USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

[Love Mountain]

I see you've opted for regressing into the linguistic abyss. Disappointing.

Ironic, considering your entire critique in the last few posts consists of intellectual pedantry.

The sentence to which this is a response is perfectly coherent. I don't know why you're having such problems with words today.

You replied to my point that your terminology is purposefully nebulous with a nonsensical quip that ignored the entire sentence.

An asinine analysis of history, you mean.

I'm happy you've realized that there is a difference between subjective and objective statements.

Now you're demanding that I prove a negative. This is just going from bad to worse.

It is, you don't seem to understand what burden of proof is. Proving a negative is not automatically a logical fallacy.

The claim that racism in America is "endemic" is a lie as is the claim that 1619 marks the creation of the US.

That would depend on what "endemic" means, and I see you're doubling down on your mind-reading powers.

I like how you're being sarcastically dismissive of me offering an opinion on a Democratic candidate in a thread about the Democratic candidates.

I'm not sure what's so funny. One cannot be dismissive of low-effort opinions?

[Cope]

Ironic, considering your entire critique in the last few posts consists of intellectual pedantry.

No, it doesn't. I've already responded to this knavish accusation. Don't bore me to death again by constantly restating the same debunked points ad nauseam.

"My opposition to O'Rourke's regurgitation of the sort of racial rhetoric which is prevalent within revolutionary socialist circles isn't pedantry. Senior political figures cultivating the politics of revenge by fundamentally misrepresenting reality is a significant cause for concern."

You replied to my point that your terminology is purposefully nebulous with a nonsensical quip that ignored the entire sentence.

Again no. You imagined that I'd "purposefully" deployed a "nebulous" term to which I responded by claiming that your imagination isn't reality - ie. that you're wrong.

I'm happy you've realized that there is a difference between subjective and objective statements.

This is a weak attempt to weasel out of the claim being made. I explicitly stated that O'Rourke's assertion didn't fall within any reasonable interpretation of historical analysis. Trying to rebuke that point by arguing - in effect - that his claim is validated by its subjectivity is a non-argument.

It is, you don't seem to understand what burden of proof is. Proving a negative is not automatically a logical fallacy.

In this case it is. If O'Rourke insists on using claims like "racism is endemic in America" to support policy proposals which include race-based reparations payments then the onus is on him to prove the validity of said claims. Why you think I should be responsible for disproving his pandering drivel is beyond me.

That would depend on what "endemic" means,

Back to the infinite regress again.

and I see you're doubling down on your mind-reading powers.

I have no idea what this repetitive whining about "mind-reading" is about; the man didn't construct a cryptic crossword, he made an explicit comment.

I'm not sure what's so funny. One cannot be dismissive of low-effort opinions?

You can do what you like, though you seem unusually committed to rebuffing (that is, attempting to rebuff) these allegedly "low-effort" opinions.

[athanaric]

Why does anyone engage with Beta's idiotic drivel, anyway?

You can just say racist instead of making up a term.

Racialism is an established term, albeit with a narrow field of usefulness, given how most "racialist"-minded people are racists anyway. Including many Democrat politicians and race-hustlers.

[Love Mountain]

No, it doesn't. I've already responded to this knavish accusation. Don't bore me to death again by constantly restating the same debunked points ad nauseam.

"My opposition to O'Rourke's regurgitation of the sort of racial rhetoric which is prevalent within revolutionary socialist circles isn't pedantry. Senior political figures cultivating the politics of revenge by fundamentally misrepresenting reality is a significant cause for concern."

If you're bored, you're welcome to not respond. It might shock you, but entertaining you isn't really my goal. And if you want to claim something s debunked, you might actually want to do some debunking. I don't agree with Beto's rhetoric, but he's certainly not misrepresenting reality. Unless it's not a reality that slavery started in 1619, or that it was interwoven into the fabric of American society from the start... or that racism persists to this day. That is the point, of course, but keep ignoring it. Revolutionary circles rofl. Beto isn't counting on the vote of the American Communist party and describing far-left activists in America as "revolutionary" is laughable.

This is a weak attempt to weasel out of the claim being made. I explicitly stated that O'Rourke's assertion didn't fall within any reasonable interpretation of historical analysis. Trying to rebuke that point by arguing - in effect - that his claim is validated by its subjectivity is a non-argument.

You're claiming that his argument is inherently wrong, without any justification as to why. We've already addressed your attempt at pedantry, that American history didn't start strictly at 1776 or 1789 due to ratification of documents. You've also shifted goalposts. First it's a hysterical lie, now its an unreasonable interpretation of history. So which is it? An objective falsification, or unreasonable opinion? The issue here, is that the burden of proof isn't mine. I'm not debating whether Beto's statement is the most valid description of United States, merely that it makes sense in a racial context. You're the one who's claiming that his statement is categorically incorrect, or to use your terminology, "a hysterical lie". Either say why specifically, or stop trying to punt the ball my way.

In this case it is. If O'Rourke insists on using claims like "racism is endemic in America" to support policy proposals which include race-based reparations payments then the onus is on him to prove the validity of said claims. Why you think I should be responsible for disproving his pandering drivel is beyond me.

Because one has to first invalidate his statement before Beto has to defend himself. Simply saying, "You're wrong" does not invalidate a statement.

I have no idea what this repetitive whining about "mind-reading" is about; the man didn't construct a cryptic crossword, he made an explicit comment.

I have no idea why you're whining about minutia of his statement, when the message is so painfully clear. I get that you don't agree or like his political position, yet I'm puzzled as to how Beto could be lying about inherently subjective positions. It's akin to whining about how Americans lie to their children about who "really won World War Two".

[Cope]

If you're bored, you're welcome to not respond. It might shock you, but entertaining you isn't really my goal.

I asked you not to bore me to death with repetition; hitherto I've found you a reasonable amusement.

And if you want to claim something s debunked, you might actually want to do some debunking.

You falsely cried "pedantry!" and I rebuked the accusation. I'm going to have to do it again later in this post since you insist on restating the claim.

I don't agree with Beto's rhetoric, but he's certainly not misrepresenting reality.

He is.

Unless it's not a reality that slavery started in 1619, or that it was interwoven into the fabric of American society from the start... or that racism persists to this day.

He didn't say that "slavery started in 1619" or that racism merely "persists to this day". What he said was that "we can mark the creation" of the US in 1619 and that racism is "endemic" in America.

That is the point, of course, but keep ignoring it.

If that was "the point" he could have just said it. Then he wouldn't need people such as yourself apologizing for his drivel online.

Revolutionary circles rofl.

I said its the sort of rhetoric which is common in revolutionary circles, not that O'Rourke is himself a revolutionary. As I made quite clear, I see him as little more than a cynical opportunist using racialism to procure votes.

Beto isn't counting on the vote of the American Communist party

He shouldn't be counting on anyone's vote but that isn't going to stop him trying to get them.

and describing far-left activists in America as "revolutionary" is laughable.

I didn't describe all "far-left activists in America as revolutionary". What I said was that his racial rhetoric wouldn't be out of the norm in revolutionary socialist circles.

You're claiming that his argument is inherently wrong, without any justification as to why. We've already addressed your attempt at pedantry, that American history didn't start strictly at 1776 or 1789 due to ratification of documents. First it's a hysterical lie, now its an unreasonable interpretation of history. So which is it? An objective falsification, or unreasonable opinion?

I like how you try and draw a dichotomy between the two as if an annunciation of an "unreasonable opinion" couldn't be the product of an attempt to lie.

The issue here, is that the burden of proof isn't mine. I'm not debating whether Beto's statement is the most valid description of United States, merely that it makes sense in a racial context.

It makes sense in a pandering to the progressive racialists sense, you mean.

You're the one who's claiming that his statement is categorically incorrect, or to use your terminology, "a hysterical lie".

Which it is.

Either say why specifically, or stop trying to punt the ball my way.

I've said why on multiple occasions. The US wasn't created in 1619 and racism isn't "endemic" in America.

Because one has to first invalidate his statement before Beto has to defend himself. Simply saying, "You're wrong" does not invalidate a statement.

His statement is invalid. America wasn't created in 1619 and racism isn't "endemic" in America.

I have no idea why you're whining about minutia of his statement, when the message is so painfully clear.

Yeah, his message that the US is a fundamentally racist state for which slavery and discrimination are more defining features than say, the Declaration of Independence or the constitution.

I get that you don't agree or like his political position, yet I'm puzzled as to how Beto could be lying about inherently subjective positions.

As shown above, "subjectivity" isn't some sort of shield behind which protects you from accusations of lying.

It's akin to whining about how Americans lie to their children about who "really won World War Two".

What?

[Lord Thesaurian]

Thats a nice response but you didn't answer my question. Your response also reinforces one of my other points. Segregation and racism was enshrined into federal law and it affected more than just African-Americans. Yey there is no one supporting their right to respirations.
Its still unreliable and records going back to 1865 on slaves isn't extensive either.
Native Americans had all that done to them. The US loved to break the own treaties it signed with the various tribes. In fact the US outright ethnically cleansed Native Americans off their land.Their hardship was as bad as what African-Americans expierenced if not worse.
Native Americans expierenced and continue to expierence the same economic impact brought on by the US government.
Nice cop out answer. Yes Federal programs exist for Native Americans but those same programs exist for African-Americans as well and billions of dollars and Affirmative Action has been given and passed to help the African-American community.
So when do Native Americans become special enough to get reparations?

Reparations as I’ve described them aren’t based on a social justice slippery slope for exactly the reasons you mention. I’d say my previous explanations squarely address your concerns. You’re free to disagree.


Native American tribes got reparations, as I said. Land grants, a claims fund established by Congress in the 50s, etc. Tribes are exempted from state and federal income and sales taxes as sovereign entities. Tribes can also set their own taxes on the reservations, again, because they’re sovereign entities. If you believe this all isn’t sufficient for the purposes of the comparison you’re trying to make, you’re welcome to your opinion.


Pointing out the fact that this is all categorically different from the question of reparations for
the descendants of slaves isn’t a cop out. Conflating separate issues is counterproductive.

I might be wrong here, but I don't believe that African Americans today are concerned with the direct economic cost that slavery exacted on them. In my opinion, African Americans are mostly concerned with being treated equally by the system. Moreover, I really don't see what reparations solve here. It seems petty and damaging to the ongoing battle against racism today. Then, there are political and economic costs to consider. All of that political capital and administrative muscle could be put to better use. Again, back to the groups I've mentioned before. In the case of Japanese Americans, it was not the monetary amount that was important, but the symbolic admission of wrongdoing by the US Government. Japanese internment and the ongoing plight of various Native American groups serve as reminders of our mistakes as a nation. The charged and contested nature of racism against African Americans make me doubt that reparations will have the same positive, symbolic effect.

The majority of African Americans seem to favor the idea of reparations, and it’s a cause celebre in the primaries. I’m proposing a way to do reparations that makes sense and at least has some semblance of coherence, as opposed to a whole new round of race based federal programs to exist in perpetuity.


https://today.yougov.com/topics/poli...02/reparations

[Love Mountain]

You falsely cried "pedantry!" and I rebuked the accusation. I'm going to have to do it again later in this post since you insist on restating the claim.

We've been over this. Does American history start at 1776 or 1789?

He is.

Again, how?

He didn't say that "slavery started in 1619" or that racism merely "persists to this day". What he said was that "we can mark the creation" of the US in 1619 and that racism is "endemic" in America.

I can certainly see where some would see that racism is "endemic" in America, and I can certainly understand why someone would want to "mark the creation of US in 1619". Especially since Beto didn't specify whether he meant this country, as an official and recognized political body, or this country as a distinct group of people. Which again, brings us back to mind reading and pedantry.

If that was "the point" he could have just said it. Then he wouldn't need people such as yourself apologizing for his drivel online.

He did say it, "racism is endemic" and the entire piece you lasered out is an answer to a question about racism. I fail to see what apologism I'm engaged in,as you have yet to substantiate your accusations.

I said its the sort of rhetoric which is common in revolutionary circles, not that O'Rourke is himself a revolutionary. As I made quite clear, I see him as little more than a cynical opportunist using racialism to procure votes.

I didn't say you did.

He shouldn't be counting on anyone's vote but that isn't going to stop him trying to get them.

I don't see how he's trying to get the far left "progressive racialist" vote. If anything, this is an attempt to get the African American vote in general, not particular subsections of it.

I didn't describe all "far-left activists in America as revolutionary". What I said was that his racial rhetoric wouldn't be out of the norm in revolutionary socialist circles.

I'm not saying you did. American "far-left" would be a centrist party in Europe. Beto's rhetoric wouldn't it be out of the norm of discussions in normal race relations circles. Or any circles that concern equality and race in America. To that end, discussion of food wouldn't be out of the norm of revolutionary socialist circles either. While Beto's rhetoric on race is on the more radical side, its not particularly extreme. America was founded as a slave-owning country, and Beto's rhetoric, while very inflammatory to the American right, is not particularly radical in a democratic debate.

I like how you try and draw a dichotomy between the two as if an annunciation of an "unreasonable opinion" couldn't be the product of an attempt to lie.

The existence of an overlap between the two does not mean that there is no distinction.

It makes sense in a pandering to the progressive racialists sense, you mean.

Which it is.

I've said why on multiple occasions. The US wasn't created in 1619 and racism isn't "endemic" in America.

His statement is invalid. America wasn't created in 1619 and racism isn't "endemic" in America.

Creation of "United States" certainly preceded 1776 and racism being endemic in United States is entirely a reasonable argument.

Yeah, his message that the US is a fundamentally racist state for which slavery and discrimination are more defining features than say, the Declaration of Independence or the constitution.

To an African American the history of slavery and discrimination is far more defining than either of those two. To people discussing race relations, the two documents are simple Exhibit A and Exhibit B for discussing why United States is fundamentally a racist state.

As shown above, "subjectivity" isn't some sort of shield behind which protects you from accusations of lying.

Relevant if you actually pointed out the deceit.

What?

From a Russian viewpoint, Russia was the main contributor and victor of World War 2. They will often accuse of United States lying about who won World War 2 or made the biggest contribution. The "real answer" is of course contextual. In the same vein, you're accusing Beto of lying, misleading for the sake of pandering to "progressive racialists" despite his statement making sense in the context of the discussion at the time.

[Love Mountain]

Pointing out the fact that this is all categorically different from the question of reparations for African Americans isn’t a cop out. Conflating separate issues is counterproductive.

The majority of African Americans seem to favor the idea of reparations, and it’s a cause celebre in the primaries. I’m proposing a way to do reparations that makes sense and at least has some semblance of coherence, as opposed to a whole new round of race based federal programs to exist in perpetuity.


https://today.yougov.com/topics/poli...02/reparations

The issue with that poll is that it asks if they are in favor or not. It doesn't ask them to choose between the two. It does surprise me that reparations are seen as its own issue.

[Cope]

We've been over this. Does American history start at 1776 or 1789?

We aren't talking about "American history", we're talking about the creation of the United States of America. If you want to make a reasoned argument about when it began - even as an idea - feel free to do so.

Again, how?

Already answered on multiple occasions.

I can certainly see where some would see that racism is "endemic" in America, and I can certainly understand why someone would want to "mark the creation of US in 1619".

The only reason you'd want to "mark the creation" of the US in 1619 is if you were trying to pander to progressive racialists - which of course O'Rourke is. There is no historic merit to the claim.

Especially since Beto didn't specify whether he meant this country, as an official and recognized political body, or this country as a distinct group of people. Which again, brings us back to mind reading and pedantry.

Neither claim is true. The only pedantry on show here is coming from you.

He did say it, "racism is endemic" and the entire piece you lasered out is an answer to a question about racism. I fail to see what apologism I'm engaged in,as you have yet to substantiate your accusations.

Nothing was "lasered out"; I linked you to the quote to which I referred. The fact that he was responding to a question about racism isn't relevant.

I don't see how he's trying to get the far left "progressive racialist" vote. If anything, this is an attempt to get the African American vote in general, not particular subsections of it.

African Americans can be progressive racialists.

I'm not saying you did. American "far-left" would be a centrist party in Europe.

No it wouldn't. The American left has gone off the rails since toward the end of the Obama era. As is quite clear from the polling data, the Democratic Party is rapidly becoming the party of liberal progressivism rather than moderation. The explosion of online social justice activism (of which progressive racialism is a constituent element) is an integral reason why race relations started rapidly deteriorating around 2013.

Beto's rhetoric wouldn't it be out of the norm of discussions in normal race relations circles. Or any circles that concern equality and race in America.

You mean progressive "race relations circles" (whatever that actually means).

To that end, discussion of food wouldn't be out of the norm of revolutionary socialist circles either.

Tell that to the Ukrainians and the Chinese.

While Beto's rhetoric on race is on the more radical side, its not particularly extreme. America was founded as a slave-owning country, and Beto's rhetoric, while very inflammatory to the American right, is not particularly radical in a democratic debate.

That's because "Democratic debate" has itself become radicalized - which was my point at the very start. When even moderate candidates like Biden launch their campaigns by immediately referencing the Charlottesville murder (as though it were somehow representative of the key political issues in the US) you begin to realize how fixated on the myth of white supremacy the party has become.

The existence of an overlap between the two does not mean that there is no distinction.

There is no relevant distinction in this case. O'Rourke isn't making a legitimate historical statement; he's deliberately misrepresenting reality in order to pander to certain voting groups.

Creation of "United States" certainly preceded 1776

If you want to make that argument you can; claiming that "we can mark the creation" of the US at 1619 is a proposition outside the boundaries of historical reason.

and racism being endemic in United States is entirely a reasonable argument.

No it isn't. Since you can't provide evidence of codified racism (because it no longer exists) you have to instead rely on the slippery concept of "implicit bias" which is a phantom inferred almost solely from disparate outcomes. Now if O'Rourke had been arguing that the legacy of codified racism was the most significant factor in explaining the relative poverty of African Americans then I would accept his point, but he did not make such a claim.

To an African American the history of slavery and discrimination is far more defining than either of those two.

Yeah, because the activist industry and white saviors in the Democratic Party prevent them from moving on.

To people discussing race relations, the two documents are simple Exhibit A and Exhibit B for discussing why United States is fundamentally a racist state.

Again, you mean to progressive racialists - not just "people" - discussing race relations, the DoI and the Constitution are "exhibits" for falsely claiming that the US is a fundamentally racist state.

Relevant if you actually pointed out the deceit.

It has been pointed out on multiple occasions.

From a Russian viewpoint, Russia was the main contributor and victor of World War 2. They will often accuse of United States lying about who won World War 2 or made the biggest contribution. The "real answer" is of course contextual. In the same vein, you're accusing Beto of lying, misleading for the sake of pandering to "progressive racialists" despite his statement making sense in the context of the discussion at the time.

What does Russia in WW2 have to do with anything? Yeah, Americans have a tendency to either undervalue or ignore the contribution that the Russians made in crushing fascism, but the argument that America won World War II isn't a lie. Maybe O'Rourke can tell us how the Second World War really started in 1782 rather than 1939 though.

[Love Mountain]

We aren't talking about "American history", we're talking about the creation of the United States of America. If you want to make a reasoned argument about when it began - even as an idea - feel free to do so.

He didn't say Untied States of America. He said country. A word that can mean several things, especially in the context that he used.

Already answered on multiple occasions.

Then repeat it.

The only reason you'd want to "mark the creation" of the US in 1619 is if you were trying to pander to progressive racialists - which of course O'Rourke is. There is no historic merit to the claim.

There is no merit to emphasize the importance of the first african slaves in America?

Neither claim is true. The only pedantry on show here is coming from you.

This doesn't address what I said.

Nothing was "lasered out"; I linked you to the quote to which I referred. The fact that he was responding to a question about racism isn't relevant.

The fact he is responding to a question about racism is extremely relevant. It determines his answer. And you did laser it out.

African Americans can be progressive racialists.

I still have no idea what that means.

No it wouldn't. The American left has gone off the rails since toward the end of the Obama era. As is quite clear from the polling data, the Democratic Party is rapidly becoming the party of liberal progressivism rather than moderation. The explosion of online social justice activism (of which progressive racialism is a constituent element) is an integral reason why race relations started rapidly deteriorating around 2013.

The prevalence of online activism highlighted the racism present in the American system. Race relations started to deteriorate because a large portion of the American population feels threatened by discussion of racism. If the American left has "gone off the rails" then Europe has been a dystopian wasteland for decades.

You mean progressive "race relations circles" (whatever that actually means).

It refers to discussions of race and equality. It doesn't refer to people, it refers to discussions that occur around ideas.

[quote]Tell that to the Ukrainians and the Chinese.

Irrelevant.

That's because "Democratic debate" has itself become radicalized - which was my point at the very start. When even moderate candidates like Biden launch their campaigns by immediately referencing the Charlottesville murder (as though it were somehow representative of the key political issues in the US) you begin to realize how fixated on the myth of white supremacy the party has become.

Charlottesville is representative of a key political issue. It's a symptom of racism and xenophobia that's on the rise. The Democratic debate hasn't become radicalized. That's an uncharitable and right-wing account of the situation.

There is no relevant distinction in this case. O'Rourke isn't making a legitimate historical statement; he's deliberately misrepresenting reality in order to pander to certain voting groups.

You're not substantiating it. There isn't a historical inaccuracy in his statement.

If you want to make that argument you can; claiming that "we can mark the creation" of the US at 1619 is a proposition outside the boundaries of historical reason.

Depends on the context of the historical discussion. Especially since slavery was an integral pillar of United States until 1860.

No it isn't. Since you can't provide evidence of codified racism (because it no longer exists) you have to instead rely on the slippery concept of "implicit bias" which is a phantom inferred almost solely from disparate outcomes. Now if O'Rourke had been arguing that the legacy of codified racism was the most significant factor in explaining the relative poverty of African Americans then I would accept his point, but he did not make such a claim.

Yes it is. As prevalence of racism is inherently a value judgement. One does not need evidence or even existence of codified racism for racism to be "endemic", large scale, or inherent to a society or state and its institutions. BY your logic, in the short span of time between 1865 and 1877, municipalities that temporarily lacked any racist laws were not inherently racist. Or at its most basic, that inherent racism is limited to explicit laws. As it is, one can very easily make a reasonable and persuasive argument that America is very racist today, just as one can make a good argument that rejects that premise.

Yeah, because the activist industry and white saviors in the Democratic Party prevent them from moving on.

Moving on to what? Continue being discriminated against? Wonderful prescription.

Again, you mean to progressive racialists - not just "people" - discussing race relations, the DoI and the Constitution are "exhibits" for falsely claiming that the US is a fundamentally racist state.

No, I mean people.

It has been pointed out on multiple occasions.

I know you keep throwing the word lie around. That wasnt the question.

What does Russia in WW2 have to do with anything? Yeah, Americans have a tendency to either undervalue or ignore the contribution that the Russians made in crushing fascism, but the argument that America won World War II isn't a lie. Maybe O'Rourke can tell us how the Second World War really started in 1782 rather than 1939 though.

That's precisely the point, it isn't a lie, nor is it misleading depending on the context.

[Cope]

He didn't say Untied States of America. He said country. A word that can mean several things, especially in the context that he used.

There was no "country" prior to the war of independence, just imperial domains.

Then repeat it.

Read the conversation.

There is no merit to emphasize the importance of the first african slaves in America?

There is no merit to the claim that the US was "created" in 1619.

This doesn't address what I said.

Yes it does. 1619 neither marks the creation of the US in a constitutional/codified sense or an ethnic sense.

The fact he is responding to a question about racism is extremely relevant. It determines his answer. And you did laser it out.

No it isn't. He spouted a bunch of hysterical nonsense; whether he was responding to a question about racism or not is irrelevant.

I still have no idea what that means.

Read the conversation.

The prevalence of online activism highlighted the racism present in the American system. Race relations started to deteriorate because a large portion of the American population feels threatened by discussion of racism.

No, its because progressive racialists and the activist industry are deliberately inflaming tensions between racial groups for the purposes of profiteering and the acquisition of political capital.

If the American left has "gone off the rails" then Europe has been a dystopian wasteland for decades.

Mainstream European leftists aren't typically as obsessed with identity politics as American progressives are - although they're getting there. The problem with liberals and socialists in Europe is that they haven't been constrained properly since the fall of the Berlin wall. Thankfully the Constitution is something which America takes seriously.

It refers to discussions of race and equality. It doesn't refer to people, it refers to discussions that occur around ideas.

It's a made up nebulous terms with no meaning I tell you!

Irrelevant.

Yes I know that revolutionary socialists think that food is irrelevant. That was the point of the links.

Charlottesville is representative of a key political issue.

No it isn't. Progressive hysteria over "white nationalism" is more laughably paranoid than conservative panic mongering over Muslims. It's all just an excuse to justify their preexisting prejudices.

It's a symptom of racism and xenophobia that's on the rise. The Democratic debate hasn't become radicalized. That's an uncharitable and right-wing account of the situation.

A claim for which you have no evidence. The fact that progressive racialists have become more sensitive to "discrimination" than a Vatican inquisitor was to blasphemy proves nothing. A point has now been reached where progressives have become so puritanical that the fabrication of hate crimes is seen as an easy route to improving one's social status.

The Democratic debate hasn't become radicalized. That's an uncharitable and right-wing account of the situation.

I'm afraid it has. By every measure I could find, Democrats have become proportionally more extreme than Republicans/conservatives over the past ten years.

You're not substantiating it. There isn't a historical inaccuracy in his statement.

The same mindless repetition of the same debunked point. Try harder.

Depends on the context of the historical discussion. Especially since slavery was an integral pillar of United States until 1860.

O'Rourke wasn't having an "historical discussion"; he was manipulating historical reality to signal his "wokeness" for the purposes of vote procurement.

Yes it is. As prevalence of racism is inherently a value judgement. One does not need evidence or even existence of codified racism for racism to be "endemic", large scale, or inherent to a society or state and its institutions. BY your logic, in the short span of time between 1865 and 1877, municipalities that temporarily lacked any racist laws were not inherently racist. Or at its most basic, that inherent racism is limited to explicit laws. As it is, one can very easily make a reasonable and persuasive argument that America is very racist today, just as one can make a good argument that rejects that premise.

No, you can't make a "persuasive argument that America is very racist today" because there is no evidence for the claim beyond assumed causes of disparate outcomes and isolated incidents (which of course are ignored when they don't suit the narrative). If you want to point to specific examples of provable racist occurrences and then try and form a statistical trend have at it. At best you'll only be able to reliably show that advancement of African American (not all non-white people) has been limited by historic attitudes, not that "racism is endemic" and certainly not that "reparations" is going to solve anything.

Moving on to what? Continue being discriminated against? Wonderful prescription.

Moving on to not being an impoverished group by virtue of an enforced dependency culture.

That's precisely the point, it isn't a lie, nor is it misleading depending on the context.

Unlike O'Rourke's claim - which was a lie.

[Love Mountain]

There was no "country" prior to the war of independence, just imperial domains.

You're contradicting yourself.

Read the conversation.

I did, I don't see your supposed answer.

There is no merit to the claim that the US was "created" in 1619.

He didn't say U.S. was created in 1619.

Yes it does. 1619 neither marks the creation of the US in a constitutional/codified sense or an ethnic sense.

A community on the American continent preceded 1619, the growth of those settlements eventually became U.S.

No it isn't. He spouted a bunch of hysterical nonsense; whether he was responding to a question about racism or not is irrelevant.

I'm not sure what makes it hysterical. The context of the question is what prompted the answer.

Read the conversation.

Then repeat yourself.

No, its because progressive racialists and the activist industry are deliberately inflaming tensions between racial groups for the purposes of profiteering and the acquisition of political capital.

Or for the purpose of confronting racial inequities.

Mainstream European leftists aren't typically as obsessed with identity politics as American progressives are - although they're getting there. The problem with liberals and socialists in Europe is that they haven't been constrained properly since the fall of the Berlin wall. Thankfully the Constitution is something which America takes seriously.

Americans are far more constrained on issues of identity, and equality than Europeans.

Yes I know that revolutionary socialists think that food is irrelevant. That was the point of the links.

Just as irrelevant as your point about Beto's rhetoric and where it would appear normal.

No it isn't. Progressive hysteria over "white nationalism" is more laughably paranoid than conservative panic mongering over Muslims. It's all just an excuse to justify their preexisting prejudices.

No it isn't. The threat of white nationalism to the public is far greater than the threat of radical Islam.

A claim for which you have no evidence. The fact that progressive racialists have become more sensitive to "discrimination" than a Vatican inquisitor was to blasphemy proves nothing. A point has now been reached where progressives have become so puritanical that the fabrication of hate crimes is seen as an easy route to improving one's social status.

The difference is that a Vatican inquisitor had no good reason to be concerned about blasphemy, whereas discrimination is an ever present and legitimate concern.

I'm afraid it has. By every measure I could find, Democrats have become proportionally more extreme than Republicans/conservatives over the past ten years.

And what are these "measures"? And in what way are Democratic platform more extreme than Republicans?

The same mindless repetition of the same debunked point. Try harder.

Try harder at what? You haven't answered the question.

O'Rourke wasn't having an "historical discussion"; he was manipulating historical reality to signal his "wokeness" for the purposes of vote procurement.

You do realize he was at a debate?

No, you can't make a "persuasive argument that America is very racist today" because there is no evidence for the claim beyond assumed causes of disparate outcomes and isolated incidents (which of course are ignored when they don't suit the narrative). If you want to point to specific examples of provable racist occurrences and then try and form a statistical trend have at it. At best you'll only be able to reliably show that advancement of African American (not all non-white people) has been limited by historic attitudes, not that "racism is endemic" and certainly not that "reparations" is going to solve anything.

There you have it again. Absolutist statements, you should stop with those.

Moving on to not being an impoverished group by virtue of an enforced dependency culture.

As oppose to generational poverty and institutional racism.

Unlike O'Rourke's claim - which was a lie.

Yet awfully hard to prove.

[Cope]

You're contradicting yourself.

Incoherent nonsense.

I did, I don't see your supposed answer.

I've explained on multiple occasions why claiming that the "country" was created in 1619 is a misrepresentation of reality. Constantly demanding that I repeat these explanations over and over again is against the ToS.

He didn't say U.S. was created in 1619.

It is beyond a reasonable doubt that that was his clear implication - as was plainly evidenced by his juxtaposition with 1776, one of the usual dates used to mark the creation of the US and the self-evident reality that the the pronoun "this" in the phrase "this country" referred to the United States of America. I mean we can play these boring semantic games till kingdom come if it pleases you, but its only exposing your lack of an actual argument.

A community on the American continent preceded 1619, the growth of those settlements eventually became U.S.

What does communities existing on the American continent prior to 1619 have to do with justifying the nonsense claim that "we can mark the creation of this country in 1619"?

I'm not sure what makes it hysterical. The context of the question is what prompted the answer.

The fact that it deliberately conflates the arrival of the first African slaves in North America with the creation of the United States. Which, as shown, is an hysterical lie.

Then repeat yourself.

No. Don't waste my time by reciting the same previously answered points until we all die of boredom.

Or for the purpose of confronting racial inequities.

No serious person thinks that Buzzfeed, the Huffington Post, Salon or any of the other hundreds of click bait activist sites which are directly responsible for disseminating half-baked social justice drivel have any interest in "confronting racial inequalities". Nor do they believe that the legions of Twitter and Facebook "slacktivists" who seek to patrol the acceptable discourse care about anything other than self-promotion and scoring woke points. More importantly than this, however, no one really believes, against a backdrop of mounting evidence, that the university departments which validate the sort of identitarian poison we see trotted out in public have any credibility at all.

Americans are far more constrained on issues of identity, and equality than Europeans.

An evidence-free claim.

Just as irrelevant as your point about Beto's rhetoric and where it would appear normal.

The fact that you think it's normal doesn't mean that it's actually normal. Again, there is a significant difference between what Democratic voters in general believe and what the online activist crowd believes.

No it isn't. The threat of white nationalism to the public is far greater than the threat of radical Islam.

This is unadulterated rubbish. The only reason that there have been fewer deaths caused by radical Islam in the US than by white nationalism over the past couple of years is because the military and the intelligence community has invested hundreds of billions of dollars over nearly two decades trying to contain it. Unlike white nationalism, radical Islam is supported has global and institutional support.

The difference is that a Vatican inquisitor had no good reason to be concerned about blasphemy, whereas discrimination is an ever present and legitimate concern.

And yet you can't actual prove that racial discrimination is "endemic" without crutching on assumptions derived from disparate outcomes.

And what are these "measures"? And in what way are Democratic platform more extreme than Republicans?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Try harder at what? You haven't answered the question.

Try harder at paying attention to the conversation rather than just offering the same debunked points ad infinitum.

You do realize he was at a debate?

Clearly not a history debate though.

There you have it again. Absolutist statements, you should stop with those.

This is a lazy, non-argument response.

As oppose to generational poverty and institutional racism.

Huh?

Yet awfully hard to prove.

It has been proven by any reasonable measure.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Edit: am I obliged to warn there’s a naughty word? In any case, it’s HBO. You’ve been warned.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Race and income inequality will inevitably dominate the primaries and possibly the general this cycle. The longer term domestic threat to the country isn’t leftwing SJW counterculture, socialism, or Islam (lol). It’s that Republicans successfully protected and normalized their pet tyrant from the checks, balances and consequences of our Constitutional system. This makes the inevitability of more Trumps on the left or right a permanent fixture of American politics for the foreseeable future. If one Trump has done this much damage, imagine what two or three more will do cumulatively.

[Cope]

Edit: am I obliged to warn there’s a naughty word? In any case, it’s HBO. You’ve been warned.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Race and income inequality will inevitably dominate the primaries and possibly the general this cycle. The longer term domestic threat to the country isn’t leftwing SJW counterculture, socialism, or Islam (lol). It’s that Republicans successfully protected and normalized their pet tyrant from the checks, balances and consequences of our Constitutional system. This makes the inevitability of more Trumps on the left or right a permanent fixture of American politics for the foreseeable future. If one Trump has done this much damage, imagine what two or three more will do cumulatively.

This level of cope almost makes me want him to win again.

[Lord Thesaurian]

This level of cope almost makes me want him to win again.

“Owning the libs” at the expense of the Republic speaks far worse of the supposed victors than the vanquished. When Emperor Sanders III uses the same metrics to justify abolishing the bourgeoise Constitution, I hope you’re still laughing.

[Cope]

“Owning the libs” at the expense of the Republic speaks far worse of the supposed victors than the vanquished. When Emperor Sanders III uses the same metrics to justify abolishing the bourgeoise Constitution, I hope you’re still laughing.

This sort of melodramatic carping is precisely what's so amusing about it all.

[Heathen Hammer]

Edit: am I obliged to warn there’s a naughty word? In any case, it’s HBO. You’ve been warned.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Race and income inequality will inevitably dominate the primaries and possibly the general this cycle. The longer term domestic threat to the country isn’t leftwing SJW counterculture, socialism, or Islam (lol). It’s that Republicans successfully protected and normalized their pet tyrant from the checks, balances and consequences of our Constitutional system. This makes the inevitability of more Trumps on the left or right a permanent fixture of American politics for the foreseeable future. If one Trump has done this much damage, imagine what two or three more will do cumulatively.

Don't hate the player - hate the game. Bad faith politics became the norm long before Trump was even famous, let alone joined politics.There are fundamental problems in USA, that mainly stem from lack of transparency, globalism, decline of market in favor of oligopolies, central banking and federal reserve. The good thing about Trump is that he fundamentally shifted political discourse from "democrat vs. Republican" to "grassroots vs. establishment". This is very good (regardless of whether Trump even intended that), as it can and will undermine the current elites within the US.
Also SJW is definitely not the counter-culture, as it is mainly pet of the political establishment.

[Lord Thesaurian]

This sort of melodramatic carping is precisely what's so amusing about it all.

I don’t see what’s melodramatic about the chief executive:
1. using a national emergency declaration to bypass Congress’ power of the purse and amp up his political supporters on the eve of national elections
2. funneling tax money to his own pockets
3. declaring those responsible for negative press coverage of his administration to be the “Enemy of the People”
4. publicly endorsing America’s enemies against his own government
5. firing the head of the FBI for refusing to shut down an independent investigation
6. turning the justice department from a law enforcement apparatus into his personal legal defense team
7. taking a sledgehammer to American alliances to feed the conspiratorial lunacy of his domestic political base.


Each of the above, let alone in tandem, is something that should bring Americans into the streets en masse, regardless of political affiliation. When it happens anywhere else in the world, Americans pat ourselves on the back about how it can’t happen here because we’re so cool. Meanwhile, the best the opposition can muster against Trump is that he “deserves” impeachment, but it’s too much paperwork. Thanks to the Republicans and their orange creation, we’re becoming the hole country Trump likes to complain about.

[athanaric]

Race and income inequality will inevitably dominate the primaries and possibly the general this cycle.

Yeah, it's quite possible that black voters will tip the scales in favour of Trump. Considering they've fared better under his presidency than Obama's, and are starting to realize that the Demorat race hustling is a self-serving racket that doesn't actually help with race issues.

The longer term domestic threat to the country isn’t leftwing SJW counterculture,

It's cute how you're trying to paint the dominant ideology whose adherents consistently manage to ruin people's lives by getting them fired and ostracized as "counterculture".

socialism,

A belief shared by some of the most influential Democrat party members, also still virulent around the world...

or Islam (lol).

Still the leading cause of terrorist-inflicted deaths in the US, not to mention in all other countries around the world. lol.

It’s that Republicans successfully protected and normalized their pet tyrant from the checks, balances and consequences of our Constitutional system. This makes the inevitability of more Trumps on the left or right a permanent fixture of American politics for the foreseeable future. If one Trump has done this much damage, imagine what two or three more will do cumulatively.

Yeah, that's why civil servants of various ranks and branches have actively worked to sabotage Trump, along with virtually all of the establishment media sans Fox News.

“Owning the libs” at the expense of the Republic speaks far worse of the supposed victors than the vanquished. When Emperor Sanders III uses the same metrics to justify abolishing the bourgeoise Constitution, I hope you’re still laughing.

Sanders is already borderline senile, you really think he'll get even one term, let alone a second one? If any Dem wins the next elections, it's probably Warren or maybe someone like Harris.