|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States41980 Posts
On August 10 2017 06:31 Nebuchad wrote:
Luxury of waiting for the perfect candidate, come the fuck on. I can buy that some people are falling for the "purity" talking point but I can't buy that people are falling for that.
Do you think Hillary is worse candidate than LBJ?
|
On August 10 2017 06:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:31 Nebuchad wrote:
Luxury of waiting for the perfect candidate, come the fuck on. I can buy that some people are falling for the "purity" talking point but I can't buy that people are falling for that. Do you think Hillary is worse candidate than LBJ?
Yes
|
On August 10 2017 06:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:31 Plansix wrote:On August 10 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 06:14 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 06:05 KwarK wrote:
Next you'll be disproving global warming with the concept of winter. Is that supposed to be a response to something? Yes. I'll try to explain it more clearly. Imagine I were telling you the climate was getting hotter. "Nonsense!" you cry, "these last three months since October have been getting steadily colder!" My claim would relate to a multidecade trend of warmer weather than comparable periods in previous years, your refutation to one specific season being colder than another. Trump vs Clinton is winter. The fact that even in the dead of winter, with Republicans controlling all three branches of government, the gays are still getting married is global warming. Things have been getting better steadily. The process of voting for the lesser of two evils works. Yeah, no. You're attributing "things getting better" to having no lines a party can cross and lose one's support so long as the other party is worse that are actually due to people refusing to accept either parties solutions until they get a better one or get replaced altogether. You're very fortunate that previous generations of African Americans were willing to sell their votes to candidates worse than the ones you're too proud to vote for to win you the rights you take for granted today. Perhaps they didn't feel like they had the luxury of waiting for their perfect candidate. The slow erosion of civil rights protections and voters rights will prove that right in the long term. I wonder how long it will before the Republicans remove civil rights protection from lending and restrictions on land sales? When will they return the racist’s greatest weapon to them? What slow erosion? Things are steadily moving in the opposite direction. Like GH, you're conflating seasons with climate.
I am agreeing with you, dumb ass. The luxury of waiting does not exist right now and never really did.
User was warned for this post
|
United States41980 Posts
On August 10 2017 06:35 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:35 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:31 Nebuchad wrote:
Luxury of waiting for the perfect candidate, come the fuck on. I can buy that some people are falling for the "purity" talking point but I can't buy that people are falling for that. Do you think Hillary is worse candidate than LBJ? Yes
On race issues?
|
On August 10 2017 06:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:31 Plansix wrote:On August 10 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 06:14 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 06:05 KwarK wrote:
Next you'll be disproving global warming with the concept of winter. Is that supposed to be a response to something? Yes. I'll try to explain it more clearly. Imagine I were telling you the climate was getting hotter. "Nonsense!" you cry, "these last three months since October have been getting steadily colder!" My claim would relate to a multidecade trend of warmer weather than comparable periods in previous years, your refutation to one specific season being colder than another. Trump vs Clinton is winter. The fact that even in the dead of winter, with Republicans controlling all three branches of government, the gays are still getting married is global warming. Things have been getting better steadily. The process of voting for the lesser of two evils works. Yeah, no. You're attributing "things getting better" to having no lines a party can cross and lose one's support so long as the other party is worse that are actually due to people refusing to accept either parties solutions until they get a better one or get replaced altogether. You're very fortunate that previous generations of African Americans were willing to sell their votes to candidates worse than the ones you're too proud to vote for to win you the rights you take for granted today. Perhaps they didn't feel like they had the luxury of waiting for their perfect candidate. The slow erosion of civil rights protections and voters rights will prove that right in the long term. I wonder how long it will before the Republicans remove civil rights protection from lending and restrictions on land sales? When will they return the racist’s greatest weapon to them? What slow erosion? Things are steadily moving in the opposite direction. Like GH, you're conflating seasons with climate.
No, You still didn't understand my point if you think I'm conflating seasons and climate. To a degree P6's point is, but mine was not.
|
On August 10 2017 06:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:31 Nebuchad wrote:
Luxury of waiting for the perfect candidate, come the fuck on. I can buy that some people are falling for the "purity" talking point but I can't buy that people are falling for that. Do you think Hillary is worse candidate than LBJ?
No idea. I wasn't exaggerating about my ignorance of those times.
|
United States41980 Posts
On August 10 2017 06:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:33 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:31 Plansix wrote:On August 10 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 06:14 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 06:05 KwarK wrote:
Next you'll be disproving global warming with the concept of winter. Is that supposed to be a response to something? Yes. I'll try to explain it more clearly. Imagine I were telling you the climate was getting hotter. "Nonsense!" you cry, "these last three months since October have been getting steadily colder!" My claim would relate to a multidecade trend of warmer weather than comparable periods in previous years, your refutation to one specific season being colder than another. Trump vs Clinton is winter. The fact that even in the dead of winter, with Republicans controlling all three branches of government, the gays are still getting married is global warming. Things have been getting better steadily. The process of voting for the lesser of two evils works. Yeah, no. You're attributing "things getting better" to having no lines a party can cross and lose one's support so long as the other party is worse that are actually due to people refusing to accept either parties solutions until they get a better one or get replaced altogether. You're very fortunate that previous generations of African Americans were willing to sell their votes to candidates worse than the ones you're too proud to vote for to win you the rights you take for granted today. Perhaps they didn't feel like they had the luxury of waiting for their perfect candidate. The slow erosion of civil rights protections and voters rights will prove that right in the long term. I wonder how long it will before the Republicans remove civil rights protection from lending and restrictions on land sales? When will they return the racist’s greatest weapon to them? What slow erosion? Things are steadily moving in the opposite direction. Like GH, you're conflating seasons with climate. I am agreeing with you, dumb ass. The luxury of waiting does not exist right now and never really did.
I reread your post and I still don't get how you're not talking about a "slow erosion of civil rights protections and voters rights". If you think you're agreeing with me I have no idea what you think I said.
|
Netroots Nation, the activist left's largest annual gathering, arrives in Atlanta this year with its clearest focus in years: how to resist President Trump.
Former Vice President Gore will speak about the threats to the planet from a president who dismisses climate change as a hoax hatched in Beijing. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) will ring alarm bells about domestic policy. And 14 separate sessions will discuss the best ways to fight the White House and Republican Congress. Jon Ossoff, the Democratic star who narrowly lost Georgia’s special House election in June, will also show.
“The last couple of years, much of the energy nationally was focused on social justice,” said Netroots Nation spokeswoman Mary Rickles. This year, the focus for nearly 3,000 attendees was back on politics: “How do we channel the energy of resistance into helping progressives win elections?”
At more than 80 panels and training sessions, activists will get updates from the “resistance” groups like Indivisible founded after the 2016 election, or those that have multiplied their membership since then, like the American Civil Liberties Union. One panel will go over ways to challenge Trump’s “xenophobic NAFTA narrative,” while another — more relevant given news from North Korea — will brainstorm ways to oppose Trump if a traumatic event causes people to rally around the flag.
[Trump’s threats to North Korea were spontaneous and not drafted by advisers, officials say]
“Hitler used the Reichstag Fire; Putin used the 1999 apartment bombings; and George W. Bush used 9/11,” reads the online description of the panel, which will feature leaders of MoveOn.org and the ACLU. “With Trump, [Stephen K.] Bannon and their allies in Congress, progressives must be prepared to fight back in the first hours and days of a national security crisis.”
The conference, which began in 2006 as a spinoff from the elections-focused Daily Kos blog, transformed in the Obama years into a showcase for labor and civil rights movements. In 2007, it hosted every major Democratic candidate for president for a traditional question-and-answer session, and more than a hundred reporters swarmed the halls to see where the Democratic base was directing its energy.
But as soon as Democrats took power, an invitation to Netroots meant a decent shot of being heckled by activists who demanded results on LGBT rights, on National Security Agency spying, or the failings of the Affordable Care Act. In 2015, when Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) took questions, they were interrupted by Black Lives Matter activists — a scene that led to productive meetings between protesters and candidates, but unfolded awkwardly onstage. In 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign checked off the Netroots box with a three-minute video message.
WaPo
It's good to know ACLU leaders are fine on a panel that compares GWB to Hitler.
|
On August 10 2017 06:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:35 Nevuk wrote:On August 10 2017 06:35 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:31 Nebuchad wrote:
Luxury of waiting for the perfect candidate, come the fuck on. I can buy that some people are falling for the "purity" talking point but I can't buy that people are falling for that. Do you think Hillary is worse candidate than LBJ? Yes On race issues?
Honestly? LBJ was a huge racist, but he was in a somewhat unique position to advance Civil Rights and he did, which he should deserve some credit for.
It's really hard to compare someone from the 1960s to someone from the 2010s with regards to opinions on racial matters.
However, while he may have been a huge racist, he was never associated with anything like the welfare reform of the 90s or ramping up the incarceration rates of blacks the way the Clintons were. Yes, that was Bill and not Hillary but they're something of a package deal. Basically in their personal life they seem less racist, but policy wise Clinton was part of the team that massively hurt the african-american community over the last 30 years.
|
United States41980 Posts
On August 10 2017 06:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +Netroots Nation, the activist left's largest annual gathering, arrives in Atlanta this year with its clearest focus in years: how to resist President Trump.
Former Vice President Gore will speak about the threats to the planet from a president who dismisses climate change as a hoax hatched in Beijing. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) will ring alarm bells about domestic policy. And 14 separate sessions will discuss the best ways to fight the White House and Republican Congress. Jon Ossoff, the Democratic star who narrowly lost Georgia’s special House election in June, will also show.
“The last couple of years, much of the energy nationally was focused on social justice,” said Netroots Nation spokeswoman Mary Rickles. This year, the focus for nearly 3,000 attendees was back on politics: “How do we channel the energy of resistance into helping progressives win elections?”
At more than 80 panels and training sessions, activists will get updates from the “resistance” groups like Indivisible founded after the 2016 election, or those that have multiplied their membership since then, like the American Civil Liberties Union. One panel will go over ways to challenge Trump’s “xenophobic NAFTA narrative,” while another — more relevant given news from North Korea — will brainstorm ways to oppose Trump if a traumatic event causes people to rally around the flag.
[Trump’s threats to North Korea were spontaneous and not drafted by advisers, officials say]
“Hitler used the Reichstag Fire; Putin used the 1999 apartment bombings; and George W. Bush used 9/11,” reads the online description of the panel, which will feature leaders of MoveOn.org and the ACLU. “With Trump, [Stephen K.] Bannon and their allies in Congress, progressives must be prepared to fight back in the first hours and days of a national security crisis.”
The conference, which began in 2006 as a spinoff from the elections-focused Daily Kos blog, transformed in the Obama years into a showcase for labor and civil rights movements. In 2007, it hosted every major Democratic candidate for president for a traditional question-and-answer session, and more than a hundred reporters swarmed the halls to see where the Democratic base was directing its energy.
But as soon as Democrats took power, an invitation to Netroots meant a decent shot of being heckled by activists who demanded results on LGBT rights, on National Security Agency spying, or the failings of the Affordable Care Act. In 2015, when Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) took questions, they were interrupted by Black Lives Matter activists — a scene that led to productive meetings between protesters and candidates, but unfolded awkwardly onstage. In 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign checked off the Netroots box with a three-minute video message. WaPoIt's good to know ACLU leaders are fine on a panel that compares GWB to Hitler.
You're disappointed that the ACLU aren't doing enough to limit discussions you find distasteful? That's an odd thing to be disappointed by. Do you know what they do?
|
On August 10 2017 06:45 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:36 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:35 Nevuk wrote:On August 10 2017 06:35 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:31 Nebuchad wrote:
Luxury of waiting for the perfect candidate, come the fuck on. I can buy that some people are falling for the "purity" talking point but I can't buy that people are falling for that. Do you think Hillary is worse candidate than LBJ? Yes On race issues? Honestly? LBJ was a huge racist, but he was in a somewhat unique position to advance Civil Rights and he did, which he should deserve some credit for. It's really hard to compare someone from the 1960s to someone from the 2010s with regards to opinions on racial matters. However, while he may have been a huge racist, he was never associated with anything like the welfare reform of the 90s or ramping up the incarceration rates of blacks the way the Clintons were. Yes, that was Bill and not Hillary but they're something of a package deal. Basically in their personal life they seem less racist, but policy wise Clinton was part of the team that massively hurt the african-american community over the last 30 years.
I feel like you're leaving out two very important persons in that last paragraph. I'll let someone else inform you.
|
I mean the gambit seems fairly straightforward:
Hillary is like a +2
Trump is somewhere between -5 and nuclear winter
Bernie is a +20
Given a restricted choice between Trump and Hillary, GH voted for Trump or at least abstained, effectively voting for Trump, in hope that the shock of the loss caused Hillary/her successor to shift their position to +15 in the next election.
Personally, I think the risk of Trump plunging the world into nuclear war is at least as high as the odds that the gambit pays off, and therefore it was a bad bet to take, but I can see the logic.
|
On August 10 2017 05:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 05:20 Mohdoo wrote:On August 10 2017 05:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 05:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 10 2017 04:59 Plansix wrote:On August 10 2017 04:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
You seem triggered. Are you triggered? This is some low grade shit posting, even for this thread. Of course it's low grade. GH threw out the democratic party when it wasn't even mentioned. I'll shit post all day when it's called for. Wouldn't you? The party wasn't mentioned, but it's members (or at least it's voters/advocates come election time) were the ones making the argument. There's some people I expect those kind of trash posts from, the people saying it weren't and I thought I was making that clear. Perhaps I could have done that better. But when it's not election season Democrats sound a lot like Mohdoo did. How actually discussing (let alone dealing with) racism is just a big garbagefest and not really worth their time. FWIW: I agree with you on pretty much every detail of what should be done to combat systematic societal racism. Where I disagree with you is what we can reasonably expect to happen and in what timeline. Our discussions fall apart when we talk about what we need to be asking all white people to do, every day. Similar to our Bernie disagreements, it is more of a disagreement as to what we focus on and when in hopes of gathering public support. But I think if I was able to design our planet, I would institute almost every single change you'd suggest, up to and including post-slavery reparations. It is more so just the fact that you crank it up to 100 from the beginning. Just thought I'd comment on the fact that I think our ideal worlds are designed very similarly. We just hugely disagree on the most effective way to reach that goal. If someone was campaigning on post-slavery reparations, I would vote against them because I think they would be more harm than good. If I was supreme leader of the planet, I would immediately institute post-slavery reparations. Under the Mohdoo regime, what would reparations look like?
I could rant for days, but I have stuff I need to do so I will make it quick:
1. Under the Mohdoo regime, no single person would be left with more than 10 million dollars of personal wealth. Everyone with more than that would have it forcibly removed and given to the government in whatever way. This includes property, investments, etc. No one would have a net worth above 10 M.
2. Extreme funding for afterschool programs and anything and everything else that has been shown to be statistically effective at pulling shitty communities out of the gutter. It is no secret that these communities end up being self-sustaining and I think the most important thing would be to transform these communities in whatever way is needed. All of this would be purely additive and would never result in anyone of any non-black color losing out on an opportunity because of affirmative action or what have you. All of this would go on to fund what is necessary for schools/universities/communities to force communities into self-improvement programs. It would likely involve a lot of extremely violent methods of removing gangs from communities too. It would be a grotesque, human rights violating shit show where problematic people/gangs are removed from communities in whatever way is needed. But in the end, these communities would end up being on a proper path with no gang problems, no shortage of access to after school programs, no financial concerns for college, etc. It would essentially be a way for blacks in the US to start with a clean slate.
I don't claim to be an expert on any of the inner-workings of how to empower and improve communities. But the fact is, the initial conditions surrounding black America are undoubtedly responsible for creating a lot of the self-sustaining, repeating shittiness that plagues a lot of colored communities. Undoing these cycles through extreme government intervention would be what I would advocate for. And it would all be funded by what I consider grotesque wealth.
It would be downright totalitarian and a lot of these communities would instantly have the army and whatever else is necessary patrolling streets while all of these plans are rolled out.
|
On August 10 2017 06:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:36 Plansix wrote:On August 10 2017 06:33 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:31 Plansix wrote:On August 10 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 06:14 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 06:05 KwarK wrote:
Next you'll be disproving global warming with the concept of winter. Is that supposed to be a response to something? Yes. I'll try to explain it more clearly. Imagine I were telling you the climate was getting hotter. "Nonsense!" you cry, "these last three months since October have been getting steadily colder!" My claim would relate to a multidecade trend of warmer weather than comparable periods in previous years, your refutation to one specific season being colder than another. Trump vs Clinton is winter. The fact that even in the dead of winter, with Republicans controlling all three branches of government, the gays are still getting married is global warming. Things have been getting better steadily. The process of voting for the lesser of two evils works. Yeah, no. You're attributing "things getting better" to having no lines a party can cross and lose one's support so long as the other party is worse that are actually due to people refusing to accept either parties solutions until they get a better one or get replaced altogether. You're very fortunate that previous generations of African Americans were willing to sell their votes to candidates worse than the ones you're too proud to vote for to win you the rights you take for granted today. Perhaps they didn't feel like they had the luxury of waiting for their perfect candidate. The slow erosion of civil rights protections and voters rights will prove that right in the long term. I wonder how long it will before the Republicans remove civil rights protection from lending and restrictions on land sales? When will they return the racist’s greatest weapon to them? What slow erosion? Things are steadily moving in the opposite direction. Like GH, you're conflating seasons with climate. I am agreeing with you, dumb ass. The luxury of waiting does not exist right now and never really did. I reread your post and I still don't get how you're not talking about a "slow erosion of civil rights protections and voters rights". If you think you're agreeing with me I have no idea what you think I said.
Constantly losing elections for the last 20 so years had lead to a more conservative bench that is willing to gun the voters rights act, rule for businesses to dump unlimited money into elections and currently allowed administrations to roll back many civil rights protections or investigation. 20 years is a slow erosion.
|
United States41980 Posts
On August 10 2017 06:45 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:36 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:35 Nevuk wrote:On August 10 2017 06:35 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:31 Nebuchad wrote:
Luxury of waiting for the perfect candidate, come the fuck on. I can buy that some people are falling for the "purity" talking point but I can't buy that people are falling for that. Do you think Hillary is worse candidate than LBJ? Yes On race issues? Honestly? LBJ was a huge racist, but he was in a somewhat unique position to advance Civil Rights and he did, which he should deserve some credit for. It's really hard to compare someone from the 1960s to someone from the 2010s with regards to opinions on racial matters. However, while he may have been a huge racist, he was never associated with anything like the welfare reform of the 90s or ramping up the incarceration rates of blacks the way the Clintons were. Yes, that was Bill and not Hillary but they're something of a package deal. Basically in their personal life they seem less racist, but policy wise Clinton was part of the team that massively hurt the african-american community over the last 30 years.
The welfare reform of the 90s is welfare that didn't even exist in LBJ's day. You can argue that the Clintons made things worse. That's winter in my metaphor. But what you're missing is that even at its coldest it was still hotter than LBJ's summer.
GH has the option of insisting that it is beneath his dignity to support someone he views as being racist only because his forefathers held their nose and voted anyway. The overall upwards trend doesn't matter to him, he'd rather not participate, and in doing so weaken the engine that drives it upward.
You vote for the better of the two. That puts you in the game as a likely voter. The other party then tries to tempt you. The first party then tries to keep you. The trend is upwards. But if you're too proud to play the game then as far as they're concerned you don't even have a vote. The rights that GH takes for granted today are built on people who came before him playing anyway and voting for the least bad racist.
|
United States41980 Posts
On August 10 2017 06:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:38 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:36 Plansix wrote:On August 10 2017 06:33 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:31 Plansix wrote:On August 10 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 06:14 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 06:05 KwarK wrote:
Next you'll be disproving global warming with the concept of winter. Is that supposed to be a response to something? Yes. I'll try to explain it more clearly. Imagine I were telling you the climate was getting hotter. "Nonsense!" you cry, "these last three months since October have been getting steadily colder!" My claim would relate to a multidecade trend of warmer weather than comparable periods in previous years, your refutation to one specific season being colder than another. Trump vs Clinton is winter. The fact that even in the dead of winter, with Republicans controlling all three branches of government, the gays are still getting married is global warming. Things have been getting better steadily. The process of voting for the lesser of two evils works. Yeah, no. You're attributing "things getting better" to having no lines a party can cross and lose one's support so long as the other party is worse that are actually due to people refusing to accept either parties solutions until they get a better one or get replaced altogether. You're very fortunate that previous generations of African Americans were willing to sell their votes to candidates worse than the ones you're too proud to vote for to win you the rights you take for granted today. Perhaps they didn't feel like they had the luxury of waiting for their perfect candidate. The slow erosion of civil rights protections and voters rights will prove that right in the long term. I wonder how long it will before the Republicans remove civil rights protection from lending and restrictions on land sales? When will they return the racist’s greatest weapon to them? What slow erosion? Things are steadily moving in the opposite direction. Like GH, you're conflating seasons with climate. I am agreeing with you, dumb ass. The luxury of waiting does not exist right now and never really did. I reread your post and I still don't get how you're not talking about a "slow erosion of civil rights protections and voters rights". If you think you're agreeing with me I have no idea what you think I said. Constantly losing elections for the last 20 so years had lead to a more conservative bench that is willing to gun the voters rights act, rule for businesses to dump unlimited money into elections and currently allowed administrations to roll back many civil rights protections or investigation. 20 years is a slow erosion.
My view of the last 20 years is significantly more positive than yours.
|
On August 10 2017 06:51 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 05:41 xDaunt wrote:On August 10 2017 05:20 Mohdoo wrote:On August 10 2017 05:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 05:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 10 2017 04:59 Plansix wrote:On August 10 2017 04:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
You seem triggered. Are you triggered? This is some low grade shit posting, even for this thread. Of course it's low grade. GH threw out the democratic party when it wasn't even mentioned. I'll shit post all day when it's called for. Wouldn't you? The party wasn't mentioned, but it's members (or at least it's voters/advocates come election time) were the ones making the argument. There's some people I expect those kind of trash posts from, the people saying it weren't and I thought I was making that clear. Perhaps I could have done that better. But when it's not election season Democrats sound a lot like Mohdoo did. How actually discussing (let alone dealing with) racism is just a big garbagefest and not really worth their time. FWIW: I agree with you on pretty much every detail of what should be done to combat systematic societal racism. Where I disagree with you is what we can reasonably expect to happen and in what timeline. Our discussions fall apart when we talk about what we need to be asking all white people to do, every day. Similar to our Bernie disagreements, it is more of a disagreement as to what we focus on and when in hopes of gathering public support. But I think if I was able to design our planet, I would institute almost every single change you'd suggest, up to and including post-slavery reparations. It is more so just the fact that you crank it up to 100 from the beginning. Just thought I'd comment on the fact that I think our ideal worlds are designed very similarly. We just hugely disagree on the most effective way to reach that goal. If someone was campaigning on post-slavery reparations, I would vote against them because I think they would be more harm than good. If I was supreme leader of the planet, I would immediately institute post-slavery reparations. Under the Mohdoo regime, what would reparations look like? I could rant for days, but I have stuff I need to do so I will make it quick: 1. Under the Mohdoo regime, no single person would be left with more than 10 million dollars of personal wealth. Everyone with more than that would have it forcibly removed and given to the government in whatever way. This includes property, investments, etc. No one would have a net worth above 10 M. 2. Extreme funding for afterschool programs and anything and everything else that has been shown to be statistically effective at pulling shitty communities out of the gutter. It is no secret that these communities end up being self-sustaining and I think the most important thing would be to transform these communities in whatever way is needed. All of this would be purely additive and would never result in anyone of any non-black color losing out on an opportunity because of affirmative action or what have you. All of this would go on to fund what is necessary for schools/universities/communities to force communities into self-improvement programs. It would likely involve a lot of extremely violent methods of removing gangs from communities too. It would be a grotesque, human rights violating shit show where problematic people/gangs are removed from communities in whatever way is needed. But in the end, these communities would end up being on a proper path with no gang problems, no shortage of access to after school programs, no financial concerns for college, etc. It would essentially be a way for blacks in the US to start with a clean slate. I don't claim to be an expert on any of the inner-workings of how to empower and improve communities. But the fact is, the initial conditions surrounding black America are undoubtedly responsible for creating a lot of the self-sustaining, repeating shittiness that plagues a lot of colored communities. Undoing these cycles through extreme government intervention would be what I would advocate for. And it would all be funded by what I consider grotesque wealth. It would be downright totalitarian and a lot of these communities would instantly have the army and whatever else is necessary patrolling streets while all of these plans are rolled out.
I'd vote for you. This post is gold.
|
On August 10 2017 06:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:52 Plansix wrote:On August 10 2017 06:38 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:36 Plansix wrote:On August 10 2017 06:33 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:31 Plansix wrote:On August 10 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 06:14 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Is that supposed to be a response to something? Yes. I'll try to explain it more clearly. Imagine I were telling you the climate was getting hotter. "Nonsense!" you cry, "these last three months since October have been getting steadily colder!" My claim would relate to a multidecade trend of warmer weather than comparable periods in previous years, your refutation to one specific season being colder than another. Trump vs Clinton is winter. The fact that even in the dead of winter, with Republicans controlling all three branches of government, the gays are still getting married is global warming. Things have been getting better steadily. The process of voting for the lesser of two evils works. Yeah, no. You're attributing "things getting better" to having no lines a party can cross and lose one's support so long as the other party is worse that are actually due to people refusing to accept either parties solutions until they get a better one or get replaced altogether. You're very fortunate that previous generations of African Americans were willing to sell their votes to candidates worse than the ones you're too proud to vote for to win you the rights you take for granted today. Perhaps they didn't feel like they had the luxury of waiting for their perfect candidate. The slow erosion of civil rights protections and voters rights will prove that right in the long term. I wonder how long it will before the Republicans remove civil rights protection from lending and restrictions on land sales? When will they return the racist’s greatest weapon to them? What slow erosion? Things are steadily moving in the opposite direction. Like GH, you're conflating seasons with climate. I am agreeing with you, dumb ass. The luxury of waiting does not exist right now and never really did. I reread your post and I still don't get how you're not talking about a "slow erosion of civil rights protections and voters rights". If you think you're agreeing with me I have no idea what you think I said. Constantly losing elections for the last 20 so years had lead to a more conservative bench that is willing to gun the voters rights act, rule for businesses to dump unlimited money into elections and currently allowed administrations to roll back many civil rights protections or investigation. 20 years is a slow erosion. My view of the last 20 years is significantly more positive than yours.
My view it that is has been sort of a mixed bag. Gay marriage awesome, but that economic depression in the middle of the country coupled with endless deregulation is going to bite us in the ass for the next 20 years.
|
On August 10 2017 06:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:45 Nevuk wrote:On August 10 2017 06:36 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:35 Nevuk wrote:On August 10 2017 06:35 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:31 Nebuchad wrote:
Luxury of waiting for the perfect candidate, come the fuck on. I can buy that some people are falling for the "purity" talking point but I can't buy that people are falling for that. Do you think Hillary is worse candidate than LBJ? Yes On race issues? Honestly? LBJ was a huge racist, but he was in a somewhat unique position to advance Civil Rights and he did, which he should deserve some credit for. It's really hard to compare someone from the 1960s to someone from the 2010s with regards to opinions on racial matters. However, while he may have been a huge racist, he was never associated with anything like the welfare reform of the 90s or ramping up the incarceration rates of blacks the way the Clintons were. Yes, that was Bill and not Hillary but they're something of a package deal. Basically in their personal life they seem less racist, but policy wise Clinton was part of the team that massively hurt the african-american community over the last 30 years. The welfare reform of the 90s is welfare that didn't even exist in LBJ's day. You can argue that the Clintons made things worse. That's winter in my metaphor. But what you're missing is that even at its coldest it was still hotter than LBJ's summer. GH has the option of insisting that it is beneath his dignity to support someone he views as being racist only because his forefathers held their nose and voted anyway. The overall upwards trend doesn't matter to him, he'd rather not participate, and in doing so weaken the engine that drives it upward. You vote for the better of the two. That puts you in the game as a likely voter. The other party then tries to tempt you. The first party then tries to keep you. The trend is upwards. But if you're too proud to play the game then as far as they're concerned you don't even have a vote. The rights that GH takes for granted today are built on people who came before him playing anyway.
You see, Kwark insists on attributing social change and massive pressure from huge movements threatening to flip the table to the people who voted for the people who came up with plans to placate them. It's just not how it works. It only "gets better" because people refuse to support the crap. Sometimes that manifests as apathy, sometimes third party, sometimes riot, revolution and the destruction of a party.
Kwark knows better, and knows that my vote for third party is no less pointless (there's no way to argue it is) than one for Hillary, given my position. In fact, folks would argue there were even fewer of people like me if I had voted for Hillary because there would be no evidence we exist in their eyes. When Hillary got less votes than Obama did despite more votes being cast it said something that's not said if people in similar situations as myself had just voted for her and she got more votes and lost anyway. This couldn't be more evident than by the constant refrain about the popular vote count.
I don't mind most of it but this "you should appreciate the people who voted for racists" line is unusually absurd and distasteful though.
|
This is the reporter who broke the news about Bolling sending dick pics. Bolling is being represented by Marc Kasowitz in the matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
