People would be able to sell the idea of reparations far far far easier if there weren’t dipshits who think it should be something like $80k checks to every black person in the US and instead sold it as having the government invest in infrastructure projects in poor black places. Fuck Andrew Johnson for not just doing the 40 acres and a mule plan so we wouldn’t have to deal with this dumbass discussion.

I absolutely loathe the fact that people who say they want to solve systemic racism never ever touch on the subject of infrastructure.

They'll tear down statues of dead people and say stupid-ass shit like "just get rid of the police lmao", but when it's time to get down on the urban planning table and draw up a new and improved elementary school, they're nowhere to be seen.

Many do talk about infrastructure, the issue is that direct cash payments looks more appealing to a lot of people because its an instant gratification thing and instant gratification is popular for obvious reasons.

Lol they're basically bribes to your constituents. It almost seems scummy in a way.

Yes. How do you think the intensely far left keeps coming back into power in almost every single Latin American country, despite causing complete economic destruction?

reparations are stupid but also stupidly fun to watch people's brains break when you start asking questions about how to even do it equitably for those getting the reparations, much less how to equitably get it from those supposedly paying.

Reparations are a decent concept because the right implementation is pretty much investing into run-down areas, which improves society as a whole.

However, since dumbass progressives (and black people) have made it a conversation about actual cash payments, it is now an untouchable topic. Because just saying "let's look into this" will cost a lot of political capital, and if they do it right and allocate some money to improve poor communities and facilitate black entrepreneurship, then whoever does it will have the same people they're trying to please bitching about not getting a check.

And this is without getting into all the infighting that will happen when discussing who deserves to benefit from reparations. You'll have black people whose ancestors immigrated post-slavery arguing that they deserve it since they still had to live in "racist america", while the Tariq Nasheeds will complain that the former group is stealing their share.

Reparations will never satisfy the people whining about reparations.

Its gonna end up like one of those class action lawsuits where everyone in the class gets a few cents and the lawyers walk away with the bulk of the loot.

It’s because these areas have been controlled by Democrats for decades. We don’t want to ask why democrats have been letting black children grow up in squalor.

This is literally one of the dumbest arguments conservatives try to make.

THIS is one of the dumbest arguments conservatives make? Really? Not the Jewish space lasers, not Obama being a Muslim Terrorist, and not the firm belief that the Earth is flat and surrounded by walls of ice? Cause I've never seen that position held by a Democrat.

I should be clear, I mean in the realm of reality. I'm not talking about all of the infowars absurdity they engage in, I'm talking about their attempts at making real political arguments they think will make themselves more appealing to voters.

I'd be interested in seeing how the poverty rates both race and non race specific are impacted by which party has historically controlled an area. Texas has for instance been heavily Republican, Illinois has been reliably Democrat due primarily to Chicago. I wonder to what degree which party has control is predictive of poverty in their respective areas.

Out of the 9 counties that are richer than the the IL average, 7 of them voted for DD(D) in the last election. Almost all of the counties were in the Chicago metro area, and the one that wasn't had a tiny population.

It's always going to be a flawed comparison though because in almost every case comparing democrat-controlled areas to republican-controlled areas just turns into a comparison between urban and rural areas. Even in Texas all the cities are still Dem, although they'd probably still be called Nazis by people from Portland.

There's nothing stupid about it. The places where black Americans are experiencing police brutality are, with a few rare exceptions (like the shooting of Walter Scott), municipalities that have been under democrat control for years if not decades. That makes democrats pretty much solely responsible for the condition of those municipalities. They're the ones who run the government which means they're the ones that control law enforcement in those areas. I realize that pointing that out is inconvenient to the "GOP hates blacks vote for democrats who respect and appreciate you" trope, which causes you to have a negative visceral reaction to it, but your emotional response doesn't make it any less true.

Democrats don't care about black Americans until its time to vote. Then the pandering starts and the performative "GOP hates black people" shit goes up to 11. That's why BLM raises from it's hiding place for six to eight months prior to any presidential election like cicadas coming out to mate. Yet democrats will bend over and lube up for the police (and teacher) unions because they fill the party coffers.

Speaking of you being a profoundly ignorant moron, the reason it's a dumb argument is because it has literally nothing to do with which political party controls the area you buffoon.

Population density is correlated with all of these things.

And to be clear here, black Americans aren't doing any better in conservative areas.

"GOP hates blacks vote for democrats who respect and appreciate you" trope, which causes you to have a negative visceral reaction to it, but your emotional response doesn't make it any less true.

Wow, if only we didn't have irrefutable proof of racial voter suppression, racial gerrymandering, and racial grievance politics coming out of the GOP. If only you had an above room temp IQ and the ability to think critically you wouldn't be you.

Democrats don't care about black Americans until its time to vote. Then the pandering starts and the performative "GOP hates black people" shit goes up to 11. That's why BLM raises from it's hiding place for six to eight months prior to any presidential election like cicadas coming out to mate. Yet democrats will bend over and lube up for the police (and teacher) unions because they fill the party coffers.

Color me shocked you're repeating years old conservative fake news that takes quite literally under 10 minutes to debunk.

I'm going to blow your mind here Jubber: you're a member of a political party that denied Steve King was a white nationalist for years, accused everyone of lying about him, and then only after he literallly said "Yes, I am a white nationalist" decided to move away from him.

If you can't figure out why black people do not like your tribe, if you can't figure out why black people do not vote for your tribe, you're just stupid.

Hint: it has nothing to do with anything the democratic party does.

it's a dumb argument is because it has literally nothing to do with which political party controls the area you buffoon

Imagine saying someone else is stupid while at the same time stating that a single political party controlling a given area for a prolonged period has nothing to do with the conditions in that area.

black Americans aren't doing any better in conservative areas

6 of the "Ten Worst States for Black Americans" were blue states when the list was compiled.. I'd wager it's about the same or slightly better for black Americans in red states, in which case "GOP hates blacks" remains a moronic proposition.

if only we didn't have irrefutable proof of racial voter suppression, racial gerrymandering, and racial grievance politics coming out of the GOP

I'd hardly call the proof offered on this particular subject 'irrefutable,' since much of it is based on the idea that having to show an ID to vote is somehow an insurmountable obstacle. There is nothing inherently racial about any state's gerrymandering, and crying about "racial grievance politics" while you're stanning for the blue team is even more r-slurred than your usual r-slurred behavior.

Color me shocked you're repeating years old conservative fake news that takes quite literally under 10 minutes to debunk.

I know you have plenty of free time, unless you have to put some piping hot fries in a bag somewhere, so feel free to "debunk" anything in that paragraph. The democrats only pay lip service to the concerns of black voters. BLM was super-important until Biden won the election, now they can't get a meeting with anyone they supported. Public sector unions say jump and democrats respond with "How high?" There's nothing untrue about any of that, and while I can believe you actually are stupid enough to think otherwise, I think you're just refusing to acknowledge reality.

Imagine saying someone else is stupid while at the same time stating that a single political party controlling a given area for a prolonged period has nothing to do with the conditions in that area.

On average, it does not you poorly educated clown. There are so many complex factors that go into material conditions of any given region or area that "which political party" is in control is basically at the bottom of the list.

It'd be like me claiming rural America is addicted to fent, dirt poor, and inbred because the Republican party controls rural areas. No, of course that isn't it, and anyone with an above room temp IQ knows that. The only people unaware of this are hyper-partisan internet quacks such as yourself that are incapable of critical thought.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/worst-states-for-black-americans_b_57a50f9de4b0ccb0237249dd

Are you literally smoking crack?

Basically every state on that list is a swing state other than 3.

I'd hardly call the proof offered on this particular subject 'irrefutable,' since much of it is based on the idea that having to show an ID to vote is somehow an insurmountable obstacle. There is nothing inherently racial about any state's gerrymandering, and crying about "racial grievance politics" while you're stanning for the blue team is even more r-slurred than your usual r-slurred behavior.

Jubber, I literally showed you a court ruling in which the NC GOP argued, in federal court, they had to cut early voting because too many black people were voting.

I showed you linked documents from a Republican gerrymandering expert that literally had maps of multiple states with racial ID status overlays.

Stop, you are unhinged if you think this is not proof.

I know you have plenty of free time, unless you have to put some piping hot fries in a bag somewhere, so feel free to "debunk" anything in that paragraph. The democrats only pay lip service to the concerns of black voters. BLM was super-important until Biden won the election, now they can't get a meeting with anyone they supported. Public sector unions say jump and democrats respond with "How high?" There's nothing untrue about any of that, and while I can believe you actually are stupid enough to think otherwise, I think you're just refusing to acknowledge reality.

Your argument is stupid because BLM protests do not "help the DNC" or increase funding to the DNC. So your little conspiracy about how BLM pops up around elections is stupid and incoherent. Black people hate your tribe because your tribe is racist, not because anything the democratic party did.

Who knew black people wouldn't take kindly to the party of Steve King.

That's an awful lot of words just avoid admitting you're wrong.

Great Response Jubber.

Like, do you seriously just live under a rock? Do you seriously think those gerrymandering documents weren't a smoking gun?

Do you seriously think that the NC GOP trying to argue in court too many black people were voting to justify slashing early voting wasn't racially motivated?

Do you seriously think Trump tweeting fake black racial crime statistics was an accident?

Wake up.

Since I continually hear dumb shit like "Fox News argued it wasn't really news" which turns out not to be true when you look into it I really doubt your "smoking gun" is what you think it is. "Too many black people were voting" just sounds unrealistic, and is probably a major distortion of what actually happened, if not an outright lie. Acting like Trump's idiot (re)tweets mean anything is like pretending Reddit lefties are representative of your average democrat. In short, everything you've said is stupid, as is tradition.

Jubber, go read the shit for yourself, open it up, read it.

It is an objective fact that Trump tweeted fake racial crime statistics.

It is an objective fact that the NC GOP argued that in court.

It is an objective fact those documents had gerrymandering maps with racial ID status overlays.

Don't take my word for it, go look at these things yourself.

And let me be very clear here I am not accusing you, yourself, of being a racist. But what you are doing is turning a blind eye to obvious reality because the truth is unpalatable to you.

"It's not my job to educate you" is soooo Current Year +2. Join the rest of us in Current Year +6. If it's true then show, don't tell. You can't, for all the reasons I just stated. You believe anything you're told so long as it jives with your biases, because you're a gullible nitwit.

Jubber do you unironically have some form of learning disability? I've literally linked you these things before, I have directly shown them to you and you still try to pretend they aren't real.

This isn't a "it isn't my job to educate you" because I literally have educated you.

You are just unironically too stupid to accept it.

If you've done it before it shouldn't be too hard to do it again, should it? Until you do, this is just you expecting people to believe what you say, and that's not going to happen because you're full of shit. The only thing stupid about me is that I continue to grace you with an opportunity to make a fool of yourself, not that you require my assistance. If you weren't such a LOLCOW your prattle would be boring.

Jubber, are you legit asking me to link you the same shit I have linked you 3 times at this point?

Ok pal, you got it.

https://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/7-29-16%204th%20Circuit%20NAACP%20v%20NC.pdf

Here's the federal court ruling that found NC Republicans targeted black voters with "surgical precision."

Requested racial voting data, and then amended the law to specifically exclude alternate IDs held by black Americans while leaving in place alternate ID forms held by white Americans.

Here's the judge quoting their defense:

For example, the State argued before the district court that the General Assembly enacted changes to early voting laws to avoid “political gamesmanship” with respect to the hours and locations of early voting centers. J.A. 22348. As “evidence of justifications” for the changes to early voting, the State offered purported inconsistencies in voting hours across counties, including the fact that only some counties had decided to offer Sunday voting. Id. The State then elaborated on its justification, explaining that “[c]ounties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black” and “disproportionately Democratic.” J.A. 22348-49. In response, SL 2013-381 did away with one of the two days of Sunday voting.

1

See N.C. State Conf., 2016 WL 1650774, at *15. Thus, in what comes as close to a smoking gun as we are likely to see in modern times, the State’s very justification for a challenged statute hinges explicitly on race -- specifically its concern that African Americans, who had overwhelmingly voted for Democrats, had too much access to the franchise.

Here's the leaked gerrymandering documents with racial ID status overlays:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-secret-files-of-the-master-of-modern-republican-gerrymandering

Hofeller’s files, though, show that he created giant databases that detailed the racial makeup, voting patterns, and residence halls of more than a thousand North Carolina A&T students. He also collected similar data that tracked the race, voting patterns, and addresses of tens of thousands of other North Carolina college students. Some spreadsheets have more than fifty different fields with precise racial, gender, and geographic details on thousands of college voters.

A spreadsheet named “NC College Voters for ZIP ID” contains voter data for more than 23,100 North Carolina university students, including thousands in Greensboro. The detail for the North Carolina A&T students is precise: students are sorted by residence hall. That means that Hofeller knew which A&T students lived in Aggie Village, on the north side of campus, and which resided in Morrow or Vanstory Halls, on the south side—along with a detailed racial breakdown and information about their voting status. As Hofeller sought to create two reliably Republican congressional districts, his computer contained information on the precise voting tendencies of one of the largest concentrations of black voters in the area.

All of it is cited in this article, you can see the maps yourself.

Here's Donald Trump tweeting fake racial crime statistics and then trying to defend doing so:

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/trump-retweets-bogus-crime-graphic/

Here's the judge quoting their defense:

I don't see a problem here, since you (and this judge) are taking this out of context, as evidence by taking fragments of answers instead of whole sentences. What the judge(s) who wrote this leave out was the reason the lower court held the changes to voting was reasonable:

Contrary to all of Plaintiffs’ dire predictions, turnout actually increased for all voters under SL 2013-381. In many ways, the new early-voting schedule is an improvement for all North Carolina voters. Comparing 2010 to 2014, the new schedule resulted in 24.32% more early-voting sites, 72.14% more evening hours (with 45 counties newly offering evening hours), 4 counties newly offering Sunday hours, and 26.62% more Sunday hours overall. (Def. Ex. 13.) There was also no persuasive evidence that the new schedule increased lines at early-voting centers or that such lines deterred minority voters. (See Doc. 332 at 160-61.)93 Conversely, there is no credible evidence that the old schedule itself increased political participation generally or among any subgroup of voters; the previous academic consensus was to the contrary. What can be said is that all parties acknowledge that strong minority use of early voting in 2008 and 2012 was a result, in some measure, of a Democratic campaign strategy in North Carolina, particularly President Obama’s campaign, which specifically encouraged the use of early voting over Election Day voting. (Def. Ex. 270 at 58–62; Doc. 331 at 90–91 (Dr. Burden: stating that the Obama campaign “emphasized [early voting] fairly heavily”); Doc. 332 at 158–59 (Dr. Stewart: stating that it is “certainly true” that the “Obama campaign had an impact on the modes of voting by Obama supporters”).) There was also no persuasive evidence that voters were habituated to the old schedule or had any difficulty adjusting to the new schedule. In fact, voters who testified at trial did not even seem to be aware of how many days were offered under the old or new law without being prompted by Plaintiffs’ counsel. (E.g., Doc. 331 at 167-69, 173 (Nadia Cohen: did no research into voting deadlines, conceding that “voting is not my top priority”); Pl. Ex. 721 at 19 (Sherry Durant: “it was basically going from what did you say, 15 to ten” days).) For these reasons, Plaintiffs have failed to show that it is harder for any voter, including African Americans, to vote under the ten-day early-voting schedule given the same-hours requirement. Plaintiffs’ predictions for the 2016 presidential election are unpersuasive, and the 2014 results demonstrate that the ten-day voting schedule and the same-hours requirement combine to produce more high-convenience voting hours. In addition, the evidence shows that, regardless of race, those who voted during the first seven days of early voting under the seventeen-day early voting schedule are more likely to vote under the ten-day schedule than are those who voted in the last ten days of the former seventeen-day schedule. Likewise, the evidence indicates that churches are positioned to take advantage of the new voting sites and hours in their GOTV efforts. For these reasons, while the ten-day early-voting schedule makes early voting different, Plaintiffs have failed to prove that it makes voting harder.

The law in question didn't exist because blacks had "too much" access to voting. Instead it was ensure no one had greater access than anyone else. The law mandated the same polling hours for voting, including early voting, across the state. Those hours could be extended by a unanimous agreement of all county boards of elections. As the above referenced, the law resulted in increased access and participation across the state. I'm not sure how that disenfranchised black voters or anyone else, but I'm not differently abled like you are, so maybe it's something you have to be special to see.

This is exactly what I expected, which is probably why I can't find any articles about NC attorneys saying what you allege they say. It would have been huge news had it actually happened.

Here's the leaked gerrymandering documents with racial ID status overlays:

So...you and The New Yorker think that the only reason anyone would have detailed demographic information and using it to determine districts is race? This is stupid even for you. I'm sure they do the same thing in MD, which is the most gerrymandered state in the nation.

Here's Donald Trump

And again, Orange Man (re)tweeting something stupid is on Orange Man, not the entire party. Orange Man is gone. It's time for you to evict him from his rent-free residence in your damaged brain.

I don't see a problem here, since you (and this judge) are taking this out of context, as evidence by taking fragments of answers instead of whole sentences. What the judge(s) who wrote this leave out was the reason the lower court held the changes to voting was reasonable:

I honestly can not fucking deal with you anymore Jubber. You are one of the most disingenuous pieces of human garbage I have ever encountered in my life.

Even if what you are saying is true (it isn't) the solution to some counties being better on voting rights than others isn't to then suppress voters in said counties.

Either way, I'm completely content that you are a moron and I fucking bent you over like the little bitch you are. all of the mental gymnastics in the world is not going to warp reality for you this time Jubber.

Your ability to spin and squirm your way out of objective reality is impressive, but not that impressive.

The only people you're convincing with this bullshit is fellow low IQ conservatives. "hehe they just had racial demographic data maps overlaid on a fresh gerrymander they put in place for completely above the board reasons.'

Who in the actual fuck do you think you're fooling you clown?

And again, Orange Man (re)tweeting something stupid is on Orange Man, not the entire party. Orange Man is gone. It's time for you to evict him from his rent-free residence in your damaged brain.

Really? Because last I checked he controls the Republican party and they're all still sucking him off as he moves his entire family into the RNC.

Last time I checked he enjoyed an over 90% approval rating with Republicans.

Trying to decouple Trump from the GOP isn't gonna work sport. Guy literally tried to have them killed and they're still sucking him off.

Even if what you are saying is true (it isn't) the solution to some counties being better on voting rights than others isn't to then suppress voters in said counties.

Well, "suppress[ing] voters in said counties" wasn't the solution, you illiterate jackenape. Geez Louise you're always going on about your college degree, one would expect that you might actually understand the written word. The polls were actually a) more accessible and b) open longer under the law in question. Not only that, participation in voting went up after the law was implemented. I'm not sure how that "suppresses" anything.

Either way, I'm completely content that you are a moron and I fucking bent you over like the little bitch you are.

Sure, amigo, next thing you'll tell us is that you scored four touchdowns against Andrew Johnson High and banged the prom queen. The only people more deeply mired in fantasy than you at this point are unironic Marxists.

Because last I checked he controls the Republican party

Your caretaker must be strapping your helmet on too tight, because Trump is no longer in office and has nothing to do with running the party. He's living rent-free in your brain, which must be terrible considering how little space there is.

Like, do you seriously just live under a rock? Do you seriously think those gerrymandering documents weren't a smoking gun?

So far you have proved life is better for black when they don't have the right to vote 🤔🤔🤔

Poor pizza, you're the perfect posterboy for neoliberalism. You're in the right in probably 90% of the arguments you make, but are just so insufferable that you still end up losing the argument

I see you and Jubber bitching at each other pretty much every day and he still usually wins even though he's completely ignorant of the facts and doesn't care enough to look them up

Him being proven wrong on every point he makes is not him winning an argument.

Gonna blow your mind here: I don't give 2 fucks what you or anyone here thinks. I'm right, I know I'm right, I've proven I'm right.

I'll take being right 99.9% of the time over being upvoted by people that have no idea what is even being argued. Most of the people here are obese fedora clad dew sipping chimps.

Not a conservative and I'm not making an argument so much as trying to figure out what's going on.

Nah, the dumbest one is BLM riots/Capitol riot false equivalency. Bonus points if they talk about "cities LITERALLY being burned TO THE GROUND".

Well to be fair American conservatism has no actual policy goal at this point and basically just exists on both siderism and false equivalency.

I got into a 2 hour long argument with an SJW on this topic. I said we should fuel job programs related to massive infrastructure projects in poor areas and the sjw unironically told me that wouldn't work and we need to teach "anti-racism" to all white people.

Congratulations on finding someone dumber than yourself. Now you understand the frustration we all feel when you post.

Jubber, I have absolutely dismantled you 4 times since coming back.

You are a profoundly ignorant moron.

You couldn't dismantle an Oreo before your milk reached room temperature. I can't think of any greater compliment than having the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger Effect attempt to insult one's intelligence.

I have absolutely bent you over every single time I have encountered you.

I think you may have me confused with that thing you inflate when you're lonely.

Keep flailing Jubber.

I'm not the one furiously working an air pump. Physician heal thyself.

Who tf are you people. It seems like you have sex.

adminsare55iq is an alt of pizzashill, who is rrrr-drama's most prolific LOLCOW. I'm just some guy who does things and stuff.

wow only 2 hours? pizza you are growing up

It's hard to solve the infrastructure issue when states, counties, and cities each get to independently choose if they contribute to said infrastructure or not.

I live(d) in a fagdown Ferndale, MI which is just outside of Detroit.

We have a public transit system which goes from the suburbs into the city proper (Detroit has their own public transit).

Each suburb (city) can decide if they contribute to have buses run from the city to their suburb.

Some cities fear poor (black) people coming from the D to steal their pearls and then waltz on back home via public transportation.

So when voting time comes around they choose not to fund the bus system and thus the buses don't run routes to their city.

Not only do you have a clusterfuck of r-slurred routes for the buses, but also a horrible infrastructure which leads to people walking 8 miles to work.

Trash system.

Democracy sounds amazing, but it's not the golden hammer people make it out to be.

in local retardation in this vein, I live in a north dfw suburb, and there was drama this week from a local politician (or hopeful politician?) on nextdoor grandstanding that he supports city council members not supporting a new 'apartment complex' development.

the 'apartment complex'? a seniors only complex where all residents have an ownership stake in the complex. The pearl clutching was all about keeping the poors out (b/c all apartment dwellers are thieves and drug-doers). building a seniors only complex literally keeps the poors out by denying them possible apartment construction, and adds more tax base that doesn't use school/park infrastructure and more votes to keep out apartments.

To be fair - that's primarily a problem with devolution/federalism. Most countries outside of Burgerland have fixed these kinds of issues ages ago via amalgamation - ie. annexation of suburban areas into the city proper. See London, for example. Or at least Montreal (though they've since released a few recalcitrant Anglo ghettos).

It's an easy problem to fix, if not for the fact that cities and suburbs are totally different worlds in American context, due to the legacy of bussing and corresponding white flight.

That sounds nightmarish. I bought a house specifically to avoid Portland and being subject to Portland politics. These idiots never saw a ballot measure they didn't love. Fuck the arts tax.

But that's in large part due to this self-segregation. If people can make pseudo-communes and play small-scale voluntarism of this sort - you'll be permanently stuck with American results (which are indeed a fucking nightmare) in urban development. Everywhere else, most people try really hard to actually get to live in the city.

Well there you go then. If people are actively trying not to live in cities in the US vs trying to live in them in other countries a one size fits all policy of amalgamation probably isn't appropriate.

If Portland managed to annex where I live, the only thing stopping me from moving further away would be laziness. They never could though because Portland can't do anything right.

Chicken and egg thing, isn't it? People used to move out of London, too, and Paris was a fucking mess for centuries (though that's a bit more complicated).

Without self-segregation, city kind of becomes a slightly more wealthy and international snapshot of total regional population. If you don't like the regional population... Well... That's hardly an excuse to not tax you for its needs 😂

I'm fine with the city or municipality I live in taxing me, I'd just be pissed if the city who's r-worded policies I avoided when buying a house annexed the neighboring city/suburb I live in to expand its tax base.

As an example, any suggestion we do away with our can and bottle deposit is meant with resistance from the Portland crowd because the homeless depend on the money they get digging through trash(and throwing it on the ground). They're fucking lunatics.

I'd just be pissed if the city who's r-worded policies I avoided when buying a house annexed the neighboring city/suburb I live in to expand its tax base.

Yeah, but that's a shit argument against annexation. You didn't really avoid the city - you're still living in the metro area centred on it. You didn't go out into the woods and write "Industrial Revolution And It's Consequences". You stayed right next to Portland, for some reason.

This American idea that everyone can decide to have their cake and eat it too, if only they're okay with wasting a little bit more time commuting is kind of ridiculous if you look at it from the outside.

Is there any limit to what can be absorbed though? Can it cross county and state lines? Absorb existing towns and cities? Who actually wants to live in some endless hive of humanity? NYC is probably a great place to live if you have a six figure salary but if you DON'T, living in Jersey(or wherever) would probably be better for a person in nearly every way.

Is there any limit to what can be absorbed though?

Usually there are some pretty obvious geographical boundaries. In case of Montreal - it's the "boomerang" (island), they went no further. In case of London - it's the semi-artificial "green belt" - basically woods and shit surrounding the city that can't be developed. In case of NYC - well, that would be the islands, wouldn't it? It would make sense for them to annex the rest of Long Island, it's not like it's independent in any way, shape, or form...

Can it cross county and state lines?

I don't know, depends on your local laws. Counties - clearly yes (see NYC), states - probably not (I can't think of any examples of that working anywhere).

Who actually wants to live in some endless hive of humanity?

It's not endless, lmao. It's just a metro area - something that already exists. Cities don't usually annex empty fields (unless you're Moscow, but that's a really retárded special case).

Ooooooh, I think we might be arguing/discussing two different things. I'm 100% within the borders of the Portland METROPOLITAN area, but I'm not within the borders of Portland proper. Yes, for the purposes of planning we have something called the Urban Growth Boundary but I honestly don't know what it even means or covers. The metro area doesn't get as much focus because the dumb ideas they dream up in Portland tend to be defeated on ballots that would apply them to the metro area while being resoundingly passed should the apply strictly to the slightly hazy borders of Portland.

The metro area doesn't get as much focus because the dumb ideas they dream up in Portland tend to be defeated on ballots that would apply them to the metro area while being resoundingly passed should the apply strictly to the slightly hazy borders of Portland.

Well, then what are you worried about? If the whole metro gets annexed, all the stupid shit the hipsters (or whatever these people are called nowadays) come up with will be resoundingly defeated, and, in fact, even the entire local government might become somewhat tolerable. That's how it actually works in Europe 🤣 there are no total nutters running major cities...

[deleted]

It's an easy problem to fix

I know. That's why it's such an r-slurred country.

And why I moved to Germany where they already fixed (or never had) most of the aforementioned Burger issues.

And by problems we all know what you really mean. Everyone knows what the German solution to all problems is.

lol imagine thinking these ilks actually care about the future.

having the government invest in infrastructure projects in poor black places

they've already done this and it didn't work so now they're like, "eh this time why don't you just cut the check directly to us"

I'm sure they'll all use that money to start businesses, invest in retirement funds, etc etc

Obama was right about at least one thing though. Well, younger Obama at least. If we cut them checks, we might consider the debt paid and the debt can NEVER be paid.

Well all the US had to do was to keep re-addmission from happening until 1992 that'd knock a lot of it.

Many would consider me a rightoid and I would be 100% behind this. Doubly if it was actually descendants of slavery in the US and not just based on identity or skin color.

We already have paid and continue to pay reparations, it’s called welfare.

And involuntary reparations through theft.

The urban market stole my TV!

Racist but fair

The idea that blacks slaves built up this country or that the country's immense wealth was due to slave labor is just ahistorical and dumb. Let's just put aside the fact that the states where slavery was present were the poorest and least developed of the nation who also happened to have the least technologically advanced infrastructure. Let's also put aside the fact that at no point in history were the Northern states ever dependent on the South's economy or the fact that the US's status as a superpower and economic juggernaut only came in the mid 20th century, long after slavery had been abolished.

There's a good argument to be made that slavery served as a handicap to the growth and industrialization of the South and that the US would be richer had it been abolished earlier or had it never been practiced at all.

you know I hadn't heard this before, so I googled it and stumbled across vice of all orgs explaining how the US became a superpower. As left wing as it comes.

If they could have found a way to attribute it to slavery, they certainly would have, but looks like you're completely right about slavery having nothing to do with the rise of the USA to dominant superpower.

I absolutely guarantee that, had the writer of that Vice article wanted to write an article to support that point, they could and would have. It's just that, at that point in time, that specific writer didn't have racebaiting on his agenda.

People tend to think that if you're being fucked, someone must enjoy the fucking. This is not true.

Obama was a huge scam, for everybody.

OBAMA: We're still evaluating how we're going to approach the whole issue of brigading, pinging, and so forth. And obviously we're going to look at past practices. And I don't believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards. And part of my job is to make sure that for example at the srdine subreddit, you've got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don't want them to suddenly feel like they've got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering up.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no MasterLawlz Commission with independent seeking of pinging?

OBAMA: Well we have not made any final decisions but my instinct is for us to focus on how do we make sure that moving forward, we are doing the right thing. That doesn't mean that if somebody has blatantly broken the law, that they are above the law. But my orientation's going to be to move forward.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So let me just press that one more time. You're not ruling out prosecution, but will you tell your Justice Department to investigate these cases and follow the evidence where it leads?

OBAMA: What I -- I think my general view when it comes to my attorney general is that he's the people's lawyer. Eric Holder's been nominated. His job is to uphold the Constitution and look after the interests of the American people. Not be swayed by my day-to-day politics. So ultimately, he's going to be making some calls. But my general belief is that when it comes to national security, what we have to focus on is getting things right in the future as opposed to looking at what we got wrong in the past.

Unironically, implementing reparations will be the end of your Republic. Trust me when I say this; I'm a bong. I know what living in an effectively failed nation is like.

Did the Bong Parliament give out reparations to their colonies? Cause I wouldn't mind some £.

The Bong Parliament solved the issue of how to end slavery by simply buying every slave in the Empire. Nearly bankrupted the country and the loans weren't repaid until the 21st century.

Ironically, that's kind of the opposite of reparations since the while people get paid and the slaves just get freedom, but it has the benefit of not bankrupting the economy of half the country and causing a civil war.

Lol, it'll be self-Id and I'll be black for a day. Anything to fuck over identitarians, I'll donate the money to spacex or some shit, I don't even want it.

I hope Biden passes nothing but vaguely conservative/rightoid policies for like 2.5 years, and then hits everyone with reparations. Almost everyone would be mad at him, apart from one group.

Born in the USA

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Japs got some cash for playing baseball it's only fair.