We're going to be adding some advertisements to the forums! If you notice any weirdness around this or spot bad/inappropriate ads, please make a thread in the bugs forum.

Michigan Politics: Republican Judges No Longer In Majority

1235761

Posts

  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    Race is more a happy coincidence. And if I had to guess, how it would get overturned in the federal courts.

    What are you even talking about?

    The only way this law gets overturned is if the court gives a crap about the repeal of Snyder's alterations to the emergency management law and him just passing it again anyway.

    Which.

    They won't.

    No, I'm afraid the only solution is to stop electing assholes.


    And all this "death of democracy" shit can take a hike. Emergency Managers have been a thing for years. Whether they're effective or not (and my guess is they are not) is one question, but they're not taking your democracy away unless your state constitution specifically gives municipalities protections against this kind of thing (and my guess is that most don't).

    If you selectively enforce a law against a suspect class, that's a pretty standard violation of equal protection. Which is what Snyder has done.

    Lots of other super bankrupt cities in Michigan, then?

    This link is in the OP.

    And yes? Flint is kind of famously fucked. The whole manufacturing thing our entire economy was built on for nearly a century that has died a horrible death at the hands of globalization combined with mismanagement at the Big 3? Kind of hurt the whole state.

    Relinking things I read that did not convince me doesn't really do much.

    I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that Detroit is a bigger drain on Michigan than Flint. I'm also going to go out on a limb and say that Detroit represents a bigger opportunity to give the private sector kick backs.

    But you're on pretty thin ground if you want to argue that this is a racial issue with a suspect class solution.

    Nah, it's just a coincidence that the GOP is taking away local government from majority black cities and most of the black population of the state. They would never do that.

    The Republican Party does not the benefit of the doubt on race, ever.

    You're just looking for something to react to here. Anyone playing up the race angle is looking for something that's entirely irrelevant to the actual situation, and that's all there is to it. There is one, single, solitary reason why this is happening, and it has nothing to do with Republicans discriminating based on race.

    The simple fact is, if Detroit wasn't in so dire a state this would not be happening. Race does not factor into that, at all.

    spacekungfuman
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Race is more a happy coincidence. And if I had to guess, how it would get overturned in the federal courts.

    What are you even talking about?

    The only way this law gets overturned is if the court gives a crap about the repeal of Snyder's alterations to the emergency management law and him just passing it again anyway.

    Which.

    They won't.

    No, I'm afraid the only solution is to stop electing assholes.


    And all this "death of democracy" shit can take a hike. Emergency Managers have been a thing for years. Whether they're effective or not (and my guess is they are not) is one question, but they're not taking your democracy away unless your state constitution specifically gives municipalities protections against this kind of thing (and my guess is that most don't).

    If you selectively enforce a law against a suspect class, that's a pretty standard violation of equal protection. Which is what Snyder has done.

    Lots of other super bankrupt cities in Michigan, then?

    This link is in the OP.

    And yes? Flint is kind of famously fucked. The whole manufacturing thing our entire economy was built on for nearly a century that has died a horrible death at the hands of globalization combined with mismanagement at the Big 3? Kind of hurt the whole state.

    Relinking things I read that did not convince me doesn't really do much.

    I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that Detroit is a bigger drain on Michigan than Flint. I'm also going to go out on a limb and say that Detroit represents a bigger opportunity to give the private sector kick backs.

    But you're on pretty thin ground if you want to argue that this is a racial issue with a suspect class solution.

    Nah, it's just a coincidence that the GOP is taking away local government from majority black cities and most of the black population of the state. They would never do that.

    The Republican Party does not the benefit of the doubt on race, ever.

    You're just looking for something to react to here. Anyone playing up the race angle is looking for something that's entirely irrelevant to the actual situation, and that's all there is to it. There is one, single, solitary reason why this is happening, and it has nothing to do with Republicans discriminating based on race.

    The simple fact is, if Detroit wasn't in so dire a state this would not be happening. Race does not factor into that, at all.

    The simple fact is, this wouldn't be happening if His Imperial Majesty Snyder actually respected the will of the people.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    JaysonFour
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    Population%20Count.gif

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    enc0re wrote: »
    Population%20Count.gif

    All this chart shows us is that the population has a greater percentage of blacks now then in the past. What does that have to do with the discussion? Noone is disputing that Detroit is majority black. . .

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    I'm 30 years old, and have spent all of it living in Metro Detroit / SE Michigan. My dad has always been a fan of Detroit, and throughout my childhood we spent a lot of time in the city for various things, including what I would call 'urban decay tourism'. That was in the Coleman Young era...back when every single block had burned out storefronts or houses that dated back to the riots in the 60's, and the city burned every Devil's Night.

    My wife was working with a team of Israeli's a few years ago, the entire team was former IDF, and at one point they were shut down for a week because of rocket attacks within about a quarter mile of their lab. Freaking 'trying to kill you' missiles. When they were in Ann Arbor, any suggestion that they go to Detroit to catch a show / game, even with an 'escort' was treated as craziness. You could tell them up and down that Detroit isn't really that bad (as long as you don't get out of the city core) but you might as well suggest they go into combat naked.

    This seems to be...pretty much everyone's attitude when it comes to Detroit. It's hard to convince people otherwise, but...understandable why.

    Now, I saw how shitty Detroit was in the 80's - early 90's. I saw things get better with Dennis Archer, and the city look like it might actually clean up. I've watched just how awful the City Council is, and how little they care for anything but themselves. I watched Kwame fuck that city over, and over half the city say 'please, more'. It's actually hard to even talk about Detroit without coming off as HELLA racist.

    I am no fan of Snyder. I think he's bad for the city...he's a crook, and the only difference between him and Kwame is that he has guys like SKFM who make a lot of money to be sure he's not doing anything TECHNICALLY illegal. After Snyder is done, the city is going to be in worse shape than it would have been without Snyder. Snyder is a horrible, petty, crooked, piece of shit.

    That said, there is nowhere I see the city going but down. The problems Detroit has are just too deep and fundamental for the city to claw its way out on its own. Anyone who can get out, has already gotten out. You've got a city that went years with no grocery stores. There is no single problem, the city is one of those places where literally every thing you look at closely is flawed to the point it should probably just be torn out and replaced.

    The worst thing is that - most likely - nothing is ever going to reverse this trend. There's no new industrial revolution that will save Detroit - there is no gentrification that will rebuild the tax base for a city that's somewhere around a third of capacity, and with somewhere around 50% unemployment. They have already tried boxing off the 'undesirable' areas, they have tried tearing down...there just isn't really any good answer that's going to come from the city or from the state.

    Overall, I just find it sad. Hopefully a few major developments I hear about will move along and at least help buttress up the core...and at least give the city somewhere to build out from.

    EDIT - And anyone who says this has nothing to do with race doesn't know what they are talking about. This has EVERYTHING to do with race. A patriarchal 'we know better than the blacks' state / suburbs, and a reactionary 'black power' city. This is one of those cases where both sides are wrong, and proving the other right.

    zagdrob on
    SeidkonaSummaryJudgmentenc0re
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    Zagdrob, I am not seeing the race factor. This isn't action taken because "we know better than the blacks", it's action taken on a dying city that happens to have a black majority. It seems very odd that you would go to that conclusion based on the demographics, without taking into account the very dire circumstances that are making this whole thing happen. Are state officials simply not allowed to act in states with majority black populations?

    The thing is, I'm totally willing to entertain the prospect that there is a racial element to it. That's not exactly unheard of. However, nothing of what I've heard of this particular situation and the actions Snyder has taken suggest that to me. If there is a racial angle, it's not something you can infer from the available facts.

    EDIT: Heh, misread patriarchal as patriarchy. That would have been a great tangent.

    Frankiedarling on
  • SummaryJudgmentSummaryJudgment Today we will paint a mountain that owes us nothing. Registered User regular
    Jibba wrote: »


    Snyder is an asshole, but let's not lose sight that Detroit is and has been run by a bunch of assholes too. I don't know how you fix it. I don't think the Emergency Manager is going to fix it, nor am I sure it's even possible to fix it. I'm not even totally convinced it's worth saving.

    Agreed on all counts in your post. It's really a sad state of affairs. Queue the long-running (and tongue-in-cheek, though not entirely undeserved) jokes about "walling the city off" Mad-Max style.

    Currently between signatures!
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    enc0re wrote: »
    Population%20Count.gif

    All this chart shows us is that the population has a greater percentage of blacks now then in the past. What does that have to do with the discussion? Noone is disputing that Detroit is majority black. . .

    It's in levels, not percentages. What you're saying is only one thing the chart shows. It also ignores the violence against blacks when they first moved to Detroit, the institutionalized segregation, the following white flight, and the impact that has had on state politics since. We're looking at a miniaturized version of Lee Atwater and the Southern Strategy.

    Contrast that with zagdrob, who knows what's going on here. Detroit isn't NYC.
    zagdrob wrote: »
    EDIT - And anyone who says this has nothing to do with race doesn't know what they are talking about. This has EVERYTHING to do with race. A patriarchal 'we know better than the blacks' state / suburbs, and a reactionary 'black power' city. This is one of those cases where both sides are wrong, and proving the other right.


  • SeidkonaSeidkona Had an upgrade Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    To say that racism has absolutely nothing to do with the state of Detroit ignores a whole lot of history.

    Racisim combined with some really terrible business decisions that were largely propped up by the State at the time when the big three promised they'd take care of everyone. When the car industry started to move away from the State Flint became the canary in the coal mine and it just took longer to hit Detroit because of inertia.

    Couple that with an EM law that the voters of the State voted down being put back into place on a lame duck session against the voters will. . .this is orchestrated to take over Detroit so people can make money off of the dying corpse. There's always been a tinge in the suburbs of the concept that the white people would have to go back there and save it one day. That is a part of that as much as it is about economic realities. If you don't believe that you've never talked to people in any of the affluent suburbs in the last 30-40 years.



    Seidkona on
    Mostly just huntin' monsters.
    XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
  • SummaryJudgmentSummaryJudgment Today we will paint a mountain that owes us nothing. Registered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    You're confused, man. Detroit is run by Democrats, and is majority black, and in this thread those facts mean everything they have done is virtuous and good. There can never be any justification for a white male Republican governor to take any action whatsoever, especially since all possible actions he can take are evil, wrong, dishonest, and / or hopeless.
    8->

    Here's an action he could have taken, he could have let the Emergency Manager law die when the people of the state successfully voted to repeal it, instead of passing a new one that could not be repealed.

    If there were more instances of these Emergency Managers actually being able to help the cities that they are put in charge of, then maybe not as many people would be that pissed off about it. But the system has done nothing but fail, and in one case a manager actively stole money from the city he was supposed to save.

    Bolded/underlined for emphasis. This is the second time (although I'm sure it's happened with other law) that Snyder has passed legislation in the dead of night which overturns something that failed at the polls only a few months ago (the first being Right-To-Work). Fairly fucked up.

    That said: Jesus Christ are Michigan democrats just BAD at this. Back in the gubernatorial election, I remember Snyder seemed like the long-shot candidate, but then somehow Andy Dillon loses to Verg fucking Bernero for the Democratic nomination?

    (Dillon was blank canvas politician who was either a longrunning senator or rep, I'm not sure. The guy is fairly unremarkable, but at least that cuts both ways, you know? Verg Bernero is the used car salesman mayor of Lansing, MI, and from my limited experience with him is just the shadiest, most sleazy guy.)

    Currently between signatures!
    SeidkonaJaysonFour
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    The impact of race on the history has nothing to do with whether the current action is racially motivated. The EM is not taking over because the city is full of black people. It is because the city is being crushed by its debt.

    Frankiedarling
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Zagdrob, I am not seeing the race factor. This isn't action taken because "we know better than the blacks", it's action taken on a dying city that happens to have a black majority. It seems very odd that you would go to that conclusion based on the demographics, without taking into account the very dire circumstances that are making this whole thing happen. Are state officials simply not allowed to act in states with majority black populations?

    The thing is, I'm totally willing to entertain the prospect that there is a racial element to it. That's not exactly unheard of. However, nothing of what I've heard of this particular situation and the actions Snyder has taken suggest that to me. If there is a racial angle, it's not something you can infer from the available facts.

    EDIT: Heh, misread patriarchal as patriarchy. That would have been a great tangent.

    If I may ask...are you from Metro Detroit or have any connection / knowledge of Detroit beyond the standard Robocop Slum / Lions Suck / American Cars Suck mentality everyone outside the area has about Detroit?

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    The impact of race on the history has nothing to do with whether the current action is racially motivated. The EM is not taking over because the city is full of black people. It is because the city is being crushed by its debt.

    Nothing occurs in a vacuum. Race is the great subtext of American society.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Harry DresdenDarkewolfeshrykeHacksaw
  • SummaryJudgmentSummaryJudgment Today we will paint a mountain that owes us nothing. Registered User regular
    Zagdrob, I am not seeing the race factor. This isn't action taken because "we know better than the blacks", it's action taken on a dying city that happens to have a black majority. It seems very odd that you would go to that conclusion based on the demographics, without taking into account the very dire circumstances that are making this whole thing happen. Are state officials simply not allowed to act in states with majority black populations?

    The thing is, I'm totally willing to entertain the prospect that there is a racial element to it. That's not exactly unheard of. However, nothing of what I've heard of this particular situation and the actions Snyder has taken suggest that to me. If there is a racial angle, it's not something you can infer from the available facts.

    EDIT: Heh, misread patriarchal as patriarchy. That would have been a great tangent.

    Frankie, to explain a bit, part of Synder's enaction of the EFM has to do with the gridlock of the city council versus the mayor. The city council runs, largely, on a racial power platform and has painted every mayor of Detroit that wasn't toeing the line as an Uncle Tom for the past 20+ years.

    Currently between signatures!
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Zagdrob, I am not seeing the race factor. This isn't action taken because "we know better than the blacks", it's action taken on a dying city that happens to have a black majority. It seems very odd that you would go to that conclusion based on the demographics, without taking into account the very dire circumstances that are making this whole thing happen. Are state officials simply not allowed to act in states with majority black populations?

    The thing is, I'm totally willing to entertain the prospect that there is a racial element to it. That's not exactly unheard of. However, nothing of what I've heard of this particular situation and the actions Snyder has taken suggest that to me. If there is a racial angle, it's not something you can infer from the available facts.

    EDIT: Heh, misread patriarchal as patriarchy. That would have been a great tangent.

    If I may ask...are you from Metro Detroit or have any connection / knowledge of Detroit beyond the standard Robocop Slum / Lions Suck / American Cars Suck mentality everyone outside the area has about Detroit?

    And this has to do with this.... how? I'm not talking about the entire bloody history of the state. I'm talking about this law as it applies to this current state of crisis in the city Detroit, and asking you to show the racial element. I respect your opinion on Detroit for obvious reasons, but you can't simply go "history, black people, white governor: racism!" Which is what people in this thread are essentially doing.

    Like I said, the history of the city means that a racial element is a possibility. But there is nothing in the actual act that I see as relating to it. I have a very hard time believing that, were the governor black, any of you would have the same reaction. So please, show how this action, seemingly taken in an attempt to turn the crisis around, is racially motivated.

    From where I'm standing, it seems to be an attempt to do something about the general terribleness that is Detroit right now. Whether it's a good attempt or a bad attempt remains to be seen, of course.

  • SummaryJudgmentSummaryJudgment Today we will paint a mountain that owes us nothing. Registered User regular
    The impact of race on the history has nothing to do with whether the current action is racially motivated. The EM is not taking over because the city is full of black people. It is because the city is being crushed by its debt.

    That's the thing, man. Nobody is disputing that the city is being crushed by its debt and needs desperate measures. That said, some people are of the opinion that the city is being crushed by that debt because of bad management that stemmed from racially-motivated bullshit and cronyism/nepotism. Our former mayor is literally on trial for a Federal RICO investigation right now, after the local one found him guilty, assessed some fines to pay back money that was long since hidden/spent and he fled the state to Texas.

    Currently between signatures!
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Zagdrob, I am not seeing the race factor. This isn't action taken because "we know better than the blacks", it's action taken on a dying city that happens to have a black majority. It seems very odd that you would go to that conclusion based on the demographics, without taking into account the very dire circumstances that are making this whole thing happen. Are state officials simply not allowed to act in states with majority black populations?

    The thing is, I'm totally willing to entertain the prospect that there is a racial element to it. That's not exactly unheard of. However, nothing of what I've heard of this particular situation and the actions Snyder has taken suggest that to me. If there is a racial angle, it's not something you can infer from the available facts.

    EDIT: Heh, misread patriarchal as patriarchy. That would have been a great tangent.

    If I may ask...are you from Metro Detroit or have any connection / knowledge of Detroit beyond the standard Robocop Slum / Lions Suck / American Cars Suck mentality everyone outside the area has about Detroit?

    And this has to do with this.... how? I'm not talking about the entire bloody history of the state. I'm talking about this law as it applies to this current state of crisis in the city Detroit, and asking you to show the racial element. I respect your opinion on Detroit for obvious reasons, but you can't simply go "history, black people, white governor: racism!" Which is what people in this thread are essentially doing.

    Like I said, the history of the city means that a racial element is a possibility. But there is nothing in the actual act that I see as relating to it. I have a very hard time believing that, were the governor black, any of you would have the same reaction. So please, show how this action, seemingly taken in an attempt to turn the crisis around, is racially motivated.

    From where I'm standing, it seems to be an attempt to do something about the general terribleness that is Detroit right now. Whether it's a good attempt or a bad attempt remains to be seen, of course.

    First, this isn't about the entire history of the state. Milliken v Bradley was decided in 1974.

    Second, I am not suggesting that Snyder is racist. I'm saying that racism is at the core of the Detroit situation.

    enc0re on
    Seidkona
  • SummaryJudgmentSummaryJudgment Today we will paint a mountain that owes us nothing. Registered User regular
    edited March 2013

    The thing is, I'm totally willing to entertain the prospect that there is a racial element to it. That's not exactly unheard of. However, nothing of what I've heard of this particular situation and the actions Snyder has taken suggest that to me. If there is a racial angle, it's not something you can infer from the available facts.

    Frankie, Synder is appearing on the local evening news saying its being done because of issues stemming from inability of the city council and mayor to manage the city's problems. The City Council is appearing on the evening news pouring gasoline onto the fire.

    The city council and the mayor (as an institution) have been engaged in a racially-motivated and populism-motivated power struggle since before I was born.

    No public official is going to come out and say it because you can't say it out loud, it's an open secret and dog-whistle politics.

    SummaryJudgment on
    Currently between signatures!
    shrykeJibba
  • SeidkonaSeidkona Had an upgrade Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Zagdrob, I am not seeing the race factor. This isn't action taken because "we know better than the blacks", it's action taken on a dying city that happens to have a black majority. It seems very odd that you would go to that conclusion based on the demographics, without taking into account the very dire circumstances that are making this whole thing happen. Are state officials simply not allowed to act in states with majority black populations?

    The thing is, I'm totally willing to entertain the prospect that there is a racial element to it. That's not exactly unheard of. However, nothing of what I've heard of this particular situation and the actions Snyder has taken suggest that to me. If there is a racial angle, it's not something you can infer from the available facts.

    EDIT: Heh, misread patriarchal as patriarchy. That would have been a great tangent.

    If I may ask...are you from Metro Detroit or have any connection / knowledge of Detroit beyond the standard Robocop Slum / Lions Suck / American Cars Suck mentality everyone outside the area has about Detroit?

    And this has to do with this.... how? I'm not talking about the entire bloody history of the state. I'm talking about this law as it applies to this current state of crisis in the city Detroit, and asking you to show the racial element. I respect your opinion on Detroit for obvious reasons, but you can't simply go "history, black people, white governor: racism!" Which is what people in this thread are essentially doing.

    Like I said, the history of the city means that a racial element is a possibility. But there is nothing in the actual act that I see as relating to it. I have a very hard time believing that, were the governor black, any of you would have the same reaction. So please, show how this action, seemingly taken in an attempt to turn the crisis around, is racially motivated.

    From where I'm standing, it seems to be an attempt to do something about the general terribleness that is Detroit right now. Whether it's a good attempt or a bad attempt remains to be seen, of course.

    We just happen to know the history of our area. That doesn't mean we are equating it with racism out of hand.

    The whole reason it's happening is because, to a large extent, the suburbs and Detroit have a very bad relationship even an antagonistic one. Detroit is protectionist and the suburbs are belittling. There can be no economic growth in an area when the people with the money don't want to go there and invest in it. A large portion of the reason they don't is because of racism.

    Seidkona on
    Mostly just huntin' monsters.
    XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    You're confused, man. Detroit is run by Democrats, and is majority black, and in this thread those facts mean everything they have done is virtuous and good. There can never be any justification for a white male Republican governor to take any action whatsoever, especially since all possible actions he can take are evil, wrong, dishonest, and / or hopeless.
    8->

    Here's an action he could have taken, he could have let the Emergency Manager law die when the people of the state successfully voted to repeal it, instead of passing a new one that could not be repealed.

    If there were more instances of these Emergency Managers actually being able to help the cities that they are put in charge of, then maybe not as many people would be that pissed off about it. But the system has done nothing but fail, and in one case a manager actively stole money from the city he was supposed to save.

    Bolded/underlined for emphasis. This is the second time (although I'm sure it's happened with other law) that Snyder has passed legislation in the dead of night which overturns something that failed at the polls only a few months ago (the first being Right-To-Work). Fairly fucked up.
    Yeah it's total scumbag behaviour. It actually closely resembles the supreme court case I linked earlier that states have the ultimate authority. In that case a town didn't want to become part of Pittsburgh and voted against it, the law at that time being that both towns had to vote with a majority for it to happen. After that they just changed the law to saying that a majority of the total population of both towns was the only thing needed, which meant that the much larger Pittsburgh was basically the only one deciding. The court deemed it constitutional.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Race is more a happy coincidence. And if I had to guess, how it would get overturned in the federal courts.

    What are you even talking about?

    The only way this law gets overturned is if the court gives a crap about the repeal of Snyder's alterations to the emergency management law and him just passing it again anyway.

    Which.

    They won't.

    No, I'm afraid the only solution is to stop electing assholes.


    And all this "death of democracy" shit can take a hike. Emergency Managers have been a thing for years. Whether they're effective or not (and my guess is they are not) is one question, but they're not taking your democracy away unless your state constitution specifically gives municipalities protections against this kind of thing (and my guess is that most don't).

    Yes it is taking your democracy away. Just because the law says that it's okay to do so does not change the fundamental nature of the act.

    Yawning the yawn that couldn't yawn here.

    You can play semantics all you like, but this is not a change in status quo in this country.

    It also have little if anything to do with race.

    The one who is playing semantics is you. When an elected government is replaced by an appointed official, that is an inherently anti-democratic act. Now, it may be necessary, even positive, but it is still an act of removing democracy.

    Whatever dude.

    My point, which is obvious to anyone who isn't a reactionary, is that the legal, codified rights to self government are not interfered with here.

    In America, municipalities are subservient to state governments. Until that changes, emergency manager laws do not take away your access to American democracy.

    And states are subservient to the federal government. How would you feel if the federal government passed a law that allowed for it to replace an elected state government with an appointed official? Would you feel that would preserve democracy.

    Furthermore, it is the local elected officials and bodies that tend to have the most direct and immediate impact on me. I like having a say in how they are comprised, and would see having that say taken away as a silencing of my political voice. And it seems that I'm not the only one, as the people of the state of Michigan repealed the emergency manager law, only to see it reinstated in the dark of the night, in such a way to silence their voices.

    State governments have protections given to them to keep that kind of thing from happening. I am not discounting the importance of local powers or saying I agree with Snyder's actions when I point out that hyperbolic crazy is hyperbolic and crazy.

    But that ignores the question he asked.

    Would you be ok with it if it happened?

    He's not asking a legal question, he's asking a moral one.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Race is more a happy coincidence. And if I had to guess, how it would get overturned in the federal courts.

    What are you even talking about?

    The only way this law gets overturned is if the court gives a crap about the repeal of Snyder's alterations to the emergency management law and him just passing it again anyway.

    Which.

    They won't.

    No, I'm afraid the only solution is to stop electing assholes.


    And all this "death of democracy" shit can take a hike. Emergency Managers have been a thing for years. Whether they're effective or not (and my guess is they are not) is one question, but they're not taking your democracy away unless your state constitution specifically gives municipalities protections against this kind of thing (and my guess is that most don't).

    Yes it is taking your democracy away. Just because the law says that it's okay to do so does not change the fundamental nature of the act.

    Yawning the yawn that couldn't yawn here.

    You can play semantics all you like, but this is not a change in status quo in this country.

    It also have little if anything to do with race.

    The one who is playing semantics is you. When an elected government is replaced by an appointed official, that is an inherently anti-democratic act. Now, it may be necessary, even positive, but it is still an act of removing democracy.

    Whatever dude.

    My point, which is obvious to anyone who isn't a reactionary, is that the legal, codified rights to self government are not interfered with here.

    In America, municipalities are subservient to state governments. Until that changes, emergency manager laws do not take away your access to American democracy.

    And states are subservient to the federal government. How would you feel if the federal government passed a law that allowed for it to replace an elected state government with an appointed official? Would you feel that would preserve democracy.

    Furthermore, it is the local elected officials and bodies that tend to have the most direct and immediate impact on me. I like having a say in how they are comprised, and would see having that say taken away as a silencing of my political voice. And it seems that I'm not the only one, as the people of the state of Michigan repealed the emergency manager law, only to see it reinstated in the dark of the night, in such a way to silence their voices.

    State governments have protections given to them to keep that kind of thing from happening. I am not discounting the importance of local powers or saying I agree with Snyder's actions when I point out that hyperbolic crazy is hyperbolic and crazy.

    But that ignores the question he asked.

    Would you be ok with it if it happened?

    He's not asking a legal question, he's asking a moral one.

    Yes I'm well aware he's making a moral argument. And it is just too fucking bad that gets in the way of the fact that there is no legal reason for this law to be overturned based on race.

    Which is what I was talking about, bullshit meanderings into ancillary discussions not withstanding.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Zagdrob, I am not seeing the race factor. This isn't action taken because "we know better than the blacks", it's action taken on a dying city that happens to have a black majority. It seems very odd that you would go to that conclusion based on the demographics, without taking into account the very dire circumstances that are making this whole thing happen. Are state officials simply not allowed to act in states with majority black populations?

    The thing is, I'm totally willing to entertain the prospect that there is a racial element to it. That's not exactly unheard of. However, nothing of what I've heard of this particular situation and the actions Snyder has taken suggest that to me. If there is a racial angle, it's not something you can infer from the available facts.

    EDIT: Heh, misread patriarchal as patriarchy. That would have been a great tangent.

    If I may ask...are you from Metro Detroit or have any connection / knowledge of Detroit beyond the standard Robocop Slum / Lions Suck / American Cars Suck mentality everyone outside the area has about Detroit?

    And this has to do with this.... how? I'm not talking about the entire bloody history of the state. I'm talking about this law as it applies to this current state of crisis in the city Detroit, and asking you to show the racial element. I respect your opinion on Detroit for obvious reasons, but you can't simply go "history, black people, white governor: racism!" Which is what people in this thread are essentially doing.

    Like I said, the history of the city means that a racial element is a possibility. But there is nothing in the actual act that I see as relating to it. I have a very hard time believing that, were the governor black, any of you would have the same reaction. So please, show how this action, seemingly taken in an attempt to turn the crisis around, is racially motivated.

    From where I'm standing, it seems to be an attempt to do something about the general terribleness that is Detroit right now. Whether it's a good attempt or a bad attempt remains to be seen, of course.

    If you aren't familiar with Detroit's relatively unique history, it's easy to assume that you know what's going on. Unfortunately, if you aren't from the area it's easy to miss the forest for the trees (or the other way around, I guess).

    Pretty much all of the current problems that Detroit has are predicated on racial issues. Detroit spent the first half of the 20th century wealthy and had a large middle class population, what was relatively unique is that the black population was also large and relatively well off. Jobs and money for everyone.

    Racial tension was around for a while, seeing as how the blacks weren't just struggling to get by - you had hard working black families that couldn't move into decent neighborhoods, their kids went to the shit schools, etc. It didn't help that the (mostly / all white) Detroit Police force cracked down hard. Lots of outward discrimination - redlining, the STRESS unit, etc. In 1967, Detroit suffered one of the worst riots in history.

    The white community - pretty much as one - pulled up roots and moved to the suburbs. Unlike the other large cities with a large black population (and similar unrest) like NYC, and LA, geography didn't limit the sprawl and force whites to work with the black community and find some way of dealing with the issues. They just moved to the suburbs and basically walled in the city with freeways, the 8 mile corridor, etc.

    The city itself spent about twenty years completely reeling from huge loss in income - lost business income, lost property tax revenue, etc. The black community suffered for a while at a police force that was explicitly and openly about beating the 'black man' down - read about the STRESS unit - until the white power base had completely diminished. After that, being elected in Detroit was more a factor of how much you said 'fuck you' to the white suburbs - nobody gave a shit about corruption - and the suburbs returned the favor by screwing the city over however they could.

    In the 90's, Detroit elected an actual good mayor - Dennis Archer - who tried to work with the suburbs, and even in the good Clinton years could only do so much. The population dropped so much that they couldn't support the infrastructure that was already in place, and the city was corrupt. City Council was full of people who remembered vividly the issues from the 60's, and the last thing they wanted was scrutiny or losing power.

    After Archer we got Kwame...who is currently in his second or third trial for various corruption. Completely and openly crooked, part of a Detroit political dynasty, etc. Bing is well intentioned, but Kwame really fucked things up. City Council hasn't changed since the White Flight. They are in power entirely on a racial / black power platform, and Detroit has a relatively powerful City Council.

    So that's a cliff note's version of Detroit's racial history. There are a lot of other factors in play...but the above gives you a quick read through.

    Anyway...to go back to the original question, what this particular implementation of the EM law has to do with Racial issues, is again...everything.

    For all intents and purposes, whites abandoned Detroit fifty years ago, and left it to rot. During these fifty years, the suburbs did everything they could to keep it that way. The suburbs did everything they could to keep blacks from the city from getting jobs, going to their schools, using their parks / libraries, etc. Hell, the city of Dearborn was ordered at one point to remove residency restrictions from their public parks, so they closed them all. This has the norm, and some of these nakedly racist actions are still going on (school residency requirements are a big one).

    The people of Detroit are paranoid and protectionist, but for good reason. Their are a few very valuable pieces of properly or parts of the city (Belle Isle, Cobo Hall, etc) have the white communities in the suburbs have been trying to take control of for decades. They have good reason to believe that Snyder is going to sell off anything valuable, cut the pay / benefits / pensions / services that act as a little life support for the city, and they will be left worse off than ever before.

    If the city was mostly white, it wouldn't be happening like this. The state would be extending loans, cutting obligations, etc. There are no GOOD options, but sure as shit this is a pretty shitty one for the people of the city.

    SeidkonaSummaryJudgmentHarry DresdenDarkewolfeCaptain CarrotshrykeJuliusenlightenedbumKelzorGnome-Interruptusquovadis13JaysonFourMegaMekMetzger Meister
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Race is more a happy coincidence. And if I had to guess, how it would get overturned in the federal courts.

    What are you even talking about?

    The only way this law gets overturned is if the court gives a crap about the repeal of Snyder's alterations to the emergency management law and him just passing it again anyway.

    Which.

    They won't.

    No, I'm afraid the only solution is to stop electing assholes.


    And all this "death of democracy" shit can take a hike. Emergency Managers have been a thing for years. Whether they're effective or not (and my guess is they are not) is one question, but they're not taking your democracy away unless your state constitution specifically gives municipalities protections against this kind of thing (and my guess is that most don't).

    Yes it is taking your democracy away. Just because the law says that it's okay to do so does not change the fundamental nature of the act.

    Yawning the yawn that couldn't yawn here.

    You can play semantics all you like, but this is not a change in status quo in this country.

    It also have little if anything to do with race.

    The one who is playing semantics is you. When an elected government is replaced by an appointed official, that is an inherently anti-democratic act. Now, it may be necessary, even positive, but it is still an act of removing democracy.

    Whatever dude.

    My point, which is obvious to anyone who isn't a reactionary, is that the legal, codified rights to self government are not interfered with here.

    In America, municipalities are subservient to state governments. Until that changes, emergency manager laws do not take away your access to American democracy.

    And states are subservient to the federal government. How would you feel if the federal government passed a law that allowed for it to replace an elected state government with an appointed official? Would you feel that would preserve democracy.

    Furthermore, it is the local elected officials and bodies that tend to have the most direct and immediate impact on me. I like having a say in how they are comprised, and would see having that say taken away as a silencing of my political voice. And it seems that I'm not the only one, as the people of the state of Michigan repealed the emergency manager law, only to see it reinstated in the dark of the night, in such a way to silence their voices.

    State governments have protections given to them to keep that kind of thing from happening. I am not discounting the importance of local powers or saying I agree with Snyder's actions when I point out that hyperbolic crazy is hyperbolic and crazy.

    But that ignores the question he asked.

    Would you be ok with it if it happened?

    He's not asking a legal question, he's asking a moral one.

    Yes I'm well aware he's making a moral argument. And it is just too fucking bad that gets in the way of the fact that there is no legal reason for this law to be overturned based on race.

    Which is what I was talking about, bullshit meanderings into ancillary discussions not withstanding.

    How is it ancillary? Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's good, hence why people complain about laws and such all the time. Including you.

    The only thing going on here is you keep dodging to avoid answering the actual question posed. I'm assuming because then you'd have to admit that, fuck no, you wouldn't be ok with it.

  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    The thing is, I'm totally willing to entertain the prospect that there is a racial element to it. That's not exactly unheard of. However, nothing of what I've heard of this particular situation and the actions Snyder has taken suggest that to me. If there is a racial angle, it's not something you can infer from the available facts.

    Frankie, Synder is appearing on the local evening news saying its being done because of issues stemming from inability of the city council and mayor to manage the city's problems. The City Council is appearing on the evening news pouring gasoline onto the fire.

    The city council and the mayor (as an institution) have been engaged in a racially-motivated and populism-motivated power struggle since before I was born.

    No public official is going to come out and say it because you can't say it out loud, it's an open secret and dog-whistle politics.

    So... nothing points to it, but you're sure that's it. Because....?

    At this point, I have to assume that there is nothing about Snyder's actions that suggest racial motivation. Because none of you are giving me any proof. It's one thing to show that the situation the city is in now has to do with racism, but it's quite another to say that any fix or attempted fix is therefore racially motivated as well.

    Frankiedarling on
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    People rarely say "I want to fuck over black people". That doesn't remove that as a motivation. And if you claim that the Republican Party as a whole isn't trying to suppress minority rights, particularly voting, then you're amusingly delusional.

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    The thing is, I'm totally willing to entertain the prospect that there is a racial element to it. That's not exactly unheard of. However, nothing of what I've heard of this particular situation and the actions Snyder has taken suggest that to me. If there is a racial angle, it's not something you can infer from the available facts.

    Frankie, Synder is appearing on the local evening news saying its being done because of issues stemming from inability of the city council and mayor to manage the city's problems. The City Council is appearing on the evening news pouring gasoline onto the fire.

    The city council and the mayor (as an institution) have been engaged in a racially-motivated and populism-motivated power struggle since before I was born.

    No public official is going to come out and say it because you can't say it out loud, it's an open secret and dog-whistle politics.

    So... nothing points to it, but you're sure that's it. Because....?

    At this point, I have to assume that there is nothing about Snyder's actions that suggest racial motivation. Because none of you are giving me any proof. It's one thing to show that the situation the city is in now has to do with racism, but it's quite another to say that any fix or attempted fix is therefore racially motivated as well.

    You don't know anything about the local dynamic or the history between the two parties...but since none of us can PROVE this is racially motivated it must not be because you say so?

    Do you really expect Snyder to have a press conference and tell everyone 'We're doing this because it's the only way the uppity blacks will learn their place'?

    This is just another round of a dynamic that has been going on since my dad was in high school...a dynamic that directly resulted from hundreds of years of racial tension boiling over and burning half a fucking city down.

    But yeah...what do we know? It's not like any of us have grown up in Metro Detroit, watched the news, read the papers, gone to city council meetings in High School, known local politicians who DO openly say what they are doing and why or any of that.

    Nope, none of that matters because Snyder - RICK SNYDER of all people isn't a cardboard cutout white businessman / politician. Yeah, I'll take some of that kool-aid.

    zagdrob on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Race is more a happy coincidence. And if I had to guess, how it would get overturned in the federal courts.

    What are you even talking about?

    The only way this law gets overturned is if the court gives a crap about the repeal of Snyder's alterations to the emergency management law and him just passing it again anyway.

    Which.

    They won't.

    No, I'm afraid the only solution is to stop electing assholes.


    And all this "death of democracy" shit can take a hike. Emergency Managers have been a thing for years. Whether they're effective or not (and my guess is they are not) is one question, but they're not taking your democracy away unless your state constitution specifically gives municipalities protections against this kind of thing (and my guess is that most don't).

    Yes it is taking your democracy away. Just because the law says that it's okay to do so does not change the fundamental nature of the act.

    Yawning the yawn that couldn't yawn here.

    You can play semantics all you like, but this is not a change in status quo in this country.

    It also have little if anything to do with race.

    The one who is playing semantics is you. When an elected government is replaced by an appointed official, that is an inherently anti-democratic act. Now, it may be necessary, even positive, but it is still an act of removing democracy.

    Whatever dude.

    My point, which is obvious to anyone who isn't a reactionary, is that the legal, codified rights to self government are not interfered with here.

    In America, municipalities are subservient to state governments. Until that changes, emergency manager laws do not take away your access to American democracy.

    And states are subservient to the federal government. How would you feel if the federal government passed a law that allowed for it to replace an elected state government with an appointed official? Would you feel that would preserve democracy.

    Furthermore, it is the local elected officials and bodies that tend to have the most direct and immediate impact on me. I like having a say in how they are comprised, and would see having that say taken away as a silencing of my political voice. And it seems that I'm not the only one, as the people of the state of Michigan repealed the emergency manager law, only to see it reinstated in the dark of the night, in such a way to silence their voices.

    State governments have protections given to them to keep that kind of thing from happening. I am not discounting the importance of local powers or saying I agree with Snyder's actions when I point out that hyperbolic crazy is hyperbolic and crazy.

    But that ignores the question he asked.

    Would you be ok with it if it happened?

    He's not asking a legal question, he's asking a moral one.

    Yes I'm well aware he's making a moral argument. And it is just too fucking bad that gets in the way of the fact that there is no legal reason for this law to be overturned based on race.

    Which is what I was talking about, bullshit meanderings into ancillary discussions not withstanding.

    How is it ancillary? Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's good, hence why people complain about laws and such all the time. Including you.

    The only thing going on here is you keep dodging to avoid answering the actual question posed. I'm assuming because then you'd have to admit that, fuck no, you wouldn't be ok with it.

    Go ahead and find where I said I'm okay with Snyder being a dickhole.

    I'll wait.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Just like Birthers are only people interested in proper record-keeping.

  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Zagdrob, I am not seeing the race factor. This isn't action taken because "we know better than the blacks", it's action taken on a dying city that happens to have a black majority. It seems very odd that you would go to that conclusion based on the demographics, without taking into account the very dire circumstances that are making this whole thing happen. Are state officials simply not allowed to act in states with majority black populations?

    The thing is, I'm totally willing to entertain the prospect that there is a racial element to it. That's not exactly unheard of. However, nothing of what I've heard of this particular situation and the actions Snyder has taken suggest that to me. If there is a racial angle, it's not something you can infer from the available facts.

    EDIT: Heh, misread patriarchal as patriarchy. That would have been a great tangent.

    If I may ask...are you from Metro Detroit or have any connection / knowledge of Detroit beyond the standard Robocop Slum / Lions Suck / American Cars Suck mentality everyone outside the area has about Detroit?

    And this has to do with this.... how? I'm not talking about the entire bloody history of the state. I'm talking about this law as it applies to this current state of crisis in the city Detroit, and asking you to show the racial element. I respect your opinion on Detroit for obvious reasons, but you can't simply go "history, black people, white governor: racism!" Which is what people in this thread are essentially doing.

    Like I said, the history of the city means that a racial element is a possibility. But there is nothing in the actual act that I see as relating to it. I have a very hard time believing that, were the governor black, any of you would have the same reaction. So please, show how this action, seemingly taken in an attempt to turn the crisis around, is racially motivated.

    From where I'm standing, it seems to be an attempt to do something about the general terribleness that is Detroit right now. Whether it's a good attempt or a bad attempt remains to be seen, of course.

    If you aren't familiar with Detroit's relatively unique history, it's easy to assume that you know what's going on. Unfortunately, if you aren't from the area it's easy to miss the forest for the trees (or the other way around, I guess).

    Pretty much all of the current problems that Detroit has are predicated on racial issues. Detroit spent the first half of the 20th century wealthy and had a large middle class population, what was relatively unique is that the black population was also large and relatively well off. Jobs and money for everyone.

    Racial tension was around for a while, seeing as how the blacks weren't just struggling to get by - you had hard working black families that couldn't move into decent neighborhoods, their kids went to the shit schools, etc. It didn't help that the (mostly / all white) Detroit Police force cracked down hard. Lots of outward discrimination - redlining, the STRESS unit, etc. In 1967, Detroit suffered one of the worst riots in history.

    The white community - pretty much as one - pulled up roots and moved to the suburbs. Unlike the other large cities with a large black population (and similar unrest) like NYC, and LA, geography didn't limit the sprawl and force whites to work with the black community and find some way of dealing with the issues. They just moved to the suburbs and basically walled in the city with freeways, the 8 mile corridor, etc.

    The city itself spent about twenty years completely reeling from huge loss in income - lost business income, lost property tax revenue, etc. The black community suffered for a while at a police force that was explicitly and openly about beating the 'black man' down - read about the STRESS unit - until the white power base had completely diminished. After that, being elected in Detroit was more a factor of how much you said 'fuck you' to the white suburbs - nobody gave a shit about corruption - and the suburbs returned the favor by screwing the city over however they could.

    In the 90's, Detroit elected an actual good mayor - Dennis Archer - who tried to work with the suburbs, and even in the good Clinton years could only do so much. The population dropped so much that they couldn't support the infrastructure that was already in place, and the city was corrupt. City Council was full of people who remembered vividly the issues from the 60's, and the last thing they wanted was scrutiny or losing power.

    After Archer we got Kwame...who is currently in his second or third trial for various corruption. Completely and openly crooked, part of a Detroit political dynasty, etc. Bing is well intentioned, but Kwame really fucked things up. City Council hasn't changed since the White Flight. They are in power entirely on a racial / black power platform, and Detroit has a relatively powerful City Council.

    So that's a cliff note's version of Detroit's racial history. There are a lot of other factors in play...but the above gives you a quick read through.

    Anyway...to go back to the original question, what this particular implementation of the EM law has to do with Racial issues, is again...everything.

    For all intents and purposes, whites abandoned Detroit fifty years ago, and left it to rot. During these fifty years, the suburbs did everything they could to keep it that way. The suburbs did everything they could to keep blacks from the city from getting jobs, going to their schools, using their parks / libraries, etc. Hell, the city of Dearborn was ordered at one point to remove residency restrictions from their public parks, so they closed them all. This has the norm, and some of these nakedly racist actions are still going on (school residency requirements are a big one).

    The people of Detroit are paranoid and protectionist, but for good reason. Their are a few very valuable pieces of properly or parts of the city (Belle Isle, Cobo Hall, etc) have the white communities in the suburbs have been trying to take control of for decades. They have good reason to believe that Snyder is going to sell off anything valuable, cut the pay / benefits / pensions / services that act as a little life support for the city, and they will be left worse off than ever before.

    If the city was mostly white, it wouldn't be happening like this. The state would be extending loans, cutting obligations, etc. There are no GOOD options, but sure as shit this is a pretty shitty one for the people of the city.

    I basically agree with you until the last paragraph. No one is denying that the city is where it's at, in great part, due to racial reasons. That's not a thing anyone is arguing. However, I do feel obligated to point out that you can't honestly claim that an attempted fix is, by virtue of how the problem began, part of that problem.

    In addition, you have not proven that this would happening differently in a white-majority area. Like you said, there are no good options. The situation has deteriorated for a long time. There is no easy fix, and I sincerely doubt that anyone, at this point, is going to start extending loans gain. From my perspective, the only reason you feel this move is racially motivated is because the guy doing it is White and Republican. Given available evidence, I have a very difficult time believing anyone here would evaluate the situation the same way were it a black governor doing this.

  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »

    You don't know anything about the local dynamic or the history between the two parties...but since none of us can PROVE this is racially motivated it must not be because you say so?

    Do you really expect Snyder to have a press conference and tell everyone 'We're doing this because it's the only way the uppity blacks will learn their place'?

    This is just another round of a dynamic that has been going on since my dad was in high school...a dynamic that directly resulted from hundreds of years of racial tension boiling over and burning half a fucking city down.

    But yeah...what do we know? It's not like any of us have grown up in Metro Detroit, watched the news, read the papers, gone to city council meetings in High School, known local politicians who DO openly say what they are doing and why or any of that.

    Nope, none of that matters because Snyder - RICK SNYDER of all people isn't a cardboard cutout white businessman / politician. Yeah, I'll take some of that kool-aid.


    You're making my point for me. Nothing about the actual action points to racism. But because it's a White guy and a Republican, it's racism.

    Ye gods.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Race is more a happy coincidence. And if I had to guess, how it would get overturned in the federal courts.

    What are you even talking about?

    The only way this law gets overturned is if the court gives a crap about the repeal of Snyder's alterations to the emergency management law and him just passing it again anyway.

    Which.

    They won't.

    No, I'm afraid the only solution is to stop electing assholes.


    And all this "death of democracy" shit can take a hike. Emergency Managers have been a thing for years. Whether they're effective or not (and my guess is they are not) is one question, but they're not taking your democracy away unless your state constitution specifically gives municipalities protections against this kind of thing (and my guess is that most don't).

    Yes it is taking your democracy away. Just because the law says that it's okay to do so does not change the fundamental nature of the act.

    Yawning the yawn that couldn't yawn here.

    You can play semantics all you like, but this is not a change in status quo in this country.

    It also have little if anything to do with race.

    The one who is playing semantics is you. When an elected government is replaced by an appointed official, that is an inherently anti-democratic act. Now, it may be necessary, even positive, but it is still an act of removing democracy.

    Whatever dude.

    My point, which is obvious to anyone who isn't a reactionary, is that the legal, codified rights to self government are not interfered with here.

    In America, municipalities are subservient to state governments. Until that changes, emergency manager laws do not take away your access to American democracy.

    And states are subservient to the federal government. How would you feel if the federal government passed a law that allowed for it to replace an elected state government with an appointed official? Would you feel that would preserve democracy.

    Furthermore, it is the local elected officials and bodies that tend to have the most direct and immediate impact on me. I like having a say in how they are comprised, and would see having that say taken away as a silencing of my political voice. And it seems that I'm not the only one, as the people of the state of Michigan repealed the emergency manager law, only to see it reinstated in the dark of the night, in such a way to silence their voices.

    State governments have protections given to them to keep that kind of thing from happening. I am not discounting the importance of local powers or saying I agree with Snyder's actions when I point out that hyperbolic crazy is hyperbolic and crazy.

    But that ignores the question he asked.

    Would you be ok with it if it happened?

    He's not asking a legal question, he's asking a moral one.

    Yes I'm well aware he's making a moral argument. And it is just too fucking bad that gets in the way of the fact that there is no legal reason for this law to be overturned based on race.

    Which is what I was talking about, bullshit meanderings into ancillary discussions not withstanding.

    How is it ancillary? Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's good, hence why people complain about laws and such all the time. Including you.

    The only thing going on here is you keep dodging to avoid answering the actual question posed. I'm assuming because then you'd have to admit that, fuck no, you wouldn't be ok with it.

    Go ahead and find where I said I'm okay with Snyder being a dickhole.

    I'll wait.

    I find it funny you are trying to shift the conversation, while still quoting the entire conversation. It's directly above every one of our new posts.

    You said the "death of democracy" thing was bullshit. Someone replied "How is removing your elected government not someone taking away a part of your democracy?". You said "Well, it's totally legal.". Someone replied "So what, it's still wrong isn't it? Would you be ok if it happened to you or to your state by the feds?".

    Then you dissembled from then till now.

    But please, keep up the snark. It really disguises your attempt to dodge the issue you brought up well. Like, totally.

    Hachface
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »

    You don't know anything about the local dynamic or the history between the two parties...but since none of us can PROVE this is racially motivated it must not be because you say so?

    Do you really expect Snyder to have a press conference and tell everyone 'We're doing this because it's the only way the uppity blacks will learn their place'?

    This is just another round of a dynamic that has been going on since my dad was in high school...a dynamic that directly resulted from hundreds of years of racial tension boiling over and burning half a fucking city down.

    But yeah...what do we know? It's not like any of us have grown up in Metro Detroit, watched the news, read the papers, gone to city council meetings in High School, known local politicians who DO openly say what they are doing and why or any of that.

    Nope, none of that matters because Snyder - RICK SNYDER of all people isn't a cardboard cutout white businessman / politician. Yeah, I'll take some of that kool-aid.


    You're making my point for me. Nothing about the actual action points to racism. But because it's a White guy and a Republican, it's racism.

    Ye gods.
    You'd have more of a point if white Republicans weren't constantly being racist, and if every city taken over by Snyder's cronies didn't have a large black population, if not a plurality/majority. But we've experienced your apologetics before, so whatever.

    shrykeHarry Dresden
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    zagdrob wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Zagdrob, I am not seeing the race factor. This isn't action taken because "we know better than the blacks", it's action taken on a dying city that happens to have a black majority. It seems very odd that you would go to that conclusion based on the demographics, without taking into account the very dire circumstances that are making this whole thing happen. Are state officials simply not allowed to act in states with majority black populations?

    The thing is, I'm totally willing to entertain the prospect that there is a racial element to it. That's not exactly unheard of. However, nothing of what I've heard of this particular situation and the actions Snyder has taken suggest that to me. If there is a racial angle, it's not something you can infer from the available facts.

    EDIT: Heh, misread patriarchal as patriarchy. That would have been a great tangent.

    If I may ask...are you from Metro Detroit or have any connection / knowledge of Detroit beyond the standard Robocop Slum / Lions Suck / American Cars Suck mentality everyone outside the area has about Detroit?

    And this has to do with this.... how? I'm not talking about the entire bloody history of the state. I'm talking about this law as it applies to this current state of crisis in the city Detroit, and asking you to show the racial element. I respect your opinion on Detroit for obvious reasons, but you can't simply go "history, black people, white governor: racism!" Which is what people in this thread are essentially doing.

    Like I said, the history of the city means that a racial element is a possibility. But there is nothing in the actual act that I see as relating to it. I have a very hard time believing that, were the governor black, any of you would have the same reaction. So please, show how this action, seemingly taken in an attempt to turn the crisis around, is racially motivated.

    From where I'm standing, it seems to be an attempt to do something about the general terribleness that is Detroit right now. Whether it's a good attempt or a bad attempt remains to be seen, of course.

    If you aren't familiar with Detroit's relatively unique history, it's easy to assume that you know what's going on. Unfortunately, if you aren't from the area it's easy to miss the forest for the trees (or the other way around, I guess).

    Pretty much all of the current problems that Detroit has are predicated on racial issues. Detroit spent the first half of the 20th century wealthy and had a large middle class population, what was relatively unique is that the black population was also large and relatively well off. Jobs and money for everyone.

    Racial tension was around for a while, seeing as how the blacks weren't just struggling to get by - you had hard working black families that couldn't move into decent neighborhoods, their kids went to the shit schools, etc. It didn't help that the (mostly / all white) Detroit Police force cracked down hard. Lots of outward discrimination - redlining, the STRESS unit, etc. In 1967, Detroit suffered one of the worst riots in history.

    The white community - pretty much as one - pulled up roots and moved to the suburbs. Unlike the other large cities with a large black population (and similar unrest) like NYC, and LA, geography didn't limit the sprawl and force whites to work with the black community and find some way of dealing with the issues. They just moved to the suburbs and basically walled in the city with freeways, the 8 mile corridor, etc.

    The city itself spent about twenty years completely reeling from huge loss in income - lost business income, lost property tax revenue, etc. The black community suffered for a while at a police force that was explicitly and openly about beating the 'black man' down - read about the STRESS unit - until the white power base had completely diminished. After that, being elected in Detroit was more a factor of how much you said 'fuck you' to the white suburbs - nobody gave a shit about corruption - and the suburbs returned the favor by screwing the city over however they could.

    In the 90's, Detroit elected an actual good mayor - Dennis Archer - who tried to work with the suburbs, and even in the good Clinton years could only do so much. The population dropped so much that they couldn't support the infrastructure that was already in place, and the city was corrupt. City Council was full of people who remembered vividly the issues from the 60's, and the last thing they wanted was scrutiny or losing power.

    After Archer we got Kwame...who is currently in his second or third trial for various corruption. Completely and openly crooked, part of a Detroit political dynasty, etc. Bing is well intentioned, but Kwame really fucked things up. City Council hasn't changed since the White Flight. They are in power entirely on a racial / black power platform, and Detroit has a relatively powerful City Council.

    So that's a cliff note's version of Detroit's racial history. There are a lot of other factors in play...but the above gives you a quick read through.

    Anyway...to go back to the original question, what this particular implementation of the EM law has to do with Racial issues, is again...everything.

    For all intents and purposes, whites abandoned Detroit fifty years ago, and left it to rot. During these fifty years, the suburbs did everything they could to keep it that way. The suburbs did everything they could to keep blacks from the city from getting jobs, going to their schools, using their parks / libraries, etc. Hell, the city of Dearborn was ordered at one point to remove residency restrictions from their public parks, so they closed them all. This has the norm, and some of these nakedly racist actions are still going on (school residency requirements are a big one).

    The people of Detroit are paranoid and protectionist, but for good reason. Their are a few very valuable pieces of properly or parts of the city (Belle Isle, Cobo Hall, etc) have the white communities in the suburbs have been trying to take control of for decades. They have good reason to believe that Snyder is going to sell off anything valuable, cut the pay / benefits / pensions / services that act as a little life support for the city, and they will be left worse off than ever before.

    If the city was mostly white, it wouldn't be happening like this. The state would be extending loans, cutting obligations, etc. There are no GOOD options, but sure as shit this is a pretty shitty one for the people of the city.

    I basically agree with you until the last paragraph. No one is denying that the city is where it's at, in great part, due to racial reasons. That's not a thing anyone is arguing. However, I do feel obligated to point out that you can't honestly claim that an attempted fix is, by virtue of how the problem began, part of that problem.

    In addition, you have not proven that this would happening differently in a white-majority area. Like you said, there are no good options. The situation has deteriorated for a long time. There is no easy fix, and I sincerely doubt that anyone, at this point, is going to start extending loans gain. From my perspective, the only reason you feel this move is racially motivated is because the guy doing it is White and Republican. Given available evidence, I have a very difficult time believing anyone here would evaluate the situation the same way were it a black governor doing this.

    You have not proven anyone here would evaluate the situation differently were it a black governor doing this. Given the available evidence, I have a very difficult time believing that this would be happening the same way in a white-majority area.

    The difference, and it's key - is that I have spent my lifetime in this area and following the politics and history of Detroit. I have no reason to believe that your perspective is worthy of any merit over the things I've seen firsthand and throughout my life. So present some evidence as to why I should consider your opinion - in this specific situation - is worthy of any special merit.

    I will say this - 100% and without a doubt - that if any other governor of Michigan had done the same things Snyder has, I would be saying the same things about them. I don't care if they are black, white, Granholm, etc.

    Are you even from Michigan? EDIT - and I don't ask this as a baseless appeal to authority, I ask this because I want to know if you have any special knowledge of Michigan or Detroit politics. If you are going to make the statements you've presented as fact, establish your credentials. You didn't answer my question earlier when I asked.

    zagdrob on
  • JibbaJibba Registered User regular
    The impact of race on the history has nothing to do with whether the current action is racially motivated. The EM is not taking over because the city is full of black people. It is because the city is being crushed by its debt.

    Just because it's not racially motivated doesn't mean race is irrelevant. I agree with the notion that perceptions and outcry would be totally different if Detroit were a broken white city, and there might be more insistence to help.

  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Zagdrob, I am not seeing the race factor. This isn't action taken because "we know better than the blacks", it's action taken on a dying city that happens to have a black majority. It seems very odd that you would go to that conclusion based on the demographics, without taking into account the very dire circumstances that are making this whole thing happen. Are state officials simply not allowed to act in states with majority black populations?

    The thing is, I'm totally willing to entertain the prospect that there is a racial element to it. That's not exactly unheard of. However, nothing of what I've heard of this particular situation and the actions Snyder has taken suggest that to me. If there is a racial angle, it's not something you can infer from the available facts.

    EDIT: Heh, misread patriarchal as patriarchy. That would have been a great tangent.

    If I may ask...are you from Metro Detroit or have any connection / knowledge of Detroit beyond the standard Robocop Slum / Lions Suck / American Cars Suck mentality everyone outside the area has about Detroit?

    And this has to do with this.... how? I'm not talking about the entire bloody history of the state. I'm talking about this law as it applies to this current state of crisis in the city Detroit, and asking you to show the racial element. I respect your opinion on Detroit for obvious reasons, but you can't simply go "history, black people, white governor: racism!" Which is what people in this thread are essentially doing.

    Like I said, the history of the city means that a racial element is a possibility. But there is nothing in the actual act that I see as relating to it. I have a very hard time believing that, were the governor black, any of you would have the same reaction. So please, show how this action, seemingly taken in an attempt to turn the crisis around, is racially motivated.

    From where I'm standing, it seems to be an attempt to do something about the general terribleness that is Detroit right now. Whether it's a good attempt or a bad attempt remains to be seen, of course.

    If you aren't familiar with Detroit's relatively unique history, it's easy to assume that you know what's going on. Unfortunately, if you aren't from the area it's easy to miss the forest for the trees (or the other way around, I guess).

    Pretty much all of the current problems that Detroit has are predicated on racial issues. Detroit spent the first half of the 20th century wealthy and had a large middle class population, what was relatively unique is that the black population was also large and relatively well off. Jobs and money for everyone.

    Racial tension was around for a while, seeing as how the blacks weren't just struggling to get by - you had hard working black families that couldn't move into decent neighborhoods, their kids went to the shit schools, etc. It didn't help that the (mostly / all white) Detroit Police force cracked down hard. Lots of outward discrimination - redlining, the STRESS unit, etc. In 1967, Detroit suffered one of the worst riots in history.

    The white community - pretty much as one - pulled up roots and moved to the suburbs. Unlike the other large cities with a large black population (and similar unrest) like NYC, and LA, geography didn't limit the sprawl and force whites to work with the black community and find some way of dealing with the issues. They just moved to the suburbs and basically walled in the city with freeways, the 8 mile corridor, etc.

    The city itself spent about twenty years completely reeling from huge loss in income - lost business income, lost property tax revenue, etc. The black community suffered for a while at a police force that was explicitly and openly about beating the 'black man' down - read about the STRESS unit - until the white power base had completely diminished. After that, being elected in Detroit was more a factor of how much you said 'fuck you' to the white suburbs - nobody gave a shit about corruption - and the suburbs returned the favor by screwing the city over however they could.

    In the 90's, Detroit elected an actual good mayor - Dennis Archer - who tried to work with the suburbs, and even in the good Clinton years could only do so much. The population dropped so much that they couldn't support the infrastructure that was already in place, and the city was corrupt. City Council was full of people who remembered vividly the issues from the 60's, and the last thing they wanted was scrutiny or losing power.

    After Archer we got Kwame...who is currently in his second or third trial for various corruption. Completely and openly crooked, part of a Detroit political dynasty, etc. Bing is well intentioned, but Kwame really fucked things up. City Council hasn't changed since the White Flight. They are in power entirely on a racial / black power platform, and Detroit has a relatively powerful City Council.

    So that's a cliff note's version of Detroit's racial history. There are a lot of other factors in play...but the above gives you a quick read through.

    Anyway...to go back to the original question, what this particular implementation of the EM law has to do with Racial issues, is again...everything.

    For all intents and purposes, whites abandoned Detroit fifty years ago, and left it to rot. During these fifty years, the suburbs did everything they could to keep it that way. The suburbs did everything they could to keep blacks from the city from getting jobs, going to their schools, using their parks / libraries, etc. Hell, the city of Dearborn was ordered at one point to remove residency restrictions from their public parks, so they closed them all. This has the norm, and some of these nakedly racist actions are still going on (school residency requirements are a big one).

    The people of Detroit are paranoid and protectionist, but for good reason. Their are a few very valuable pieces of properly or parts of the city (Belle Isle, Cobo Hall, etc) have the white communities in the suburbs have been trying to take control of for decades. They have good reason to believe that Snyder is going to sell off anything valuable, cut the pay / benefits / pensions / services that act as a little life support for the city, and they will be left worse off than ever before.

    If the city was mostly white, it wouldn't be happening like this. The state would be extending loans, cutting obligations, etc. There are no GOOD options, but sure as shit this is a pretty shitty one for the people of the city.

    I basically agree with you until the last paragraph. No one is denying that the city is where it's at, in great part, due to racial reasons. That's not a thing anyone is arguing. However, I do feel obligated to point out that you can't honestly claim that an attempted fix is, by virtue of how the problem began, part of that problem.

    In addition, you have not proven that this would happening differently in a white-majority area. Like you said, there are no good options. The situation has deteriorated for a long time. There is no easy fix, and I sincerely doubt that anyone, at this point, is going to start extending loans gain. From my perspective, the only reason you feel this move is racially motivated is because the guy doing it is White and Republican. Given available evidence, I have a very difficult time believing anyone here would evaluate the situation the same way were it a black governor doing this.

    You have not proven anyone here would evaluate the situation differently were it a black governor doing this. Given the available evidence, I have a very difficult time believing that this would be happening the same way in a white-majority area.

    The difference, and it's key - is that I have spent my lifetime in this area and following the politics and history of Detroit. I have no reason to believe that your perspective is worthy of any merit over the things I've seen firsthand and throughout my life. So present some evidence as to why I should consider your opinion - in this specific situation - is worthy of any special merit.

    I will say this - 100% and without a doubt - that if any other governor of Michigan had done the same things Snyder has, I would be saying the same things about them. I don't care if they are black, white, Granholm, etc.

    Are you even from Michigan?

    Of course I'm not from Michigan. And I understand perfectly if you want to stick with your perspective on this, it's certainly an opinion that is backed up by a lot of experience with the topic. I don't think it's an invalid position: merely, it's by no means a definitive one. There is no "A implies R" logic in your perspective. It's more: "A implies B, B implies C, therefore R". There is no factual link between your premises and your conclusion. You can, of course, say the same as mine, but I'm not really taking a stand on anything here. I just get annoyed at faulty logic being used to justify preconceived opinions, in general.

    And to clarify your last paragraph, you would be accusing a black, Democrat governor of racism, were he in this situation? I would probably argue against that too, were the case to arise. All in all, it just seems like a really shitty situation, and it only gets shittier when people attach dubious yet shitty motivations to people who are stuck between making Shitty Decision A or Shitty Decision B.

    Shit.


  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    The only thing going on here is you keep dodging to avoid answering the actual question posed. I'm assuming because then you'd have to admit that, fuck no, you wouldn't be ok with it.

    Being not ok with it does not mean "OH GOD WE'RE LOSING OUR DEMOCRACY" isn't hyperbolic. It also doesn't mean "well what if the federal government took away state's right to their own state-government???" is comparable. One can in fact be opposed to specific instances of state governments fucking with local government while also believing that a state has and should have that right. This might be because I'm not an American though, I am pretty used to having a lot of government not being directly elected. I like democracy, but it's hard for me to argue that I have an inherent absolute right to a specific level of democracy.

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Also, I don't want to sidetrack the discussion...but an important distinction.

    I am not insisting that Snyder is personally a racist. I doubt he stops in Howell on his way back to Ann Arbor and runs around in his white robes, and I would be surprised to find out he even uses racial slurs. I wouldn't be surprised if he was (personally) very racist or even just uncomfortable around black people, but he seems like someone who has enough control and tact to internalize it.

    That said, I still think that the EM law as it's being used in Detroit has racial motivations. Those aren't necessarily the only motivations, but there are certainly motivations that are predicated on personalized or institutional racism.

    SeidkonaSummaryJudgmentenlightenedbum
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »

    You don't know anything about the local dynamic or the history between the two parties...but since none of us can PROVE this is racially motivated it must not be because you say so?

    Do you really expect Snyder to have a press conference and tell everyone 'We're doing this because it's the only way the uppity blacks will learn their place'?

    This is just another round of a dynamic that has been going on since my dad was in high school...a dynamic that directly resulted from hundreds of years of racial tension boiling over and burning half a fucking city down.

    But yeah...what do we know? It's not like any of us have grown up in Metro Detroit, watched the news, read the papers, gone to city council meetings in High School, known local politicians who DO openly say what they are doing and why or any of that.

    Nope, none of that matters because Snyder - RICK SNYDER of all people isn't a cardboard cutout white businessman / politician. Yeah, I'll take some of that kool-aid.


    You're making my point for me. Nothing about the actual action points to racism. But because it's a White guy and a Republican, it's racism.

    Ye gods.
    You'd have more of a point if white Republicans weren't constantly being racist, and if every city taken over by Snyder's cronies didn't have a large black population, if not a plurality/majority. But we've experienced your apologetics before, so whatever.

    Ah, the moment where dissenting opinions become apologetics. Much like the many expected Robocop references, it was only a matter of time.

  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Also, I don't want to sidetrack the discussion...but an important distinction.

    I am not insisting that Snyder is personally a racist. I doubt he stops in Howell on his way back to Ann Arbor and runs around in his white robes, and I would be surprised to find out he even uses racial slurs. I wouldn't be surprised if he was (personally) very racist or even just uncomfortable around black people, but he seems like someone who has enough control and tact to internalize it.

    That said, I still think that the EM law as it's being used in Detroit has racial motivations. Those aren't necessarily the only motivations, but there are certainly motivations that are predicated on personalized or institutional racism.

    I think anything done in Detroit right now is going to have some sort of racial element, simply due to how it is. Any new law passed is going to be built on the foundation of Detroit's history, so obviously there is that. I think we agree there. I just don't think that the law being based on a history of racial problems means the law is racially motivated, more than any other law that could be passed in this situation.

    Unless we're willing to just blanket any new law in Detroit this way, I don't see how we can logically pick this one and put a white hood on it.

Sign In or Register to comment.