President Donald Trump

[Sour Masher]

I think it's better to go by economic background than race, at this point.

There is overwhelming data to illustrate s that it is far harder for blacks and Latinos to move from the bottom quintile of income to a higher one than whites, for a variety of factors that continue to affect some races more than others. This is perhaps an imperfect way to help address those issues, but it does help lots of bright students get a chance they would not have had otherwise.

[Hornsby]

Just remember, less that a week ago a man walked into a newsroom and killed 5 people...

Donald J. Trump

Verified account

@realDonaldTrump

Follow Follow @realDonaldTrump

More

The Washington Post is constantly quoting “anonymous sources” that do not exist. Rarely do they use the name of anyone because there is no one to give them the kind of negative quote that they are looking for. They are a disgrace to journalism but then again, so are many others!

[cardboardbox]

There is overwhelming data to illustrate s that it is far harder for blacks and Latinos to move from the bottom quintile of income to a higher one than whites

then JJ's point about economic background would help them. JJ is absolutely right, help people who need help, dont help people just because of their race or ethnicity.

[DMT]

then JJ's point about economic background would help them. JJ is absolutely right, help people who need help, dont help people just because of their race or ethnicity.

The students aren't getting help "just because of their race or ethnicity".

[cardboardbox]

The students aren't getting help "just because of their race or ethnicity".

well as long as it plays no part in admission or financial aid, then its fair and I'm satisfied.

[Sour Masher]

then JJ's point about economic background would help them. JJ is absolutely right, help people who need help, dont help people just because of their race or ethnicity.

This would be hard to do in the context of a forum, but if you are willing to go with the following premises, which a lot of research proves to me is true, maybe you'll understand the other perspective on this:

1. A disproportionate number of African Americans and Latinos are impoverished.
2. It is harder for these groups to advance than whites.
3. While the reasons for this are complex, they are largely a product of systematic mechanisms of oppression that disadvantage these groups more than others. In other words, our country does not provide a level playing field for advancement and economic empowerment. Some groups start the race of life several steps behind.
4. Addressing these inequalities of opportunity are politically complex and divisive, but one simple and proven effective way to level the playing field long term is through educational opportunity.
5. Programs like the one I work with do that, and considering how our society disadvantages under-represented minorities is an essential part of trying to account for those disadvantages.
6. Every student benefits from the diversity of experiences and perspectives such programs create.
7. Without such programs, the disadvantages under-represented minorities face in other aspects of their lives would mean under-represented groups would become even more under-represented, which would in turn create larger and larger divides of opportunity.
8. These programs do also provide opportunities to white and Asian students that come from disadvantaged backgrounds.
9. In my experience, once given the opportunity to get to college, most of these students thrive at a rate higher than other students. The program at my school has a graduation rate significantly higher than the overall population of students.
10. None of the students get in just because of their race. We get 5000+ applicants a year to the program for 150 spots, making admission to our school through the program much more competitive than general admission.

If all of these things are true, why is it wrong to consider race when admitting students to such programs?

[Sour Masher]

well as long as it plays no part in admission or financial aid, then its fair and I'm satisfied.

Do you believe that all other institutions in our country are "color blind?" Do you believe that the lived experiences of all groups in this country are exactly the same, and that there are no disadvantages to being black or Latino in this country?

If you don't believe that, is it fair that these groups have a harder time to get ahead? Are you satisfied with that being the status quo? If considering their disadvantages they face because of their race should not be a factor in providing educational opportunities to them, what should we be doing to address the significant inequalities of opportunity and advancement in this country?

[B-Fly]

I still strongly support affirmative action in pursuit of diversity in university programs and think such efforts benefit all students, not just underrepresented minorities. And I suspect most of the top private colleges and universities will continue to pursue such policies, in spite of the Trump administration's encouragement for them to be "color blind". Public universities have already been constrained by the courts in how they can use race as a factor, and I suspect the Trump administration and the Supreme Court will constrain that even further. I would hope and suspect that they can't stop even private universities from engaging in minority outreach efforts, and otherwise they should remain free to implement programs that seek diversity based on economic need or geography/district/school (such as favoring anyone finishing in the top 5% of their school's academic ranking, regardless of "school quality", which given the de facto segregation of many American school districts would automatically open more slots for students of color).

[B-Fly]

Scott Pruitt resigns from EPA. I suspect that this is one we can all be happy about. He was a disaster from varied and numerous perspectives.

[Bernie Brewer]

I still strongly support affirmative action in pursuit of diversity in university programs and think such efforts benefit all students, not just underrepresented minorities. And I suspect most of the top private colleges and universities will continue to pursue such policies, in spite of the Trump administration's encouragement for them to be "color blind". Public universities have already been constrained by the courts in how they can use race as a factor, and I suspect the Trump administration and the Supreme Court will constrain that even further. I would hope and suspect that they can't stop even private universities from engaging in minority outreach efforts, and otherwise they should remain free to implement programs that seek diversity based on economic need or geography/district/school (such as favoring anyone finishing in the top 5% of their school's academic ranking, regardless of "school quality", which given the de facto segregation of many American school districts would automatically open more slots for students of color).

Does this line of thought apply to being forced to provide birth control, for instance, by private employers, which is supported by the Liberals. Not sure of your position, but that’s not necessarily my point. And, I agree with you on the above quote.

[B-Fly]

Does this line of thought apply to being forced to provide birth control, for instance, by private employers, which is supported by the Liberals. Not sure of your position, but that’s not necessarily my point. And, I agree with you on the above quote.

I don't like that we have an employment-based health coverage system at all. I think we should have Medicare-for-All. Unfortunately, that's been politically impossible, leaving pushing coverage mandates on employers as the government's "compromise" to ensure everyone has a baseline level of coverage. It's a crappy solution, but it was better than the status quo ante where vast swaths of Americans were left with no coverage.

[Bernie Brewer]

I don't like that we have an employment-based health coverage system at all. I think we should have Medicare-for-All. Unfortunately, that's been politically impossible, leaving pushing coverage mandates on employers as the government's "compromise" to ensure everyone has a baseline level of coverage. It's a crappy solution, but it was better than the status quo ante where vast swaths of Americans were left with no coverage.

That’s an exceptional answer. I agree. But while I wasnt a fan of ACA initially, I’m getting there. I would not be in favor of the elimination of “preexisting conditions” being no longer covered, which seems to be in play. I’m not saying that from my own self interest but because it’s right for all.

[Hornsby]

And interesting read on Trump's poll numbers: Lot's of stuff to unpack and chew on here.

I wouldn’t argue that’s a perfect comparison by any means — Clinton’s 3.8 percent unemployment was built atop an objectively stronger economy than Trump’s; wage growth was faster, and we weren’t digging out of the aftermath of a recession — but surely it’s a closer comparison than the sky-high unemployment rates that Reagan and Obama dealt with in their second years.

If unemployment seems like too narrow an indicator of economic health, look at consumer sentiment. The last time consumer sentiment was this high was January 2004, when Bush’s approval rating was 60 percent.

“Trump’s poll numbers are probably 20 points below where a president would typically be with consumer sentiment as high as it is now,” says John Sides, a political scientist at George Washington University who has done work benchmarking presidential approval to economic indicators.


So here, then, is what we can say: Judged on the economy, which is the traditional driver of presidential approval, Donald Trump’s poll numbers should be much, much higher than they are now. Far from finding a winning strategy, he seems to have found a losing one despite holding a winning hand. So let’s reverse the question. Instead of asking why Trump is polling so high, perhaps we should ask why Trump isn’t polling yet lower.

Over email, Republican pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson suggested that polarization is part of the answer. Both Democrats and Republicans had their minds made up about Trump since day one, and that’s left him neither much room to rise nor much room to fall:

Unlike most other presidents in recent decades, Trump’s job approval didn’t have much of anywhere to go because from day one, only 8% of Democrats approve of him. (Past presidents have typically enjoyed job approval in at least the 30s from the opposing party.)

Democrats would not gravitate to Trump under nearly any economic circumstances, but the good economy has insulated him from losing support among Republicans. Even if they don’t like the tweets, they love the jobs numbers, and they love that he seems to be taking on people, groups, and institutions they don’t like. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

It’s worth saying that this is nothing new for Trump. The 2016 election reflected a similar pattern, where for all of Trump’s unusual behavior, bizarre statements, and ideological challenges, he ended up consolidating roughly the same share of the GOP vote as Mitt Romney and George W. Bush did before him. The fact that he’s managed to continue consolidating Republican support once in office shouldn’t be such a surprise, and nor should the fact that he’s continued to unify Democratic opposition.

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/explainers/2018/7/5/17531360/donald-trump-poll-numbers-popularity?utm_campaign=ezraklein&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&__twitter_impression=true

[Sour Masher]

Hornsby, your unwavering optimism that Trump will be a one-term POTUS, and the support you bring to that argument, are admirable and welcome, even though, with each passing day, my own optimism for that outcome wanes. In fact, with his attacks on the other branches of government and on the press, coupled with his frequent appeals to the court of public opinion over established laws and precedents, a small but shivering part of my brain fears that, if we allowed it to happen, Trump would seek to make his position a permanent one, like his good friend Putin, elections and laws be damned.

I'm still not sure Trump really wanted to become POTUS, but I suspect he very much would enjoy becoming a dictator, if we allowed him to. Think of how much more pleasant the mantle of leadership would be for him, and how much more effective he could be, if he could free himself from the constraints of an ineffectual congress, a corrupt justice department, and a villainous, biased press. I'm sure he thinks about that. Some of his supports, I fear, would agree with those sentiments as well.

[TranaGreg]

re: whether he's enjoying his time as president, I submit a couple of exhibits ...

1 - POTUS' published schedule for Friday July 6 2018 (this is for the entire day):



2 - For Wednesday July 4 : Trump has arrived at Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, VA, according to the pool report.

This is Trump's 165th day at a Trump property as president and his 122nd day at a Trump golf club as president.

I gotta think he's liking this gig.