Simply a fact of life, that we are different. Our values, philosophies, ethics, religions, perceptions, etc. We are different, and sometimes our differences are irreconcilable. Forced multiculturalism and diversity will backfire. That's just a fact of life. People who are for abortion won't want to be forced to buddy buddy together with people who are against abortion, and vice versa.
The polls agree with me.
Edit: Republican leadership is seriously considering banning birth control and sodomy at this point, and jailing rape victims for having questionable miscarriages. I do not believe these policies align with the opinions of average Republican voters. However, this is what Republican politicians need to support to avoid being primaried.
> However, this is what Republican politicians need to support to avoid being primaried.
"Of the 22 states with abortion bans that will instantly take effect if the landmark Supreme Court ruling is overturned, 10 have passed laws that make no exceptions for rape or incest: Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas."
https://news.yahoo.com/some-republican-states-set-to-ban-abo...
---
Nazi is a loaded term for sure but I don't know what else to call it.
Not all Republicans have this behavior and or hold these policy aims. But a shocking amount of people do.
Many hold up the ideals of fascism.
And they use actual Nazi tactics.
banning books. passing laws that actively discriminate. using hate & violent propaganda/speech for political ends.
scariest: dehumanizing minority groups which enables their supporters to commit 'righteous violence.'
e.g. labeling queer people 'groomers' (or sadly ironically anyone who stands up against the state banning books).
using government law enforcement to the above ends. see recent police escorting proud boys into a library to yell at and intimidate a bunch of kids who were with their parents, only because a drag queen was reading to them. Talk about leaving parenting up to the parents.
Or filling up a van with a not so well organized militia to storm pride in tactical gear.
How about running black teachers out of town because of nonexistent CRT nonsense. Then following her to her next job which had nothing to do with diversity & inclusion, which is how evil for some reason.
and the biggest of them all:
attacking Democracy and the foundations of this country. Attempting to overturn a free and fair election. Attacking the seat of power in an attempt to prevent the peaceful handover of Government.
It wasn't simply to even out the racial proportion for the sake of it.
Segregated schools were incredibly worse in virtually every way. Funding. Buildings themselves. Availability of teachers. The (lack of any) kind of out of classroom support that creates great adults. Active discrimination and policing. On and on.
But you're right that it did not completely fix these disparities. Though improved, they still linger on.
--
I just spent 15 minutes trying to find it but I'm sorry I can't maybe someone else can?
There is a great long form article that deep dives this exact topic.
I want to say a small carve out city/district in Dallas, googling it might be Southlake?
Because of Brown, this white community created their own legal District/city enclave and did not sell houses to POC and thus no POC students. I think the article even said something shocking like first black student was in the 80s or something like that.
Since schools get lots of funding from local taxes it not only gives lots of funding to create an amazing school system, but takes funding away from the larger city that literally surrounds this mini-district.
School is still overwhelmingly white and affluent. That school constantly gets in the press for their dress ghetto day (black face) and more.
Not an outlier. Happens everywhere, not just the south though the south is particularly egregious.
Schools should be federally funded to at least remedy just one of the many inequalities.
One major result is that a number of parents decided to vote with their feet and their dollars. They didn't, as you put it, "take funding away" from other districts. The citizens of the United States are not serfs. They have the freedom to move to and pay property taxes where they see fit. School districts are not owed money simply for existing.
If the courts argued on issues of how states should fund students rather than how many kids of a certain race in are in a certain district, perhaps a more sensible solution could have been reached (although that should not justify egregiously high levels of funding). There were already a number of voluntary bussing programs in a number states, and they were successful, despite the courts claims that they were "insufficient".
In addition, schools are already federally funded in proportion to state population (a major reason for states to push filling out the census). Several states also dedicate money to funding education. Property taxes may supplement federal and state funding for schools, but there's no federal requirement for levied property taxes to go to schools. That's generally a decision left to the local populace and its elected representatives.
This is how empires fall. As people with different political views no longer depend on each other economically, they drift more and more into opposite directions, until they do not want to share the same government anymore.
Seems pretty debunked given the last decade of geopolitical changes and current war.
The issue is that the senate can be filibustered with 5% of the US population's backing. A majority vote requires 8%. A fillibuster-proof majority requires 12%.
This implies that it would not take many geographically mobile liberals to end the Republican party forever.
Ironically, the Republican party invented this technique back when they were what we would currently call a liberal party. It worked great. Read up on carpetbaggers.
Making it centrally-funded won't magically warp new doctors from hyperspace. It will simply shift the pressure from prices to waiting times.
The working solution would be to reduce the bureaucracy and make it easier to open new practices, ban anticompetitive behavior by hospitals and address the residency spot bottleneck. But nope, nobody is suggesting that. We keep fighting about the most fair way to split 3 beds between 10 people.
Well, that one of the problems and the AMA is very effective as a labor organization.
single payer alone is close to 70% now.
medicare itself is very very popular in that age group.
People are easily scared and those that already have good care are afraid of losing it. Look at death panels.
but the general idea of healthcare as a fundamental right and a national system of health are very popular.
Thats only when you don't get into the details of the implementation, and things like the need to pay for it with something like a European style VAT tax. When you dig in to the details in the polls, support plummets.
This isn't a critique of the idea, just noting the on the details almost no Americans actually support doing what it would take to implement.
> Look at death panels.
All healthcare systems have some kind of rationing, in America generally people who don't have employer provided healthcare and are neither especially poor or old get care rationed. This isn't ideal, I agree.
the problem again is the 'haves' (who also tend to vote a lot more) are the ones who see themselves as losing and gaining a tax.
if it's employer paid for and you don't even know the true value it's hard to see it as comp
I haven’t seen polling that shows that.
Well older people tend to vote more, but there are a lot of lower income folks who vote reliably.
I think part of the issue is that proponents of single payer in the US present it as something that can be paid for by further taxing “the rich” alone, and that’s clearly not true. No other country pays for social welfare that way, and it’s trivial to find that out. Being dishonest about how it might be funded undermines the project politically. No one is trying to sell the idea that VAT + healthcare is a better overall deal. Which it may or may not be, depending on the implementation. Nevertheless proponents are lying about how it can be paid for.
yeah I'm not surprised.
Have you?
Also, note that this strategy has worked in the US in the past. Go read up on the carpetbaggers.