Racist infrastructure bill is racist...
- Thread starter The Tradition
- Start date
I'm talking about the issue that's got you in a tizzy and calling it discriminatory. Providing requirements to use minority and female businesses has been around a long time. Why do you think now it will be ruled unconstitutional?
Which again, is why I would want to look for ways to tweak the system to remove this built-in advantages for white people (John Oliver has done several good segments on this), as well as finding ways to provide opportunities to minorities to give them a hand UP, not a hand OUT.
Bro, check yourself. This is hilarious. You are so full of shit, so clearly caught lying. You're also completely off-base — arguing with me as though I'm in complete defense of the bill or the section in question.
Just seems like a whole lot of projection going on.
Like I said, this is fun, albeit in a really perverse sort of way. It's wild to watch you twist in the wind like this. Again. And again.
It's not, it's getting challenged. Ransacking would be a complete overturn. So funny watching you scramble and flail.
Where have I lied? You keep going for these narratives and again are false. When I have been incorrect I have acknowledged it (ie page #s)
Where have I lied? You keep going for these narratives and again are false. When I have been incorrect I have acknowledged it (ie page #s)
Fyi, I had a call start at noon and will.likely not respond much until after 1pm cst.
Trust you to come along and post something incomprehensibly stupid.
Tell you what...if this white minority has all of it's wealth taken and given to the new majority and has all of their rights stripped away for even half a century and then is systematically and legislatively precluded from advancing for another hundred years to the point that their per capita wealth is in the single digits when compared to the majority and FINALLY this "brown" majority realizes the evil that they've committed and seeks to make things right....THEN you can rewrite the bill.
Happy?
And there you have it. whiskey is all about "writing a check" in order to address past injustices. He just doesn't think anyone actually deserves a check. Meanwhile. seeking to address those same wrongs by favoring those groups in regard to public education and loans and govt contracts and allowing them to build the kind of wealth that those SAME POLICIES built in the white community is RACIST AF!!
So...you know...whatcha gonna do?
(Pretty much what this bill kinda tries to accomplish, in various ways, and pretty much what the program referenced within it has been designed to do, in various ways. I bet nobody but me has bothered to look at the program to see what it's about, how well or poorly it may be doing, whether and when and why it was successful, whether and when and why it was unsuccessful, how it may have evolved in its almost 40 years of existence, etc.)
Basically the bill is like this as far as minority stuff:
- make sure minority-owned contractors are given a legit shot at the contracts
- address environmental issues, water/air quality stuff typically much much worse in poor and especially poor minority communities
- make sure to engage minority stakeholders and citizens in decisions where their communities will be affected (oh golly, not that!!)
- equitability in investment in infrastructure — meaning, for example, don't just pour money into more exurban, typically white-flight development, essentially leaving everyone else in the dust
- identify and address barriers that apparently exist for women and minorities in trucking
- promote and inclusive workforce in the effort to develop and build "smart" cities
- (one of my favorites, and not super jargony, so pasted) identification of possible infrastructure investments that create recovery opportunities for small, underserved, minority, and rural businesses in the travel and tourism industry, including efforts to preserve and protect the scenic, but often less-traveled, roads that promote tourism and economic development throughout the United States
I think that's plenty, should give an idea of what's in there that could be defined as being under the "reparations" umbrella. When my peers in policy-making talk about reparations, it's this type of shit that is discussed.
I really wish people would read the GND, and study some of those whose research and study and thought helped guide it. I cannot recommend Naomi Klein enough.
Guess what? I suspect most, damn near all, contracts will go to these same companies. Guess what else? Pretty strong suspicion that the worker demographics of a minority- or woman-owned construction company will be pretty similar to your beautiful anecdotal description, assuming it is accurate.
Or are you under the assumption that a, for example, black-owned construction company has only black workers? Or a woman-owned company has only women out there building shit?
I can tell you exactly what will happen...seen it over and over. Company A has 100 workers doing contract work. Company B - a minority company - comes in and scoops up the next big contract. Company A workers move to company B and continue working. It's not like Company B had a bunch of guys sitting around doing nothing while their boss tried to get a contract.
It's really scary stuff, I tell you. I mean, when you skim all the parts of the bill where minorities and women are mentioned, it really, really, really makes you wonder what is the motivation for a Columbia University PhD to pen an op ed for the NY Post like the one linked by OP. It's so uninformative, if not misinformative, and blatantly so. And she's in some leading Conservative think tanks, too. Huh.
Last edited:
I've also seen companies open under their wife's name to be included under the "minority" banner to get exclusive rights to bid contracts. Like it or not, this is widely commonplace.
Remember that time you tried to paint me as a racist while refrencing a post that was in the context of me saying I believe black people who's family have been wrong done by should receive repercussions for the horrible acts against them? Saying it isnt juat going to be a matter of skin pigment not actual repercussions doesnt make me a racist.
Now, where were we.
What I've witnessed and it's purely anecdotal, is that company A, as the black owned business (usually just 1 or 2 people) will then "sub" it out for a cut, to company B, and business continues as usual.
First...it's "reparations".
And you say this then turn around and say there's no way to know who they are so...punt.
And FTR, I didn't say you were a racist but nice straw man.
So here we are.
What's Ironic about that riley? Do you know what irony is?
Yes. "Repercussions" in this context is hilarious and ironic at the same time. Lol
"Remember that time you tried to paint me as a racist"
"whiskey is all about "writing a check" in order to address past injustices. He just doesn't think anyone actually deserves a check."
^
That's attempting to paint me as a racist, when I clearly say there are people who deserve it. You are kinda dumb bud.
Could be. What I saw...and it's anecdotal...is the maintenance staff at one of the biggest employers in town was wearing one uniform one week and a different uniform the next week. The company that got the contract was much smaller than the one that held it previously and they just moved everybody over in their same positions. Which makes sense. But it was a real, albeit small, company and trying to grow it's footprint. Didn't think anything about it at the time...the guys that worked the docks were still fun to go out drinking with after work.
LOL...no it isn't. It's 100% accurate based on your takes in this very thread. Maybe you're projecting. 🤣😂🤣😂🤣
The infrastructure bill the Senate passed Tuesday discriminates against white people at every turn.
Americans are enthusiastic about spending money on physical infrastructure — bridges, roads, broadband. But this racist bill hands out jobs and contracts and locates projects based on race, not merit. Minority businesses and neighborhoods hold the inside track. If you’re white, you’re low-priority.
The bill includes grants to install solar or wind technologies and generate jobs in areas decimated by closing coal mines or coal-fired electric plants. Here’s the catch: When contractors bid, the bill says minority-owned businesses will get selected first. Bad news for small-time white contractors in depressed areas.
The same is true for the bill’s proposals to improve traffic patterns in cities. Contractors and subcontractors get priority only if they’re owned by minorities or women. White male business owners can take a hike.
Americans should be outraged — but not surprised. After all, President Biden’s American Rescue Plan Act, passed in March, also put into place an ugly system of discrimination against whites. It offered debt relief to black farmers, but not white farmers. Another provision offered billions in aid to minority-owned and women-owned restaurants, but told struggling restaurants owners who happened to be white men that they had to go to the back of the line.
The injustice was obvious. White male farmers and restaurant owners sued, claiming the anti-white provisions are unconstitutional. So far, these challengers are winning. In every case, federal judges have halted the race-based programs in the American Rescue Plan Act until the challengers have their day in court. Politico reported last week that Biden’s Justice Department may fold without a fight on the black-farmer debt relief cases, because the law isn’t on the administration’s side.
You would think Democrats and the Biden White House would get the message. Instead, they’re doubling down on rigging legislation and divvying up taxpayer dollars to benefit minorities and shortchange whites.
Chances are high the infrastructure bill’s hodgepodge of anti-white discrimination will be struck down by federal courts. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution bars government from trying to even the score by discriminating against whites and in favor of minorities. The justices warned against creating “a patchwork of racial preferences based on statistical generalizations” to correct past injustices. That’s precisely what this infrastructure bill does.
The bill’s backers would have you believe that obsolete airports, dilapidated public works and deteriorating roads and public spaces are evidence of racial injustice. Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) rails that “our infrastructure is racist” and calls on the Congress to pass a bill that “puts the needs of underserved and disadvantaged communities at the fore.”
That’s code for minority communities. But the truth is, there are plenty of poor white people in this country, too, and poor, predominantly white communities that could benefit from a bold federal infrastructure initiative. Race and ethnicity should have nothing to do with it. Locate the projects and put the funds where the economic need is greatest, regardless of race.
West Virginia has the lowest average income in the nation and ranks 46th in internet connectivity. Maine ranks 36th out of 50 states for income, and 34th in broadband connectivity. People in these states could really benefit from federal broadband assistance. Here’s the hitch: The infrastructure bill tilts the grant scale in favor of states with high minority and non-English-speaking populations, instead of considering only economic need and existing broadband capacity. Because Maine and West Virginia are 94 percent white, they’ll get less.
Polls show that Americans favor fixing roads, bridges, tunnels and airports. They know that good infrastructure promotes economic growth. But they’ve been kept in the dark about the fine print in the bill. Under the guise of upgrading the nation, the bill unfairly treats whites like second-class citizens.
Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York.
Biden’s infrastructure bill is chock-full of anti-white racism
Americans are enthusiastic about spending money on physical infrastructure — bridges, roads, broadband. But this racist bill hands out jobs and contracts and locates projects based on race, not mer…nypost.com
Yes it is dipshit, move the focus all you want but you were going for a gotcha that doesn't exist. Nice life pisspants.
I guess if there wasn’t preferential treatment of other businesses, they would
I would just like to add that I have a black tenant so no housing discrimination from this guy.
Although I still haven't gotten July's rent yet! lol not kidding
Although I still haven't gotten July's rent yet! lol not kidding
It is. You, trying desperately to position yourself as non-racist, use "repercussions" instead of "reparations". It's hilarious and highly ironic in context.
Carry on with your flailing. Lol
Similar threads
