|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Bisutopia19371 Posts
On February 02 2021 21:34 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2021 19:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2021 17:34 Severedevil wrote:
Popular positions have support from the middle. That's what 'middle' means. The middle supports stimulus checks, a $15 minimum wage, legal marijuana, and plenty of other measures. Opposition to those measures isn't centrist -- it's firmly right-wing. Those positions align far more nicely with Democrats than Republicans though, as opposed to those positions being some sort of compromise / middle ground between two parties significantly distanced from those positions. That "middle" is the mainstream Democratic party. Which fits pretty well to my view of the US political system. The US has one party which is in the middle, and one party of hardcore rightwing crazypeople. The problem is that said crazypeople are also really good at playing the broken US system to get power, and somehow relevant parts of the population simply do not recognize them for what they are, and believe that you can be a "centrist" or anything along those lines and still vote republican. A conservative should vote for the right wing of the democratic party. Republicans are not for them.
I agree with that last sentence. But the very loud far-left side of the party is constantly berating anyone in their party for not being aggressive enough or not pass things big enough. I am basically what the liberal used to be 30 years ago, but today that party gone and overshadowed by ideas that I am vehemently against. People like the Squad, Bernie Sanders, and Andrew Yang have become too much the face of your party thanks to media and social media. AOC is practically a social media influencer. She reminds me of the influencer models who promoted the "Fyre Festival", but once you get to this amazing place that she describes, everyone will be all on the same island with the same sad ending.
I am registered R here in Florida because it makes the most sense for this state. First off, we get a fair amount of decent Republicans at the state level and secondly, it's more important that I can vote in the primary to get R candidate I want. But at heart I'm closer to a libertarian, which is a social liberal and fiscal conservative.
|
On February 02 2021 21:54 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2021 21:34 Simberto wrote:On February 02 2021 19:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2021 17:34 Severedevil wrote:
Popular positions have support from the middle. That's what 'middle' means. The middle supports stimulus checks, a $15 minimum wage, legal marijuana, and plenty of other measures. Opposition to those measures isn't centrist -- it's firmly right-wing. Those positions align far more nicely with Democrats than Republicans though, as opposed to those positions being some sort of compromise / middle ground between two parties significantly distanced from those positions. That "middle" is the mainstream Democratic party. Which fits pretty well to my view of the US political system. The US has one party which is in the middle, and one party of hardcore rightwing crazypeople. The problem is that said crazypeople are also really good at playing the broken US system to get power, and somehow relevant parts of the population simply do not recognize them for what they are, and believe that you can be a "centrist" or anything along those lines and still vote republican. A conservative should vote for the right wing of the democratic party. Republicans are not for them. I agree with that last sentence. But the very loud far-left side of the party is constantly berating anyone in their party for not being aggressive enough or not pass things big enough. I am basically what the liberal used to be 30 years ago, but today that party gone and overshadowed by ideas that I am vehemently against. People like the Squad, Bernie Sanders, and Andrew Yang have become too much the face of your party thanks to media and social media. AOC is practically a social media influencer. She reminds me of the influencer models who promoted the "Fyre Festival", but once you get to this amazing place that she describes, everyone will be all on the same island with the same sad ending. I am registered R here in Florida because it makes the most sense for this state. First off, we get a fair amount of decent Republicans at the state level and secondly, it's more important that I can vote in the primary to get R candidate I want. But at heart I'm closer to a libertarian, which is a social liberal and fiscal conservative. Politicians becoming media influencers is a natural result of elections being a media circus.
Its not a coincidence that the US elects movie stars as governors and president. Elections are barely about policy, they are popularity contests.
|
Bisutopia19371 Posts
On February 02 2021 22:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2021 21:54 BisuDagger wrote:On February 02 2021 21:34 Simberto wrote:On February 02 2021 19:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2021 17:34 Severedevil wrote:
Popular positions have support from the middle. That's what 'middle' means. The middle supports stimulus checks, a $15 minimum wage, legal marijuana, and plenty of other measures. Opposition to those measures isn't centrist -- it's firmly right-wing. Those positions align far more nicely with Democrats than Republicans though, as opposed to those positions being some sort of compromise / middle ground between two parties significantly distanced from those positions. That "middle" is the mainstream Democratic party. Which fits pretty well to my view of the US political system. The US has one party which is in the middle, and one party of hardcore rightwing crazypeople. The problem is that said crazypeople are also really good at playing the broken US system to get power, and somehow relevant parts of the population simply do not recognize them for what they are, and believe that you can be a "centrist" or anything along those lines and still vote republican. A conservative should vote for the right wing of the democratic party. Republicans are not for them. I agree with that last sentence. But the very loud far-left side of the party is constantly berating anyone in their party for not being aggressive enough or not pass things big enough. I am basically what the liberal used to be 30 years ago, but today that party gone and overshadowed by ideas that I am vehemently against. People like the Squad, Bernie Sanders, and Andrew Yang have become too much the face of your party thanks to media and social media. AOC is practically a social media influencer. She reminds me of the influencer models who promoted the "Fyre Festival", but once you get to this amazing place that she describes, everyone will be all on the same island with the same sad ending. I am registered R here in Florida because it makes the most sense for this state. First off, we get a fair amount of decent Republicans at the state level and secondly, it's more important that I can vote in the primary to get R candidate I want. But at heart I'm closer to a libertarian, which is a social liberal and fiscal conservative. Politicians becoming media influencers is a natural result of elections being a media circus. Its not a coincidence that the US elects movie stars as governors and president. Elections are barely about policy, they are popularity contests.
Yup, I couldn't believe when Trump or Arnold won party nomination lol. I'd make a strong argument for Reagan though. I've listened to dozens of his radio broadcasts (the podcasts of back then), where he was really well informed and made sound arguments over the topics he discussed. He really did the research and it was fascinating to listen to regardless of whether I agreed with him or not.
|
On February 02 2021 21:34 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2021 19:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2021 17:34 Severedevil wrote:
Popular positions have support from the middle. That's what 'middle' means. The middle supports stimulus checks, a $15 minimum wage, legal marijuana, and plenty of other measures. Opposition to those measures isn't centrist -- it's firmly right-wing. Those positions align far more nicely with Democrats than Republicans though, as opposed to those positions being some sort of compromise / middle ground between two parties significantly distanced from those positions. That "middle" is the mainstream Democratic party. Which fits pretty well to my view of the US political system. The US has one party which is in the middle, and one party of hardcore rightwing crazypeople. The problem is that said crazypeople are also really good at playing the broken US system to get power, and somehow relevant parts of the population simply do not recognize them for what they are, and believe that you can be a "centrist" or anything along those lines and still vote republican. A conservative should vote for the right wing of the democratic party. Republicans are not for them.
From a European perspective I agree, but have to say that that's mainly the case because European politics moved a lot to the left, mainly because in a lot of countries the conservatives tried to moderately implement middle-left policies to catch the more progressive parts of the centrist voters.
In the USA that progress just never happened because the constitution and system have so many fundamental issues that people are too preoccupied arguing how to fix these to fix the less immediately obvious ones like income distribution.
Western constitutions barring the USA's are influenced by the end of the French revolution, the July revolution, often the spring of nations and at times the counter-policies from the monarchies in the 19th century. Hell many of the larger constitutions factor in elements from the 1930s where many societies were split by communism on one and fascism on the other end. The USA learned from the Magna Carta and their civil war over what most western nations didn't tolerate since the end of Antiquity and since then the conservative and progressive movements have mostly reverted each other's policies. The whole argumentation about universal health care f.e. is one we had in Germany over a hundred years ago when the conservative monarchy implemented it to weaken the left political movements.
|
On February 02 2021 12:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2021 09:56 BisuDagger wrote:On February 02 2021 03:28 Mohdoo wrote:On February 02 2021 03:03 farvacola wrote:
Biden's FB just posted a demand that Congress pass his stimulus package as proposed, so I think he's sticking to his guns. I really hope so because I truly think its what voters want. They want vision and determination, just like the current republican party. Show people you know you're the boss right now and show them what you can do. You won the election, go start changing shit. Fundamentally, it is very important to recognize that our country has ****PERMANENTLY**** moved past the days of the middle determining things. We are NOT a united people, we do NOT agree on the future of the country and we will NOT be reaching bipartisan conclusions. Use these next 2 years to show what another 6 would look like. If you are elected the leader, maybe actually fucking lead and have some nuts. You say that, and preach that to your friends and family and children. That’s why there is no middle. I am conservative/libertarian, I am still willing to meet in the middle, and I still love all of you for your views on the left. I don’t have belief that we are permanently passed that stage, and I hope the millions like me will stop being disenfranchised by our party so we can work with yours. And I believe that there are those on the left who remain moderate and believe in the same things I do. I hope to help rebuild this nation by starting with my children and raising them to be party tolerant and appreciate all views of the world to the fullest. I just wanted to share this positivity with you as someone who truly believes in what I say and feel. I could meet in the middle with Romney. But Trump has 82% approval in the republican most recently (https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx). They are victims of fascism and the sad part is that they are literally unable to see it, because that's what fascism does. All the people on this forum who defended Trump were once people who saw him as miles beneath the office. The reason fascism is so dangerous is that it truly warps the minds of people who give in to it. You end up with broken people after its all said and done. I think you gotta try to appreciate what it means for 82% of a major party thinking Trump is totally fine because Democrats are the other option. The party of Romney is dead. I still think Romney is a shit bag for many reasons, but he is an actual person who seems to think government has non-zero value. But the conservative party you want to have doesn't exist.
The GOP was never the "Party of Romney" any more than the Democratic Party was the "Party of Kerry," they may both be veteran politicians with some significant parts in their careers but the only sense of party leadership was them losing to an incumbent president one time. It is if I may say a bit telling that your ideal Republican is just a guy whose role is to lose gracefully that you still get to call a shitbag and would never vote for and don't agree with but can meet halfway on. There's not much reason for the GOP to pay any thought to criticisms like these. Why bother shifting to appease people who will just keep on merrily never voting for them? The media and establishment have shrewdly harnessed this anti-Trump groupthink to usher in probably 10 years of a lack of criticality about the Democratic establishment (I'm thinking 2015~2025) and I hope we can see that for what it is.
|
|
|
On February 02 2021 23:11 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2021 12:24 Mohdoo wrote:On February 02 2021 09:56 BisuDagger wrote:On February 02 2021 03:28 Mohdoo wrote:On February 02 2021 03:03 farvacola wrote:
Biden's FB just posted a demand that Congress pass his stimulus package as proposed, so I think he's sticking to his guns. I really hope so because I truly think its what voters want. They want vision and determination, just like the current republican party. Show people you know you're the boss right now and show them what you can do. You won the election, go start changing shit. Fundamentally, it is very important to recognize that our country has ****PERMANENTLY**** moved past the days of the middle determining things. We are NOT a united people, we do NOT agree on the future of the country and we will NOT be reaching bipartisan conclusions. Use these next 2 years to show what another 6 would look like. If you are elected the leader, maybe actually fucking lead and have some nuts. You say that, and preach that to your friends and family and children. That’s why there is no middle. I am conservative/libertarian, I am still willing to meet in the middle, and I still love all of you for your views on the left. I don’t have belief that we are permanently passed that stage, and I hope the millions like me will stop being disenfranchised by our party so we can work with yours. And I believe that there are those on the left who remain moderate and believe in the same things I do. I hope to help rebuild this nation by starting with my children and raising them to be party tolerant and appreciate all views of the world to the fullest. I just wanted to share this positivity with you as someone who truly believes in what I say and feel. I could meet in the middle with Romney. But Trump has 82% approval in the republican most recently (https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx). They are victims of fascism and the sad part is that they are literally unable to see it, because that's what fascism does. All the people on this forum who defended Trump were once people who saw him as miles beneath the office. The reason fascism is so dangerous is that it truly warps the minds of people who give in to it. You end up with broken people after its all said and done. I think you gotta try to appreciate what it means for 82% of a major party thinking Trump is totally fine because Democrats are the other option. The party of Romney is dead. I still think Romney is a shit bag for many reasons, but he is an actual person who seems to think government has non-zero value. But the conservative party you want to have doesn't exist. The GOP was never the "Party of Romney" any more than the Democratic Party was the "Party of Kerry," they may both be veteran politicians with some significant parts in their careers but the only sense of party leadership was them losing to an incumbent president one time. It is if I may say a bit telling that your ideal Republican is just a guy whose role is to lose gracefully that you still get to call a shitbag and would never vote for and don't agree with but can meet halfway on. There's not much reason for the GOP to pay any thought to criticisms like these. Why bother shifting to appease people who will just keep on merrily never voting for them? The media and establishment have shrewdly harnessed this anti-Trump groupthink to usher in probably 10 years of a lack of criticality about the Democratic establishment (I'm thinking 2015~2025) and I hope we can see that for what it is. What is the GOP to you? What is your ideal Republican party?
|
|
|
On February 02 2021 22:30 Archeon wrote:
The USA learned from the Magna Carta and their civil war over what most western nations didn't tolerate since the end of Antiquity
Woa there, let's not forget that all great western colonial powers, English, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch, had slavery in their colonial posessions and all profited from the slave trade. To imply that slavery was a US thing not tolerated in most western nations since antiquity is profoundly misleading.
|
On February 02 2021 21:54 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2021 21:34 Simberto wrote:On February 02 2021 19:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2021 17:34 Severedevil wrote:
Popular positions have support from the middle. That's what 'middle' means. The middle supports stimulus checks, a $15 minimum wage, legal marijuana, and plenty of other measures. Opposition to those measures isn't centrist -- it's firmly right-wing. Those positions align far more nicely with Democrats than Republicans though, as opposed to those positions being some sort of compromise / middle ground between two parties significantly distanced from those positions. That "middle" is the mainstream Democratic party. Which fits pretty well to my view of the US political system. The US has one party which is in the middle, and one party of hardcore rightwing crazypeople. The problem is that said crazypeople are also really good at playing the broken US system to get power, and somehow relevant parts of the population simply do not recognize them for what they are, and believe that you can be a "centrist" or anything along those lines and still vote republican. A conservative should vote for the right wing of the democratic party. Republicans are not for them. I agree with that last sentence. But the very loud far-left side of the party is constantly berating anyone in their party for not being aggressive enough or not pass things big enough. I am basically what the liberal used to be 30 years ago, but today that party gone and overshadowed by ideas that I am vehemently against. People like the Squad, Bernie Sanders, and Andrew Yang have become too much the face of your party thanks to media and social media. AOC is practically a social media influencer. She reminds me of the influencer models who promoted the "Fyre Festival", but once you get to this amazing place that she describes, everyone will be all on the same island with the same sad ending. I am registered R here in Florida because it makes the most sense for this state. First off, we get a fair amount of decent Republicans at the state level and secondly, it's more important that I can vote in the primary to get R candidate I want. But at heart I'm closer to a libertarian, which is a social liberal and fiscal conservative.
Shouldn't the past record of the democratic party be evidence enough that the "far-left side" taking over the country is nothing but fearmongering by the fascists?
AOC is using social media to excert influence. You are correct in that. That she's an influencer seems to be a severe mischaracterisation to me. From what I gather, she's a politician that wants to change society and not make money through being a media star.
Very, very different from the festival fiasco you cite.
|
On February 03 2021 01:09 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2021 22:30 Archeon wrote:
The USA learned from the Magna Carta and their civil war over what most western nations didn't tolerate since the end of Antiquity Woa there, let's not forget that all great western colonial powers, English, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch, had slavery in their colonial posessions and all profited from the slave trade. To imply that slavery was a US thing not tolerated in most western nations since antiquity is profoundly misleading.
Slavery was very common in most of the world for most of the history, its not only Western Europe thing. People tend to forget that Turks, Arabs, Berbers, most African, American and Asian tribes and/or states permited or participated in slavery. Eastern-European states didnt had slavery per-se, but they had serfdom which was better but not much.
|
Sometimes the numbers are simply not comparable so people tend not to include the lower numbers in the list without implying they did not exist.
|
Biden's staffers seem an awful lot like the exact same people that were around under Obama. Looking a lot like the Star Wars Episode 7 of presidencies based on the first 13 days, which I guess is good enough for a lot of people around here.
|
On February 01 2021 22:18 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2021 22:12 RvB wrote:On February 01 2021 18:29 Zambrah wrote:On February 01 2021 18:02 RvB wrote:On February 01 2021 15:39 Zambrah wrote:
600bn, that is quite the funny joke, I hope that Democrats dont downsize because of this. This might be the pivotal moment where we see a hard decision made to either be conciliatory and ineffectual or take a more adversarial hardball approach and maybe keep Congress in 2022.
Also how are these checks too large? Pandemics nearly a year in and people have gotten like 1800 dollars, thats almost nothing to live on. It's too large for people who don't need it and too little for people who do. It's why it's ineffective. Better to use the money for targeted relief to those who are in need. Thats great in theory, however the US' version of targeted aid is often more expensive and less helpful to the people it's meant to be aiding. Something like 2K monthly checks to people making less than 50K a year would be great, as an example, but when you start going into the specifics of how to target aid you're only going to exclude people in need and spend so much managing it that it creates pointless waste alongside preventing the needy from receiving aid. Its a once in a lifetime pandemic, if a few people get more than they need in order to make sure that the people who need it do receive aid so what? Its better to give everyone a little more than have people fall through the cracks. It's not a few people getting more than they need it's a lot of them. And then you're not even helping the ones who actually need the help. There are many ways to help the poor by using systems already in place. You can expand the eligibility criteria for unemployment benefits, increase foot stamps, expand the earned income tax credit, expand child tax credit, increase rent and housing assistance and I'm sure there are more. All targeted measures which don't require much more bureaucracy than already in existence. Wait, you think expanding eligibility for programs that are usually state-administered, chronically starved for basic funding, and already barely keeping up (or failing to) with pandemic increases in volume is an efficient solution? Out of curiosity, have you actually looked into any of those things you list? The only two you mention that fall squarely within federal control are the tax credits, neither of which are nearly regular enough to serve as a consistent poverty mediator. The rest are joint or solely state administered, and if you're surprised to hear that the poorest states are also the states that have done some of the worst jobs managing a functioning welfare program, you shouldn't be opining on this whatsoever.
More effective at getting money to people in need yes. They're all measures from prominent economic think tanks and economists. But I don't feel like you want to talk in good faith so I'll drop it.
|
On February 03 2021 03:54 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2021 22:18 farvacola wrote:On February 01 2021 22:12 RvB wrote:On February 01 2021 18:29 Zambrah wrote:On February 01 2021 18:02 RvB wrote:On February 01 2021 15:39 Zambrah wrote:
600bn, that is quite the funny joke, I hope that Democrats dont downsize because of this. This might be the pivotal moment where we see a hard decision made to either be conciliatory and ineffectual or take a more adversarial hardball approach and maybe keep Congress in 2022.
Also how are these checks too large? Pandemics nearly a year in and people have gotten like 1800 dollars, thats almost nothing to live on. It's too large for people who don't need it and too little for people who do. It's why it's ineffective. Better to use the money for targeted relief to those who are in need. Thats great in theory, however the US' version of targeted aid is often more expensive and less helpful to the people it's meant to be aiding. Something like 2K monthly checks to people making less than 50K a year would be great, as an example, but when you start going into the specifics of how to target aid you're only going to exclude people in need and spend so much managing it that it creates pointless waste alongside preventing the needy from receiving aid. Its a once in a lifetime pandemic, if a few people get more than they need in order to make sure that the people who need it do receive aid so what? Its better to give everyone a little more than have people fall through the cracks. It's not a few people getting more than they need it's a lot of them. And then you're not even helping the ones who actually need the help. There are many ways to help the poor by using systems already in place. You can expand the eligibility criteria for unemployment benefits, increase foot stamps, expand the earned income tax credit, expand child tax credit, increase rent and housing assistance and I'm sure there are more. All targeted measures which don't require much more bureaucracy than already in existence. Wait, you think expanding eligibility for programs that are usually state-administered, chronically starved for basic funding, and already barely keeping up (or failing to) with pandemic increases in volume is an efficient solution? Out of curiosity, have you actually looked into any of those things you list? The only two you mention that fall squarely within federal control are the tax credits, neither of which are nearly regular enough to serve as a consistent poverty mediator. The rest are joint or solely state administered, and if you're surprised to hear that the poorest states are also the states that have done some of the worst jobs managing a functioning welfare program, you shouldn't be opining on this whatsoever. More effective at getting money to people in need yes. They're all measures from prominent economic think tanks and economists. But I don't feel like you want to talk in good faith so I'll drop it.
Gesturing non-specifically to someone else's expertise as a reason why you don't have to understand the details of something you proposed is not exactly good faith either, so bon voyage I guess.
|
Looking like the Covid Bill will be done through reconciliation. I have to wonder when its going to be done though, they're still negotiating through it (particularly the minimage wage increase, which Joe Manchin has said he does not support) and I wonder how many more weeks or possibly months Americans may have to wait without receiving aid.
They should work on backdating additional payments, it'd make the wait for the 1400 dollar checks feel a little better.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/02/minimum-wage-increase-bernie-sanders-465249
And assuming everything does get passed through reconciliation this go around, what are the odds any covid relief actually sees play later on?
Is there a downside to having one really simple stand alone bill that sends checks out to Americans? I feel like thats something that Republicans are going to have a harder time stonewalling compared to these mega-bills where they can always find something to point to as unpalatable for plausible deniability. If reconciliation stops being a viable avenue then this would be a strong way to try and strong arm additional relief checks through public opinion, assuming that relief checks continue to be something Democrats want to do and this doesn't wind up being the one and only.
|
On February 03 2021 02:06 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2021 01:09 Sbrubbles wrote:On February 02 2021 22:30 Archeon wrote:
The USA learned from the Magna Carta and their civil war over what most western nations didn't tolerate since the end of Antiquity Woa there, let's not forget that all great western colonial powers, English, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch, had slavery in their colonial posessions and all profited from the slave trade. To imply that slavery was a US thing not tolerated in most western nations since antiquity is profoundly misleading. Slavery was very common in most of the world for most of the history, its not only Western Europe thing. People tend to forget that Turks, Arabs, Berbers, most African, American and Asian tribes and/or states permited or participated in slavery. Eastern-European states didnt had slavery per-se, but they had serfdom which was better but not much.
Most American tribes didn't have slaves. They didn't have a great system of liberty for the rank and file, but they didn't have slavery, at least not until the Spaniards arrived.
Anyway, it's irrelevant to the question of the origins of the American constitution, where Brubbles rightly points out that Archeon is trying to whitewash Western European history by claiming "most western nations" didn't tolerate slavery. They mostly didn't tolerate it within their own borders, but were veeeeeeeery happy to trade in slaves and exploit them for whatever tasks needed doing in the colonies. This also meant that European nations were far less opposed to slavery (except in intellectual circles), because the slaves themselves were mostly an ocean away (there were the few odd domestic slaves, but that practice was mostly frowned upon within the European part of these empires). Countries like Brazil or the US had far more immediate civil opposition to slavery, because the slaves there were all mixed up with the other inhabitants. Of course, the people with power there were just as dependent on those slaves for the continuation of their wealth and power, so they opposed it... until economic conditions changed, and slavery wasn't as profitable anymore, as well as enlightenment philosophers renewing the arguments against slavery.
|
There was still a public human zoo in belgium in 1958.
|
On February 03 2021 20:45 Erasme wrote:
There was still a public human zoo in belgium in 1958.
I'm not sure how that connects to anything I said, but yes, there was.
|
On February 04 2021 00:06 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2021 20:45 Erasme wrote:
There was still a public human zoo in belgium in 1958. I'm not sure how that connects to anything I said, but yes, there was.
Can't really say that europeans were above the concept of slavery when you could buy a zoo ticket to see how the "savages" lived in 1958.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
