Jayapal is still wrong.

[BigRedBuster]

2 hours ago, RedDenver said:

I thought she might mean among OECD countries, but the US is second worst poverty rate among OECD countries, so even though the US is even worse on that comparison, Jayapal is still wrong.

I understand we need to work at making sure everyone has the same chance at a good life in this country. It’s something there needs to always be continual improvement on. 
 

However, I always really question this. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve traveled in some European countries and you don’t see homeless like you do here. 
 

but, 4th worst in the world?

[DevoHusker]

 

[DevoHusker]

 

All in the family...

[Archy1221]

17 hours ago, RedDenver said:

I thought she might mean among OECD countries, but the US is second worst poverty rate among OECD countries, so even though the US is even worse on that comparison, Jayapal is still wrong.

So we have a worse poverty issue than Russia does?  Than most every former Russian block country?   Why is everyone trying to get into the US then?   This is the last place people who want to stay out poverty should want to come then according to your link 

[nic]

Accept the part about getting rid of our current national anthem, well said. I do find it a bit disconcerting that I am agreeing lately with a dude I though was an arrogant ahole  all these years, but I guess it’s progress.

 

On Friday night, Maher returned to the subject, insisting to his viewers that his opinion that "we shouldn't have two" anthems is the "correct opinion."

"The program 'The View' last week devoted a lot of time to this while somehow avoiding what I actually said," Maher said.  "It seemed to be a lot about a need to school me about the Black national anthem itself. Whoopi Goldberg said, quote, ‘We’re having to re-educate people.' Because nothing ever goes wrong when you start talking about re-education. Just ask Chairman Mao. Maybe we can set up some sort of camps."

Calling himself an "old school liberal," the HBO star defended the "crazy idea" that "segregating by race is bad." And while he reiterated that the U.S. should get rid of "The Star-Spangled Banner," he firmly argued there "has to be just one" anthem since, after all, it's a "national anthem."

 

"Symbols of unity matter. And purposefully fragmenting things by race reinforces a terrible message that we are two nations hopelessly drifting apart from each other. That's not where we were even ten years ago and it's not where we should be now," Maher told his audience, which responded with applause. 
Maher then played a clip of then-candidate Barack Obama saying, "There is not a Black America or a White America … there is the United States of America," adding that "where we should be now is here."
"If we have two anthems, why not three? Or five? Why not a women's anthem? A Latino anthem? A gay, trans, Indigenous Peoples, an Asian and Pacific Islander anthem? Because 'I'm not dealing with you, I'm not speaking to you' is not a way you can run a country and most people of all backgrounds understand that already and don't even want to try to do it that way," Maher said. 

"I'm not out of step! Believing in separate but equal? That's out of step -- by 67 years. It was 67 years ago, in 1954, when the Supreme Court handed down their landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling which said ‘separate but equal' isn't what we do here. We decided we're going to try to make this work together."

Maher cited a survey of 173 colleges that found that "42%" of them offered segregated residences and "72%" offered segregated graduation ceremonies. 

"Well, congratulations, liberal parents. You just paid 100 grand for your kid to move to Biloxi, Mississippi in 1948," Maher quipped. "I mean, we're a nation that professes diversity as our strength. But now half the kids' dorm rooms are determined by racial purity?… You see what I mean about becoming so woke, you come back out the racist side?"

[teachercd]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

So we have a worse poverty issue than Russia does?  Than most every former Russian block country?   Why is everyone trying to get into the US then?   This is the last place people who want to stay out poverty should want to come then according to your link 

Ha...no kidding.  This is like when China used to report that they had 100% literacy rate in their country.  

 

 

[RedDenver]

On 9/25/2021 at 6:16 AM, Archy1221 said:

So we have a worse poverty issue than Russia does?  Than most every former Russian block country?   Why is everyone trying to get into the US then?   This is the last place people who want to stay out poverty should want to come then according to your link 

I did some more digging, and the OECD definition of poverty is... questionable: https://data.oecd.org/inequality/poverty-rate.htm

Quote

The poverty rate is the ratio of the number of people (in a given age group) whose income falls below the poverty line; taken as half the median household income of the total population. It is also available by broad age group: child poverty (0-17 years old), working-age poverty and elderly poverty (66 year-olds or more). However, two countries with the same poverty rates may differ in terms of the relative income-level of the poor.

 

Seems like the poverty rate should be income measured against cost of living. The Census has lower poverty rates for the US than the OECD numbers, but use what is called the "official poverty rate", which is based on threshold tables that I cannot find the basis for their values. So hard to argue that the Census numbers measure anything any better than the OECD without being able to find the math behind the numbers. The OECD poverty rate is at least transparent with how they came up with the numbers but doesn't seem very useful as a measure of poverty - more like an inequality measure.

 

Regardless, Jayapal's number doesn't match any data I could find.

[BigRedBuster]

On 9/26/2021 at 12:55 PM, RedDenver said:

I did some more digging, and the OECD definition of poverty is... questionable: https://data.oecd.org/inequality/poverty-rate.htm

 

Seems like the poverty rate should be income measured against cost of living. The Census has lower poverty rates for the US than the OECD numbers, but use what is called the "official poverty rate", which is based on threshold tables that I cannot find the basis for their values. So hard to argue that the Census numbers measure anything any better than the OECD without being able to find the math behind the numbers. The OECD poverty rate is at least transparent with how they came up with the numbers but doesn't seem very useful as a measure of poverty - more like an inequality measure.

 

Regardless, Jayapal's number doesn't match any data I could find.

I think I agree with what you are saying.  I've always questioned these statistics.  

 

So, let's say the income threshold for poverty is at $33,000 per year.  That is very very different if that family is living in Los Angeles compared to small town Nebraska.