President Donald Trump

[OaklandA's]

Again, I don't think the Republican's differentiate between men's and women's rights.

But should they? On issues such as equal pay, discrimination, and sexual harassment, (many) women feel that they are at a disadvantage solely based on their gender. The Democrats are trying to pass laws to specifically address these issues, while the Republicans basically feel that nothing needs to be done.

[Bernie Brewer]

But should they? On issues such as equal pay, discrimination, and sexual harassment, (many) women feel that they are at a disadvantage solely based on their gender. The Democrats are trying to pass laws to specifically address these issues, while the Republicans basically feel that nothing needs to be done.

Maybe. It depends, I guess.

Let's go back to the Wiki Links you posted. On the issue of The Paycheck Fairness Act, you noted that the Republicans didn't support it. In the link, it gives several reasons why the GOP didn't support the final bill. And one is that nothing is ever as simple as presented. In the section entitled "Criticism" it outlines a study that suggested that the inequality isn't as simple as just paying men more than women because they can. It looks at social issues that impact desperate pay levels. See below:

Criticism

A 2009 CONSAD Research Corporation study prepared for the US Department of Labor cautioned against misinterpretation of census and other wage data, suggesting that the wage gap between the sexes was not due to systematic discrimination:

Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.

Christina Hoff Sommers, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, criticized the proposed law, citing the study.

Columnist Daniel Fisher criticized the legislation in Forbes magazine, pointing out that eliminating the "reason other than sex" defense used by employers under existing law would mean that wage differences based on an individual's salary history and negotiating skills would be treated as evidence of discrimination, even if the employer's actions were not based on gender. According to Fisher, the act "eliminates the 'reason other than sex' defense and substitutes instead a requirement that the employer prove that its pay practices are divorced from any discrimination in its workplace or at the employee’s prior workplace, that the pay practice is job related, and that it is consistent with “business necessity.”

I would suggest that Republicans don't feel nothing needs to be done as much as they feel that the evidence doesn't suggest the need for a fix in many cases.

[OaklandA's]

I would suggest that Republicans don't feel nothing needs to be done as much as they feel that the evidence doesn't suggest the need for a fix in many cases.

So that means they feel that nothing needs to be done.

[TranaGreg]

btw, nice job on saving this thread everyone; it was close to going off the rails but cooler heads appear to have prevailed.

carry on.

[Mithrandir]

And yet ANOTHER reason to despise that asshole Trump:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/interior-department-hunters-to-lure-brown-bears-with-bacon-doughnuts/

[Hornsby]

OK, slow down. African Americans no longer support the Republican's, in as a large of numbers, for many reasons, and most recently it has a lot has to do with Obama. AAs sat out the last election in large numbers. But the change in voting from Republicans to Democrat is a social issue going back decades. We can discuss this if you wish, but Google is your friend, if you are really looking for an answer! A better question to ask is what has voting Democratic in large numbers gotten AAs over the last 40 years, besides Obama?

Black people overwhelmingly vote for Democrats...it's really not even close. Since 1972 Black people have voted for the Democratic candidate 87% of the time as opposed to 10% for the GOP. Now it was even worse for Trump, who won only 8% of African American voters. The Black voter turnout in 2016 indeed fell, from 66.6% in 2012, to 59.6%...attributable IMO, to lack of enthusiasm for HRC, and lack of Obama on the ticket.

So the point to me is that Blacks really don't support the GOP any more than they ever did, and they continue to vote Democratic, even if they don't agree with the candidate or the positions they may take.

A couple of very good statistical articles here from Pew Research and Nate Silver.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/12/black-voter-turnout-fell-in-2016-even-as-a-record-number-of-americans-cast-ballots/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-diversity-of-black-political-views/

Some interesting research on the gains, and losses that have affected Black people since the civil rights act of 1964...huge gains have taken place, but much like US society as a whole, the class divide seems to be widening.

Progress over the past 50 years has been "breathtaking and unimaginable," says civil rights lawyer Ted Shaw, former president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and a professor at Columbia University School of Law. Nevertheless, he says, even the election of a black president "doesn't mean that all these systemic issues of racial inequality have disappeared."

In almost every economic category, blacks have been gaining, but not by enough. Median family income (in inflation-adjusted dollars) is up from $22,000 in 1963 to more than $40,000 today, still just two-thirds of the median for all Americans. Black unemployment remains twice the level of white unemployment, similar to where it was in 1972.

The black poverty rate has dropped from more than 40% in the 1960s to about 27% today; child poverty similarly has dipped from 67% to about 40%. Those numbers still are glaring, however. And the gap in overall wealth is more than 5-to-1 between whites and blacks: The average white household had nearly $800,000 in assets in 2011, compared with $154,000 for blacks.

"The impact of the Civil Rights Act is totally defined by where you are when it starts — economically, geographically, socially," says William Chafe, a civil rights scholar and professor emeritus of history at Duke University. "There was a significant increase in the black middle class ... but it had almost no effect on the 50% who were at the bottom."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/19/civil-rights-act-progress/4641967/

[Bernie Brewer]

So that means they feel that nothing needs to be done.

Let’s take a different tack. In January Trump offered a pretty significant DACA fix that offered a pathway to citizenship for more than 1.8 million illegal immigrants who were brought to the country as children, but Trump expected something in return. This offer was well beyond anything Obama did or the Dems wanted. Why wouldn’t the Dems agree to this? It seems this would have solved the problem. So simple, it’s whats in the bill, the Wall. The first reason was the Dems weren’t going agree to $25 billon to build the wall. The second reason, and this one is equally important, is that the Dems weren’t willing to “give” Trump a win on either the Wall or allowing him to claim he fixed DACA.

[OaklandA's]

Let’s take a different tack. In January Trump offered a pretty significant DACA fix that offered a pathway to citizenship for more than 1.8 million illegal immigrants who were brought to the country as children, but Trump expected something in return. This offer was well beyond anything Obama did or the Dems wanted. Why wouldn’t the Dems agree to this? It seems this would have solved the problem. So simple. Could it have been two reasons? The first of which was the Dems weren’t going agree to $25 billon to build the wall. The second reason, and this one is equally important, is that the Dems weren’t willing to “give” Trump a win on either the Wall or allowing him to claim he fixed DACA.

Wrong. The Democrats did agree to waste $25B on the wall in exchange for DACA (even though both sides claim they want to save DACA).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/01/20/schumer-offered-trump-something-democrats-hate-to-get-something-republicans-broadly-like/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f147409ea3b4

Trump then insisted any deal for DACA must also include the end of the Diversity Visa Lottery and the end of the Family Reunification program, in addition to full funding for the wall.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/25/16929600/trump-immigration-bill

Neither of the last two have anything to do with DACA. It is Trump who refused to accept a good deal.

[Sour Masher]

Nope. Categorically no. Liberals want to portray themselves as the progress leading, virtue seeking, system changing people and conservatives as the evil progress blockers, the desiring of the status quo. Little could be more false.

The leaders in the fight against slavery were highly religious individuals who saw themselves as advancing God's holy Will in fighting slavery. The core of the Underground Railroad were staffed by people whose doctrine make me look like a flaming theological liberal.

There's many other examples, but I haven't time.

Well, when you do find the time, please do post all the many examples of conservatives leading the charge to change the status quo in a ways that address the long-standing inequalities in this country. Ideally, those examples will be from after the invention of the car .

As a Republican who takes pride in the party being at the forefront of ending slavery please tell me why it is not shameful that Donald Trump openly courted white nationalists and racists to get elected. I know many black voters who are conservative in many issues, and would vote Republican if it wasn't the party most racists seem to be in, if it wasn't the party that elevated a person who garnered universal praise and support from KKK members and white nationalists.

Chance, you have explained to me some things that helped me understand a little more why anyone, including smart Republicans like yourself could ever support a man like Trump, but you have never spoken to this issue. I'm very curious if you will argue against the notion that Trump played to racists (I feel confident in the evidence that he has), or if you will argue/admit that him doing so was not a big enough issue to disqualify him from becoming the president.

[Sour Masher]

I can't fault a single word you wrote above. It is however, written in a way, that still makes conservatives seem small minded and afraid of change. I think you are hitting on the head by saying conservatives want a slow methodical well-though out change processes and not, what I'll call the "weather vain, reactionary, rush to change that seemingly comes from the left, IMO. Many conservatives are for changes in the Gun Laws but aren't for sweeping changes. As Baldgriff tried to say so many times, but was roundly beaten in to submission, we already have gun laws; tweak them or use them to exact the changes you want. Don't rush to make new laws that further penalize those who are already intent on keeping those laws.

Well, I don't think the best progressives are mindlessly proposing changes without thinking through the ramifications. I think the urgency of the issues sometimes make it feel that way, and, of course, as I said, some well intentioned policies have proven to be ineffective at addressing the problems.

On the other side of things, the best conservatives are far from simple minded people afraid of change. Rather, they are thoughtful and sometimes courageous in defending their convictions. I don't believe that is who Republicans have chosen to raise up to lead their party lately,, though, and I think that reflects poorly on the party at the moment.

I will leave the gun laws issue alone in this thread .

[Bernie Brewer]

Well, I don't think the best progressives are mindlessly proposing changes without thinking through the ramifications. I think the urgency of the issues sometimes make it feel that way, and, of course, as I said, some well intentioned policies have proven to be ineffective at addressing the problems.

On the other side of things, the best conservatives are far from simple minded people afraid of change. Rather, they are thoughtful and sometimes courageous in defending their convictions. I don't believe that is who Republicans have chosen to raise up to lead their party lately,, though, and I think that reflects poorly on the party at the moment.

I will leave the gun laws issue alone in this thread .

Nor do I, truthfully. and, yeah, I can’t speak to who the Republicans have chosen to lead their party, as it is no longer my party, as I’ve said repeatedly.

[Bernie Brewer]

Who says Congress can’t work together? Me, I’ve said it, but they did yesterday. This is huge for my industry.

In a landmark moment for post-crisis banking policy, the House by a bipartisan 258 to 159 vote yesterday passed S. 2155, the Senate’s regulatory reform bill. The bill’s passage marks an important step toward bringing much-needed regulatory relief to help banks better serve their customers and communities, and President Trump is expected to sign it into law in the coming days.

https://bankingjournal.aba.com/2018/..._source=Eloqua

[B-Fly]

Who says Congress can’t work together? Me, I’ve said it, but they did yesterday. This is huge for my industry.



https://bankingjournal.aba.com/2018/..._source=Eloqua

Regulatory relief for banks! Yay? Congress working together to solve the most important problems impacting the lives of everyday Americans!

Seriously, though, I recognize the arguments for and against, as outlined better in this Vox link than in the link you provided from the American Banking Association's Banking Journal, lol.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/21/17376244/senate-banking-bill-house-sifi-dodd-frank

I get that the intent was primarily to help smaller banks and credit unions. I suspect the Banking Journal's spin regarding the presumed benefits for banking customers is, however, mostly just spin, and that consumers could well suffer as a result of this deregulation.

[chancellor]

Regulatory relief for banks! Yay? Congress working together to solve the most important problems impacting the lives of everyday Americans!

I'm surprised at your sarcasm. Access to reasonable lines of credit is one of the issues that plagues the lower middle class and poor. Even DMT's article on the 9.9% calls this out as an issue. All too many people in the first and second quintile of incomes fall farther behind due to having to access cash at predatory and near-predatory fees and interest rates.

I get that the intent was primarily to help smaller banks and credit unions.

And was the primary result. Even Vox agrees with that. And the smaller banks and credit unions were not the cause of the banking crisis, but they were painted with the same brush.

[cardboardbox]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ifi-dodd-frank

I'm just curious... Is vox the liberal equivalent of various conservative websites like breitbart?