(January 16, 2017 at 12:27 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: A POTUS could send (or at least not stand in the way of) a top administration official, thoroughly vetted and committed to his viewpoint, to the nation's second largest city as mayor to turn around public housing, public schools, and the police department.

(January 16, 2017 at 12:39 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(January 16, 2017 at 12:27 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: A POTUS could send (or at least not stand in the way of) a top administration official, thoroughly vetted and committed to his viewpoint, to the nation's second largest city as mayor to turn around public housing, public schools, and the police department.

But instead, Trump sends... Steve Harvey?

(January 16, 2017 at 12:27 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: A POTUS could send (or at least not stand in the way of) a top administration official, thoroughly vetted and committed to his viewpoint, to the nation's second largest city as mayor to turn around public housing, public schools, and the police department.

(January 16, 2017 at 2:56 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: I thought I was making a pretty potent (and obvious) jab at Rahm Emanuel.  


Disconcerting it didn't register . . . . .

(January 15, 2017 at 7:10 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(January 15, 2017 at 11:21 pm)Cato Wrote: Will someone please explain what the POTUS is supposed to do about inner city housing? It quite simply isn't in the job description.

Trump and Harvey just wan't a show of concern for what amounts to nothing more than a photo op. Harvey loves the pretend influence and Trump wants Harvey's audience to be sympathetic. All bullshit.

(January 15, 2017 at 7:29 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 15, 2017 at 7:16 pm)Lek Wrote: Does this show that he doesn't want to help people in the inner cities?

Don't care, if he thinks he is trying or you think he is trying, not the fucking point. Hitching himself to Trump and the GOP is NOT the way to do it, it isn't even the way poor rural whites should go either. THAT is what I mean.

You as well as Harvey think corporate Charity and religious charity are good. NO, not the way we are applying it right now no. Corporate charity and religious charity do not have the goal of reducing the need, they are businesses that actually create more dependency. CHARITY IS GREAT but not when it creates dependency when it is only use ad PR to avoid taxes. Ethical charity seeks to go out of business. Just like an ethical doctor doesn't want to make a living pulling bullets out of the bodies Pulse or Newtown's victims. Just like an ethical cop would rather not show up to a rural  West Virginia opiate house  or pull a dead white women out of a trailer because her Tea Party husband got drunk and beat the shit out of her.

The age of Reagan's deregulation exploded the pay gap, and has eroded the ability of both blacks and whites to make ends meet. The best charity is for better wages for all, urban suburban and rural that keep up with the cost of living. Corporate Charity and religious charity are really nothing more than PR and while they do help some it is nowhere as beneficial as putting money directly into the pockets of workers combined with universal health care.

---

Lek, if you want to understand where I am coming from read the following books.

"God Is Not Great, how religion poisons everything"

And while I myself have not read it yet, have seen clips of Hitchens talk about Mother Teresa

"Missionary Position".

Mother Teresa actually did not cure India's caste system, but ended up solidifying it. She was a PR artist and only really made a business out of being a billboard for the Church.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65JxnUW7Wk4