***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[heelsandeers]

I’ll say this again, this wasn’t the weathers fault, it was the system in place. This was a man made problem they’re trying to pass off as some Armageddon situation. Weather wasn’t that bad at all.

it's close to unprecedented weather for TX. temperatures that are about as cold as it gets hit the entire system at once and for a sustained period

since some of the same things happened in the Feb 2011 outage, that was the time to start preparing and TX and its utilities chose not to

there will be audits of the weatherization choices for all generators and of the security of the gas system in extended ultra-cold snaps

the easiest and cheapest thing to do is connect to neighboring grids but the TX GOP will never go for that

 

[Present]

The more things change...I hope there's something in these bills to finally criminalize racial bias in America.

Aint no use setting a table with three legs.

 

[had pants]

 

[had pants]

 

[had pants]

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

this who dwalk31 woke up every damn day ready to defend with glee

 

[IATT]

 

[mplsdunk]

I was in Memphis and it snowed 6”.

got stuck there for only 24 hours and they were back to normal but it shut them down temporarily. No power lost or nothing.

Texas is looking horrible with their handling of this. It will happen again and again too with climate change.

 

[NickFolarin]

 

[IATT]

smmmmhhhhhhh

 

[wavycrocket]

.

 

[blastercombo]

And they want me to salute this flag? never

 

[Mark Antony]

The flag is done done if that's what they're doing with it now. Meaningless.

 

[cosmiccoffee9]

to be fair, his beliefs have long been what that flag represents to most of the world.

 

[blastercombo]

The flag is done done if that's what they're doing with it now. Meaningless.

It actually means a lot. Just nothing I’d ever agree with. I’d piss on an American flag

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[mplsdunk]

the dudes who suck off police ruined the flag for me. That’s what I equate it to.

 

[elpablo21]

 

[mplsdunk]

Not all people who wear the flag are racist but all racists wear the flag.

 

[Sharpshoeter13]

 

[RustyShackleford]

My feelings about the flag when conservatives use it to beat back marginalized groups calling out injustice...

My feelings about the flag when a black person finna win a gold medal at the Olympics...

 

[TooOlfForThisIsh]

It was not my point to suggest that the Ten Percent Plan was worse than no action at all, as would be the clear preference for those most privileged. Hopefully that was not your - or any reader's - primary takeaway.

It wasn't. I had a visceral reaction to "scam" and

Texas' concept of a “fair" college admissions policy was to ensure that the top 10 percent of each high school's graduating class would receive guaranteed admission to the public college of their choice.

and

Proponents often portrayed this as if it successfully addressed racial disparities in higher education without, as Roberts so speciously and unjustly characterized race-based affirmative action, “discriminating on the basis of race.”

Basically, I thought you imagined the architects of the plan to have dishonestly positioned it as a cure-all for racial disparity. And I wanted to point out, that was never the intent. We had a soldier bleeding out; we needed a tourniquet. But no one serious thought that slowing the blood loss meant curing the patient. I mean, no one serious thought that pre-Hopwood admissions were "fair" and so using those statistics as a benchmark was never about "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!"

Sleeping on it, I think our disagreement may be explained by who we visualize when we say "proponents" of the plan.

To me, the original proponents were the BIPOC academics and community leaders who were scrambling to find a politically feasible solution after enrollment numbers were cut to three fifths of what they had been. We couldn't sue, because the law had actually changed to create potential financial liabilities for challenges. We were also unsure what the Supreme Court was going to do. At the time, the ruling was limited to the 5th. Grutter V. Bollinger would have to wait.

After the plan was in place, there were administrators and the legislators who had fought against doing anything and who all of a sudden realized that they could "embrace" the plan in order to never having to do anything else. And I find these latter-day proponents guilty of everything you accuse them of.

My point was that, as I said, policies tend to benefit the most privileged members of a beneficiary group.

If you rephrase this as "institutional change usually protects and extends the hegemony", Rex will want a high five.

Anyway, I agree with the basic sentiment of what you say, especially:

"Neutrality" is not synonymous with fairness. An odd plus an even is still odd.

We can't dismantle structural racism without taking race into consideration,

But depending on how literal you're being, I don't agree with:

just as giving every American $50,000 could deliver millions from the brink of disaster, but would do absolutely nothing, in and of itself, to narrow income inequality.

I mean, if you mean that wealth effects are not directly income effects, then sure., I guess. But if you're willing to take second and third order consequences into account, I think that the debt relief will absolutely reduce income inequality.

There are at least two significant impacts of excessive debt among your professionals: it reduces their risk appetite and it limits their ability to invest. If you have a $2,000 loan payment due every month, that's coming out of savings and it's tying you to whatever job you have right now. It forces you to be short-term greedy and that translates to missed opportunities. So you're forgoing career growth opportunities now and passive income oportunities later.

BIPOCS bear this cost disproportionately to their white peers that are also carrying debt because the latter can rely on intergenerational wealth. I feel foolish even saying that because I know you know that. So while debt relief disproportionately helps white people's wealth, it may disproportionately help BIPOC professionals risk appetite and ultimately income. This puts real affluence in range for the lower middle class who otherwise will tread water through their early career and then parenthood.

So yes, policies tend to benefit the most privileged members of a beneficiary group. This policy will undoubtedly help black and brown people who have already secured some degree of security for themselves. But I do believe that changing the demographics of the upper middle class does actually address racial income inequality.

And I think it's possible to craft policy in consideration of race that effectively reduces racial inequality by important measures, but that ostensibly is race neutral.

I look forward to the day when that's not politically necessary. And I'll fight with you to make that day come sooner. But I think you and I both know that day isn't here and it isn't coming soon.

 

[blastercombo]

I don’t see how an athlete even represents the USA.