USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

[Lord Thesaurian]

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.

The nature of the game, not the player, is why what the player did to the game is so dangerous. I don’t much care for “grassroots” politics as it’s typically a recipe for mob rule. By bargaining with Trump in order to save their corrupt power structures, Republicans are merely facilitating their own demise and the rise of populist chaos and collapse. As Washington demonstrated when he explicitly refused a crown from the adoring public and threw his support behind Congress, our ironclad commitment to republican institutions is the source of America’s longevity. The left doesn’t typically care for such bourgeois institutions as “law and order,” and the right won’t save themselves by sacrificing it for political survival.

[Heathen Hammer]

The nature of the game, not the player, is why what the player did to the game is so dangerous. I don’t much care for “grassroots” politics as it’s typically a recipe for mob rule. By bargaining with Trump in order to save their corrupt power structures, Republicans are merely facilitating their own demise and the rise of populist chaos and collapse. As Washington demonstrated when he explicitly refused a crown from the adoring public and threw his support behind Congress, our ironclad commitment to republican institutions is the source of America’s longevity. The left doesn’t typically care for such bourgeois institutions as “law and order,” and the right won’t save themselves by sacrificing it for political survival.

Referral to grassroots politics as "mob rule" is a good example of elitist baizou behavior as justification for rather self-serving neglect of interests of majority of population.
We just have to realize that "populism" isn't something bad or evil by default and its only the plutocratic elites that want to us to perceive it as such, as they are the only ones benefiting from current status quo.

[Cope]

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.

You forgot that he also:

8. Runs concentration camps on the border;
9. P****d over a prostitute in a Russian hotel;
10. Banned Muslims from entering the United States;
11. Advocates for white supremacy;
12. Has never paid any tax;
13. Nominated a rapist to the Supreme Court;
14. Cannot read;
15. covfefe.

[Lord Thesaurian]

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.

Good luck with that

According to a Pew Research Center poll in 2018, 84% of African Americans identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party, compared with the 8% that identify more with Republicans. Of those, only 3% are registered Republican voters.


https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/08/13/...t-helping.html

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".

Counterculture: a way of life and set of attitudes opposed to or at variance with the prevailing social norm.


Are you suggesting that racists being part of a counterculture means people who don’t like racists are inherently “dominant?” And that’s “bad?” The SJW “traditional structures are socially oppressive” narrative is, by definition, counterculture.

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

Are you suggesting increasing taxes on the wealthy and paying for universal health insurance with a payroll tax is authoritarian socialism? Because if so, I regret to inform you that the US has been socialist for a century or more.

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

Are you suggesting Islamists will bring down the US government?

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.

[citation needed]

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.

Sanders isn’t the problem, the use of his name was a proxy for the proverbial left wing boogyman who fulfills the nightmarish fever dreams of the Republican political machine

You forgot that he also:


8. Runs concentration camps on the border;
9. P****d over a prostitute in a Russian hotel;
10. Banned Muslims from entering the United States;
11. Advocates for white supremacy;
12. Has never paid any tax;
13. Nominated a rapist to the Supreme Court;
14. Cannot read;
15. covfefe.

So, you’re going to go with the “fake news” defense? Ok then.

Referral to grassroots politics as "mob rule" is a good example of elitist baizou behavior as justification for rather self-serving neglect of interests of majority of population.
We just have to realize that "populism" isn't something bad or evil by default and its only the plutocratic elites that want to us to perceive it as such, as they are the only ones benefiting from current status quo.

Given the overwhelming emphasis among the general public for personal economic comfort over the preservation of democratic norms and individual freedoms, all I can say is, be careful what you wish for.

[Gaidin]

You forgot that he also:

8. Runs concentration camps on the border;

There's actually a bit of history to that.

[athanaric]

Good luck with that

That poll is already one year old.

Counterculture: a way of life and set of attitudes opposed to or at variance with the prevailing social norm.

So that means conservatives are the counterculture?

Are you suggesting that racists being part of a counterculture means people who don’t like racists are inherently “dominant?” And that’s “bad?”

I don't know what you're getting at, but yes, SJWs are almost always racist, because their ideology is racist.

The SJW “traditional structures are socially oppressive” narrative is, by definition, counterculture.

Unless there are no traditional structures left to tear down, or the traditionalists have become an oppressed minority...

Are you suggesting increasing taxes on the wealthy and paying for universal health insurance with a payroll tax is authoritarian socialism?

I think you forgot "calling oneself a "democratic socialist", flirting with bona fide socialist regimes in Venezuela and Cuba, calling for the overthrow of capitalism, proposing socialist ideas, etc."...

Are you suggesting Islamists will bring down the US government?

No, and neither will white supremacists. But one of these extremist groups is a significant threat to the rest of the world (and has killed over 3000 people in your country, too) and the other is a minor annoyance compared to that. This isn't 1919.

[citation needed]

Lol are you really going to be that obtuse?

You forgot that he also:

8. Runs concentration camps on the border;
9. P****d over a prostitute in a Russian hotel;
10. Banned Muslims from entering the United States;
11. Advocates for white supremacy;
12. Has never paid any tax;
13. Nominated a rapist to the Supreme Court;
14. Cannot read;
15. covfefe.

16. is literally Hitler!!1

[Gaidin]

Lol are you really going to be that obtuse?

You really do actually need evidence of such a claim. Civil Servant roles are defined by laws that set up their agencies. Not by Trump's tweeted orders. If he really wants to change their roles he has to work a little more with Congress than he does at the moment.

[Love Mountain]

Incoherent nonsense.

I agree, you should stop writing it.

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.

Then stop repeating yourself. Asking you to elaborate something isn't against the ToS. Continual refusal to do so and repeating, "I already did", is.

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.

The phrase "This country" clearly referred to the American community, rather than America the country. The juxtaposition suggests that the economic and political foundations of the country didn't form with the signing of declaration of independence, but with the inception of African slavery. Or I suppose Beto could be wrong and referring to what you said before, but it doesn't take a lot of guessing to realize that one cannot absolutely determine what he meant. Hence why someone can disagree, but cannnot claim that the person is lying. Of course that could be said of any number of historical arguments, no matter how absurd but in this case, the context of the question and the essence of the argument is not far-fetched.

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"?

Because the institution of slavery, one of the fundamental features of this country for a hundred years with change, was st

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.

That does not fit the definition of a lie.

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

I'm claiming your points have been either addressed or you never bothered to make any. Worse than boredom, your refusal to simply restate something is annoying.

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.

That's a nice opinion, I don't particularly care for it nor do I think that it's topical to the thread.

n evidence-free claim.

Broadening the scope of the discussion would make replying to your posts even more unwieldy and off-topic.

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.

Just as the fact you think that an opinion is erroneous doesn't make it a lie, nor does your opinion of what constitutes fair or serious or egalitarian, does not make it so. Either elaborate why you think so, or leave it alone.

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.

This implies that hundreds of billions of dollars wouldn't be spent on defense of U.S. borders or interests. What makes white nationalism dangerous isn't the amount of support it garners, but the nature of that support. Namely, the normalization of white nationalism in softer forms that has led to its growth in recent years. Radical Islam is not a threat because it does not threaten to infiltrate American institutions and policies at home. White Nationalism is and does.

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

You're skirting the question. So racism has to be codified in order to be "endemic" or widespread or regularly found or commonly accepted or any other permutation of the word "endemic" and "foundational"?

[quote]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Your data does not support your conclusion. Extremism and radicalism is not determined by how close someone is to the political center. The American "Far Left" is not the radical left.

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

Try answering the question. It's okay to be lazy. In fact, you don't have to reply at all.

This is a lazy, non-argument response.

This was already addressed, see the bit about laws and codes and what constitutes foundational or endemic racism.

Huh?

What was so unclear to you?

It has been proven by any reasonable measure.

"I already did" is not a reasonable response when you did not do so.

[Cope]

Sanders isn’t the problem, the use of his name was a proxy for the proverbial left wing boogyman who fulfills the nightmarish fever dreams of the Republican political machine

Sanders doesn't frighten me in the slightest. For some reason the idea of Medicare for all, the removal of tuition fees and and limited foreign interventionism just doesn't keep me up at night. And for future reference, next time you're imagining a daemon of conservative nightmares you might want to give it the title of Commissar, Comrade or Supreme Leader. The thought of an Emperor just doesn't trigger the gag reflex in the same way a communist dictator does.

So, you’re going to go with the “fake news” defense? Ok then.

Which of the items I listed was fake?

[Lord Thesaurian]

Sanders doesn't frighten me in the slightest. For some reason the idea of Medicare for all, the removal of tuition fees and and limited foreign interventionism just doesn't keep me up at night. And for future reference, next time you're imagining a daemon of conservative nightmares you might want to give it the title of Commissar, Comrade or Supreme Leader. The thought of an Emperor just doesn't trigger the gag reflex in the same way a communist dictator does.

Don’t worry, I’ll let you pick the bedtime story next time.

Which of the items I listed was fake?

You tell me. I guess this is your attempt at trolling? Whenever you decide what your point is, feel free to share.

That poll is already one year old.

Ok. When the African American vote carries Trump back into the White House, I’m sure your book on the subject will sell like hot cakes.

So that means conservatives are the counterculture?
I don't know what you're getting at, but yes, SJWs are almost always racist, because their ideology is racist.
Unless there are no traditional structures left to tear down, or the traditionalists have become an oppressed minority...
I think you forgot "calling oneself a "democratic socialist", flirting with bona fide socialist regimes in Venezuela and Cuba, calling for the overthrow of capitalism, proposing socialist ideas, etc."...
No, and neither will white supremacists. But one of these extremist groups is a significant threat to the rest of the world (and has killed over 3000 people in your country, too) and the other is a minor annoyance compared to that. This isn't 1919.

I think there’s an anti-liberal rant thread where your tangents might have more relevance within their own context. In the meantime you haven’t backed up any of your assertions, or answered any follow up questions to those assertions.

Lol are you really going to be that obtuse?

If expecting you to back up your specific claims with something besides tangential assertions is obtuse, then yes.

[Cope]

The phrase "This country" clearly referred to the American community, rather than America the country. The juxtaposition suggests that the economic and political foundations of the country didn't form with the signing of declaration of independence, but with the inception of African slavery. Or I suppose Beto could be wrong and referring to what you said before, but it doesn't take a lot of guessing to realize that one cannot absolutely determine what he meant. Hence why someone can disagree, but cannnot claim that the person is lying. Of course that could be said of any number of historical arguments, no matter how absurd but in this case, the context of the question and the essence of the argument is not far-fetched.

O'Rourke was clearly referring to the US, but even had he been alluding to the "American community", the year 1619 is a date which bears no particular relevance. Africans had been in North America prior to 1619; African slaves had been in North America prior to 1619; the Africans who were brought to Point Comfort in 1619 (which is what O'Rourke is referring to) were sold as indentured servants, not slaves; indentured servitude had existed in North America prior to 1619; at that time the English had not "racialised" enforced service (meaning that there were white men of the same status as the Africans) and; some of the men in question are known to have attained their freedom.

This is is a map of North America in 1619.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As we can see, the Thirteen Colonies didn't exist; there was but a single English colony (of ~1000 people) at Virginia. The kingdom from which the Thirteen Colonies sought their independence in 1776 - Great Britain - didn't exist either. James I was still the King of England, Oliver Cromwell wasn't yet in Parliament and the English Civil War hadn't occurred. The Enlightenment philosophers - of whom Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau are the most noteworthy - hadn't been born. The Founding Fathers weren't conceived until over a century later.

So, yeah, O'Rourke's claim that America was created in 1619 is historical garbage. It was a soundbite for the consumption of progressive racialists. You can now stop wasting my with nonsense arguments such as "one cannot absolutely determine what he [O'Rourke] meant" which are little more than mindless retreats into the infinite regress designed to justify your nauseating gainsaying.

[Cope]

Don’t worry, I’ll let you pick the bedtime story next time.

The idea of reading you a bedtime story is inherently worrying though.

You tell me. I guess this is your attempt at trolling?

Huh? You're the one who accused me of using a "fake news defense". Why are you demanding that I explain your allegation for you?

Whenever you decide what your point is, feel free to share.

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

[Love Mountain]

O'Rourke was clearly referring to the US, but even had he been alluding to the "American community", the year 1619 is a date which bears no particular relevance. Africans had been in North America prior to 1619; African slaves had been in North America prior to 1619; the Africans who were brought to Point Comfort in 1619 (which is what O'Rourke is referring to) were sold as indentured servants, not slaves; indentured servitude had existed in North America prior to 1619; at that time the English had not "racialised" enforced service (meaning that there were white men of the same status as the Africans) and; some of the men in question are known to have attained their freedom.

This is is a map of North America in 1619.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As we can see, the Thirteen Colonies didn't exist; there was but a single English colony (of ~1000 people) at Virginia. The kingdom from which the Thirteen Colonies sought their independence in 1776 - Great Britain - didn't exist either. James I was still the King of England, Oliver Cromwell wasn't yet in Parliament and the English Civil War hadn't occurred. The Enlightenment philosophers - of whom Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau are the most noteworthy - hadn't been born. The Founding Fathers weren't conceived until over a century later.

So, yeah, O'Rourke's claim that America was created in 1619 is historical garbage. It was a soundbite for the consumption of progressive racialists. You can now stop wasting my with nonsense arguments such as "one cannot absolutely determine what he [O'Rourke] meant" which are little more than mindless retreats into the infinite regress designed to justify your nauseating gainsaying.

The year 1619 is commonly cited as a significant year because it marks the arrival of the first African slaves in Jamestown. Most notably, in Jamestown, Virginia in 1619 the placed where almost all of modern America draws its roots from. Nor is the emphasis on this date a recent phenomena introduced by progressive racialists. The most familiar reference to the date 1619 that I can recall, as the start of African slavery in America, is in A People's History of the United States, a text which we're all undoubtedly familiar with in all of its controversial glory. The statement, "the year 1619 is a date which bears no particular relevance" is absurd if treated as fact. Or to put it in more hip terms, "That's like, your opinion man".

To your other point, Jamestown is the progenitor of United States. While we cannot know if United States would or would not have existed without Jamestown, it is nonetheless one of the starting points historians use to talk about history of the United States, rather than history of the North American continent. I'll agree, it is a fantastical waste of time listening to somebody trying to present their understanding of history as the most precise and legitimate account.

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

"I'm not a Trump supporter, but..."

It's almost as transparent as,

"I'm not a racist, but..."

[Cope]

The year 1619 is commonly cited as a significant year because it marks the arrival of the first African slaves in Jamestown.

The argument is not about the significance of Africans arriving in Virginia; its about whether 1619 marks "the creation" of the US. It does not.

Most notably, in Jamestown, Virginia in 1619 the placed where almost all of modern America draws its roots from.

O'Rourke didn't argue that the founding of Jamestown marks the beginning of the US.

Nor is the emphasis on this date a recent phenomena introduced by progressive racialists. The most familiar reference to the date 1619 that I can recall, as the start of African slavery in America, is in A People's History of the United States, a text which we're all undoubtedly familiar with in all of its controversial glory.

I didn't claim that the arrival of the Africans was insignificant; what I claimed was that it was ludicrous to mark the creation of the US at this point.

The statement, "the year 1619 is a date which bears no particular relevance" is absurd if treated as fact. Or to put it in more hip terms, "That's like, your opinion man".

It bears no particular relevance to the creation of the United States. Hiding behind the infinite regress of subjectivity is a non argument.

To your other point, Jamestown is the progenitor of United States. While we cannot know if United States would or would not have existed without Jamestown, it is nonetheless one of the starting points historians use to talk about history of the United States, rather than history of the North American continent. I'll agree, it is a fantastical waste of time listening to somebody trying to present their understanding of history as the most precise and legitimate account.

O'Rourke's comments have nothing to do with the founding of Jamestown; he isn't claiming that the creation of an English colony in Virginia marks the beginning of "the country".

"I'm not a Trump supporter, but..."

It's almost as transparent as,

"I'm not a racist, but..."

My amusement at the angst of progressive racialists and mainstream liberals is what it is.

[Love Mountain]

The argument is not about the significance of Africans arriving in Virginia; its about whether 1619 marks "the creation" of the US. It does not.

This was already addressed.

O'Rourke didn't argue that the founding of Jamestown marks the beginning of the US.

That's not what you argued. Notably, the one who brought up which can date can be marked as the beginning of America as a "country", was you.

I didn't claim that the arrival of the Africans was insignificant; what I claimed was that it was ludicrous to mark the creation of the US at this point.

Your claim was that it was a lie, but you've continually moved goalposts by falsehoods and radical opinions as interchangeable. I don't even share Beto's opinion or his rendition of history, in fact I'm in the majority opinion that would put the creation of American national identity between 1754 and 1789. The fact that John Locke wasn't born yet is of no relevance to the discussion, nor is the fact that the Kingdom of Britain did not exist until 1707. On the other hand, White English speaking colonists, of non-Catholic faith, and the first arrival of African slaves into Jamestown in 1619, all things that survived well into the 19th century are of far greater importance to United States, especially when discussing the topic of race. If one wants to make an argument that the year 1619 marks the creation of an order, a country, a society, a community that has essentially lasted to this very day, the year 1619 would be far more important in that context than the things you've listed previously. It would be neither ludicrous nor false, in fact, it would be relevant.

Oh jeez, I wonder why Beto said that piece when asked about racism in America?

It bears no particular relevance to the creation of the United States. Hiding behind the infinite regress of subjectivity is a non argument.

Ridiculous. Institution of slavery is of paramount relevance to the creation of the United States and the year 1619 is a key point of that development. Or are we gonna argue that slavery was not foudnational to United States because the word "slavery" was not in the US Constitution?

O'Rourke's comments have nothing to do with the founding of Jamestown; he isn't claiming that the creation of an English colony in Virginia marks the beginning of "the country".

No, but the inception of a slave regime certainly does. Though the founding of Jamestown wasn't the point I was making, but when you separate a ~10 sentence post into 10 different parts, I can see where you would get confused.

My amusement at the angst of progressive racialists and mainstream liberals is what it is.

Sure. And "non-racists" are just tired of minorities getting preferential treatment.

[Cope]

This was already addressed.

Another non response.

That's not what you argued. Notably, the one who brought up which can date can be marked as the beginning of America as a "country", was you.

What are you talking about? You introduced the idea that the founding of Jamestown was relevant to the creation of the US despite the fact that O'Rourke's comments have nothing to do with that.

Your claim was that it was a lie, but you've continually moved goalposts by falsehoods and radical opinions as interchangeable.

It is a lie. He might as well be arguing that the US started with Christ's ministry (which of course no one could disprove because it would be subjective).

I don't even share Beto's opinion or his rendition of history, in fact I'm in the majority opinion that would put the creation of American national identity between 1754 and 1789.

Presumably because the majority opinion is based on reality not pandering to progressive racialists.

The fact that John Locke wasn't born yet is of no relevance to the discussion, nor is the fact that the Kingdom of Britain did not exist until 1707.

I know: Locke, the Thirteen Colonies, the Founding Fathers and Great Britain aren't related to the creation of the United States at all because it had already been made in 1619.

On the other hand, White English speaking colonists, of non-Catholic faith, and the first arrival of African slaves into Jamestown in 1619, all things that survived well into the 19th century are of far greater importance to United States, especially when discussing the topic of race.

This has nothing to do with O'Rourke's point. He didn't mention the arrival of "white English speaking colonists" or protestants. He didn't even mention the creation of race based servitude. And since the white protestants you mention arrived before 1619 anyway, I think its fair to say that his point is irrelevant even by this pretend standard.

If one wants to make an argument that the year 1619 marks the creation of an order, a country, a society, a community that has essentially lasted to this very day, the year 1619 would be far more important in that context than the things you've listed previously. It would be neither ludicrous nor false, in fact, it would be relevant.

No it wouldn't. Saying that the "creation" of America occurred when the first Africans arrived in Virginia is both ludicrous, false and irrelevant. Again, you might as well be saying that it started in a stable in Bethlehem.

Oh jeez, I wonder why Beto said that piece when asked about racism in America?

Because he was trying to frame the US as a fundamentally racist enterprise.

Ridiculous. Institution of slavery is of paramount relevance to the creation of the United States and the year 1619 is a key point of that development. Or are we gonna argue that slavery was not foudnational to United States because the word "slavery" was not in the US Constitution?

As already mentioned, the institution of slavery did not begin in 1619. Aside from the fact that the US didn't exist in 1619, the English in Virginia were already using indentured servitude prior to this date and the system did not become racialized until later.

No, but the inception of a slave regime certainly does.

1619 doesn't mark the "inception of a slave regime".

Though the founding of Jamestown wasn't the point I was making, but when you separate a ~10 sentence post into 10 different parts, I can see where you would get confused.

Your point was and is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with O'Rourke's comments, which is what we're discussing.

Sure. And "non-racists" are just tired of minorities getting preferential treatment.

What?

[Love Mountain]

Another non response.

I'm glad you think so, considering how often you do the same thing.

What are you talking about? You introduced the idea that the founding of Jamestown was relevant to the creation of the US despite the fact that O'Rourke's comments have nothing to do with that.

...? How is that relevant? I didn't bring up Jamestown because Beto did.

It is a lie. He might as well be arguing that the US started with Christ's ministry (which of course no one could disprove because it would be subjective).

That would depend, on whether you are capable of differentiating between various types of falsehoods.

Presumably because the majority opinion is based on reality not pandering to progressive racialists.

Yes, I've heard much about this legendary group.

This has nothing to do with O'Rourke's point. He didn't mention the arrival of "white English speaking colonists" or protestants. He didn't even mention the creation of race based servitude. And since the white protestants you mention arrived before 1619 anyway, I think its fair to say that his point is irrelevant even by this pretend standard.

I've no idea why you think this addresses anything. Beto's statement could be interpreted in a number of different ways. My extrapolation isn't an attempt to make Beto's arguments for him, rather, it's a an easy demonstration of why his argument can make sense in a number of different ways. Your criticisms that "beto didn't say this" or that or whatever is irrelevant. As his short statement is open to interpretation and you haven't yet showed me how the statement was "ludicrous" considering the context.

No it wouldn't. Saying that the "creation" of America occurred when the first Africans arrived in Virginia is both ludicrous, false and irrelevant. Again, you might as well be saying that it started in a stable in Bethlehem.

That would depend on the context of the discussion. I imagine some atheists would have a run at that.

Because he was trying to frame the US as a fundamentally racist enterprise.

And to many, it is. Though I'm not particularly interested in your opinion on the matter.

As already mentioned, the institution of slavery did not begin in 1619. Aside from the fact that the US didn't exist in 1619, the English in Virginia were already using indentured servitude prior to this date and the system did not become racialized until later.

1619 doesn't mark the "inception of a slave regime".

This is doesn't address the argument. If you have beef with the date, take it up with the people who have been using that date for decades.

Your point was and is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with O'Rourke's comments, which is what we're discussing.

Don't really see how, as one cannot know what Rourke is specifically referring to. Not that this is relevant as you have yet to point out a specific falsehood in Rourke's account.

What?

?

[Cope]

I'm glad you think so, considering how often you do the same thing.

A non response.

...? How is that relevant? I didn't bring up Jamestown because Beto did.

Then it isn't relevant to the conversation.

That would depend, on whether you are capable of differentiating between various types of falsehoods.

Semantics...again.

Yes, I've heard much about this legendary group.

A non response.

I've no idea why you think this addresses anything. Beto's statement could be interpreted in a number of different ways. My extrapolation isn't an attempt to make Beto's arguments for him, rather, it's a an easy demonstration of why his argument can make sense in a number of different ways. Your criticisms that "beto didn't say this" or that or whatever is irrelevant. As his short statement is open to interpretation and you haven't yet showed me how the statement was "ludicrous" considering the context.

O'Rourke explicitly stated that "we can mark the creation of this country [in] 1619". Every "interpretation" that you've tried to construct to justify this position is as ludicrous as the position itself.

That would depend on the context of the discussion. I imagine some atheists would have a run at that.

Only if you fall into an infinite regress where nothing can be proven to mean anything and everything can be proven to mean nothing.

And to many, it is.

And many are wrong.

Though I'm not particularly interested in your opinion on the matter.

Only because you have no evidence against it.

This is doesn't address the argument. If you have beef with the date, take it up with the people who have been using that date for decades.

The argument is irrelevant because O'Rourke didn't say that "1619 was a key point"; he said that it "marked the creation" of the US. Whether or not you think 1619 is a "key point" is irrelevant to the argument about members of the Democratic Party lying in order to appease parts of the electorate.

Don't really see how, as one cannot know what Rourke is specifically referring to. Not that this is relevant as you have yet to point out a specific falsehood in Rourke's account.

Infinite regress drivel...again.

?

The comment that ""non-racists" are just tired of minorities getting preferential treatment" is incoherent.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Huh? You're the one who accused me of using a "fake news defense". Why are you demanding that I explain your allegation for you?


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

You specifically described lamenting the Republican “devil’s bargain” with Trump, and my subsequent claim it will cause longer term damage to the country, as “melodramatic carping.” When I give specific examples of damaging precedents Trump has set, you respond with your own separate list of events and allegations, without responding to anything I’ve said or justifying your previous assertions. I asked if your non-response amounts to a fake news defense. Now you try to deflect the whole thing as though I’m the one with the burden of proof against something which has nothing to do with your original claim.

[Heathen Hammer]

Given the overwhelming emphasis among the general public for personal economic comfort over the preservation of democratic norms and individual freedoms, all I can say is, be careful what you wish for.

It is actually other way around - it is the globalist elites that threaten preservation of democratic norms and individual freedoms. So if populism is for removal of such elites from power, then populism does, in fact, contribute to preservation of individual freedoms and democratic norms.