@Duchess64 -
If Earl of Trumps would support enough taxation to give EVERY poor person a
universal basic income. that would be fine. But he won't, right?
You never asked!!
If the determining factors in a person receiving such a stipend are INCOME and ASSETS only, then at least it is not a racist measure.
The big question:
Can such a program get the desired results in money distribution without ever asking anyone what their ethnicity is?
If the answer is yes, it passes Sniff Test #1.
01 Apr 21
The post that was quoted here has been removed“ @duchess64 said
First of all, self-pitying white victimhood has NO NEED of facts to support it.
It thrives in the absence of and in opposition to the facts.”
It matters at election time perhaps duchess is unaware of swing voters and the importance of perception.
“ Note that Kecvcvs57 (a white Brit) presumes that his political judgment is far superior
to a white American who actually won an election to become Oakland's mayor.”
Clearly duchess. ( an ethnic Asian of non US origin )believes that US Mayoral candidates are selected on the basis of IQ and academic achievement.
“ So what's Kevcvs57 worried about? If she's as 'idiotic' as he claims, then Oakland's
non-Hispanic white people (a minority of the population) may turn against her and
she may lose the next election. Will Oakland elect a Trump supporter instead?”
Clearly duchess believes that the inhabitants of Oakland can be disregarded on the basis that it's a safe Democrat seat and might makes right when it comes to interracial politics. My guess is that she will abandon that belief when a white or black majority enact something that excludes the Asian population to their detriment.
And once again duchess sidesteps the issue of best practice when it comes to formulating a pilot scheme and does not believe that politicians should need to explain their race based decisions when allocating scarce resources.
I
01 Apr 21
The post that was quoted here has been removedAs I suspected duchess64 believes that racist policies are ok as long as you can get a majority to vote for them.
The rest of your post is the usual irrelevant misdirection and lies about what your opponent has posted, plus the usual ad hominem’s if you do not the required knowledge in social policy initiatives to discuss this topic then maybe you should step back rather than relying on racist rhetoric and slurs.
It’s noted that you did not answer my question regarding the intellectual requirements or knowledge base required for Mayoral candidature.
The post that was quoted here has been removedThat’s kind of irrelevant given that no matter what someone thinks it is racism to exclude a particular ethnic group from available resources if INDIVIDUAL members of that ethnic group would otherwise qualify under a means tested criteria.
The fact that statistically white people earn a third more than black is handy for gaslighting purposes but meaningless when trying to gauge the effectiveness of a pilot scheme.
I’ll say it once again because you persist in ignoring my point so you can shoehorn in some of your favourite racist rhetoric.
The real problem with the pilot is its structural nature, for data gathering purposes its biggest weakness is it’s exclusion of poor white families and poor white families alone.
Again I do not have a problem with targeting people of colour exclusively on the basis that they are doubly disadvantaged. However it should argued as such and not assumed that poor white people are less hungry than poor black people, both have a common enemy and any policy that obscures that socioeconomic and political fact needs to be critiqued unless it can justify itself with a lot more more than race based rhetoric.