Poll: Majority believe Trump fired Comey to hinder Russia investigation

ttwtt78640 said:

True, but in a system where the top 10% are heavily taxed to directly support the bottom 20% and the rest are taxed only to support part of other (non-income redistribution) public services it is in the majorities' self interest to keep it that way. The question then becomes is it really in your economic self interest to reply on government handouts?

Click to expand...

We are are aware that lots of lower income white folks voted for Trump and that enabled him to win in several key states. I guess we could argue until the cows come home about the Republicans kissing the fat backside of the rich and corporations and those are those who will benefit - but I see no real incentive for anybody making under $50K per year to vote Republican. But lots and lots of white folks did just that.

To answer your question - if government programs do help you and your community - yes, it is in your interest to protect them.

haymarket said:

We are are aware that lots of lower income white folks voted for Trump and that enabled him to win in several key states. I guess we could argue until the cows come home about the Republicans kissing the fat backside of the rich and corporations and those are those who will benefit - but I see no real incentive for anybody making under $50K per year to vote Republican. But lots and lots of white folks did just that.

To answer your question - if government programs do help you and your community - yes, it is in your interest to protect them.

Click to expand...

The vast majority of the "safety net" programs simply reward personal economic, social and/or educational failure rather than address the "root cause" for those unable to support themselves and their dependents. Are they better than nothing? Perhaps. But are they the best that our government can offer? Probably not even close.

ttwtt78640 said:

The vast majority of the "safety net" programs simply reward personal economic, social and/or educational failure rather than address the "root cause" for those unable to support themselves and their dependents. Are they better than nothing? Perhaps. But are they the best that our government can offer? Probably not even close.

Click to expand...

And what is that ROOT CAUSE?

haymarket said:

And what is that ROOT CAUSE?

Click to expand...

There are several possible root causes:

Dropping out of HS, adding dependents with no means to support them, refusing to respect authority (**** doing what some boss wants), covering yourself with tattoos/piercings, abusing drugs, joining/supporting street gangs, not reporting abuse/criminal acts or failing to learn to read, write or speak English.

The point is that simply giving welfare to a poor household does nothing more than get them by until the next infusion of welfare is needed unless something else (the root cause?) is changed.

ttwtt78640 said:

There are several possible root causes:

Dropping out of HS, adding dependents with no means to support them, refusing to respect authority (**** doing what some boss wants), covering yourself with tattoos/piercings, abusing drugs, joining/supporting street gangs, not reporting abuse/criminal acts or failing to learn to read, write or speak English.

The point is that simply giving welfare to a poor household does nothing more than get them by until the next infusion of welfare is needed unless something else (the root cause?) is changed.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that those behaviors you listed do not help a person get ahead. However, I am not sure those are root causes more than they are symptoms.

For example, when I taught high school, I repeatedly saw kids in the tenth grade who had a history of very poor academics going back several years and knew they could not cut it in school and also saw little opportunity for themselves to succeed on any straight and narrow mainstream path. They came from families with others just like them. Dropping out at age 16 simply became something that was hard to argue with since they sucked at school in the first place. Some saw the gangs and drugs and crime as the only path open to them that would pay good money with a chance of success - albeit - short term, which is all they cared about anyway. Many spoke a type of English which was hardly the Kings standard and knew they did not fit in to the larger white world.

So what is the root cause of that?

haymarket said:

I agree with you that those behaviors you listed do not help a person get ahead. However, I am not sure those are root causes more than they are symptoms.

For example, when I taught high school, I repeatedly saw kids in the tenth grade who had a history of very poor academics going back several years and knew they could not cut it in school and also saw little opportunity for themselves to succeed on any straight and narrow mainstream path. They came from families with others just like them. Dropping out at age 16 simply became something that was hard to argue with since they sucked at school in the first place. Some saw the gangs and drugs and crime as the only path open to them that would pay good money with a chance of success - albeit - short term, which is all they cared about anyway. Many spoke a type of English which was hardly the Kings standard and knew they did not fit in to the larger white world.

So what is the root cause of that?

Click to expand...

That (bolded above) is the root cause coupled with (socially?) accepting that the "love" expressed by that family outweighs the obvious damage that it is causing to the next generation. You also mentioned noticing the problem (much?) earlier (in a public school?) when action could still have been taken to address that root cause instead of "social promotion" via awarding a passing grade for "participation" knowing full well that total failure is the (most?) probable result.

Giving public assistance "rewards" to households that would likely be denied permission to adopt a pound puppy makes absolutely no sense to me. Poverty is often described as a cycle rather than (any single event?) resulting from some temporary lack of cash and for good reason.

ttwtt78640 said:

That (bolded above) is the root cause coupled with (socially?) accepting that the "love" expressed by that family outweighs the obvious damage that it is causing to the next generation. You also mentioned noticing the problem (much?) earlier (in a public school?) when action could still have been taken to address that root cause instead of "social promotion" via awarding a passing grade for "participation" knowing full well that total failure is the (most?) probable result.

Giving public assistance "rewards" to households that would likely be denied permission to adopt a pound puppy makes absolutely no sense to me. Poverty is often described as a cycle rather than (any single event?) resulting from some temporary lack of cash and for good reason.

Click to expand...

Because of their unique American experience, African American culture has always had to be extremely tolerant of deviance and a redemptive society by nature. As you wisely said this creates a loving family - at least those who remain - but also has negatives attached.

You are correct that poverty is a cycle rather than an event .... at least generations of the same family in poverty certainly is.

As for social promotion - I taught for 33 years in the public school and always viewed it as a great evil. If I had my way there would be no grades. On the first day of math we teach the class what one plus one is. Those who can tell you it is two, stay for the next lesson. Those who got it wrong - move down the hall to Ms. Remedial who will try to teach it different ways. You stay with her until you master one plus one equals two. Then you move on.

Do that with every single thing that you ever teach and learn.

Simple plan. Great results.

Until we do that and stop insisting on a factory based assembly line where everybody learns everything at the same time and at the same age in the same way and it all comes out even 12 years later - which is beyond stupid and not at all reality based - we will continue to have these built in problems where large numbers cannot succeed.

Winston said:

Poll: Majority believe Trump fired Comey to hinder Russia investigation | TheHill



59% are saying Trump ousted Comey to slow down the Russian investigation. Half disapprove of the decision. Only 36% approve.

Not an optimistic poll for Trump. If 59% believe you essentially committed obstruction of justice, how hard will it be to move congress?

Click to expand...

With almost every new broadcast espousing that, I'm not surprised. The timing of the firing sucked. A more political savvy president would have known better. Obama wanted Comey gone also, but he knew if he fired him, a firestorm would have followed. Everyone would have believed Comey was fired for reopening the E-Mail investigation just a couple of week prior to the election.

Trump certainly is tone deaf to how certain actions political can be perceived as being vindictive or in this case, trying to halt an investigation. Whether it was or wasn't, I am sure time will tell. Since the vast majority of Democrats wanted Comey gone, I do find all their objections a bit hypercritical. Even Schumer, Reid and Pelosi labeled Comey a political pawn of the Republicans. I guess political expediency lead to a change of heart. Or the upcoming midterms.

Trump has caused most of his problems, feeding the fire. He has no one to blame but himself. The perception is there and that perception is being ingrained by each news cast that Trump fired Comey to end the investigation. I doubt that perception will change anytime soon. Then having three or four different stories over the reasons doesn't help either. Trump is his own worst enemy and unless he learns to control himself, let some things alone, stays off twitter and learns how to communication with his staff to at least come up with the same story, he may not remain a viable president for long. By that I mean one who can get things done. He may find himself just sitting in the president's chair unable to accomplish a darn thing.

According to the NYT, Trump said so himself.