USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

[Basil II the B.S]

Uh?


If you don't like the term ''Neo-Marxist'' and prefer plain Marxist, fine by me. Makes no difference. Given that Marxism was more concerned with class discourse while intersectionality uses the same matrix of oppression with focus on the intersections of race, gender and sexuality, I call it Neo-Marxist.

I'm not really interested in the triviality of the name anyway. My point doesn't change. Do you want your party to run with a Marxist framework? Great!

[Heathen Hammer]

Are you folks seriously triggered by "Our future is female"?

What about "our future is male"? Or "our future is white"?
I mean seriously, I don't view these people as a threat (even if they try committing acts of violence they are just as bad at it as anything else in life, just look at recent antifa terrorist attack attempt), I just find the whole thing amusing, but have a strong feeling of pity for not-so-intelligent people who honestly believe in "progressive" nonsense. I mean their whole system of belief is a bundle of incomprehensible contradictions and they think they are woke while drinking cool-aid pushed by international corporations.

[Basil II the B.S]

Oh you can't say that. You can't even say ''it's ok to be white'' for the liberals. Anything outside the liberal orthodoxy is thought crime.

How about a very intersectional: ''our future is straight, white and male''?

[Katsumoto]

I'm not sure why this is a challenging idea for you to grasp but the reason 'our future is white and male' doesn't quite have the same ring to it is because 99.99% of the past is white and male, which is why some folks might want to advocate for a female president. Not quite the same as calling for the genocide of white men.

[Cope]

I'm not sure why this is a challenging idea for you to grasp but the reason 'our future is white and male' doesn't quite have the same ring to it is because 99.99% of the past is white and male, which is why some folks might want to advocate for a female president. Not quite the same as calling for the genocide of white men.

Neither are useful slogans: they both politicize immutable characteristics beyond what is helpful. If you want to play the identity game, don't be surprised or become agitated when people play it back.

[Katsumoto]

Sure, I agree, but my point was that 'our future is female' is relatively more logical and understandable than 'our future is white and male'.

[Cope]

Sure, I agree, but my point was that 'our future is female' is relatively more logical and understandable than 'our future is white and male'.

No it isn't. The latter statement is actually a more accurate reflection of what the future - at least in the near term - will be. Nevertheless, at some point you people on the liberal side are going to have to stop apologizing for and enabling this sort of rubbish.

[Katsumoto]

More logical and understandable in terms of being a political slogan dude, not in terms of future reality. And let's not get into who is enabling what rubbish, because the scales are tipped heavily against conservatives. Crappy campaign slogans are nothing in comparison.

[Cope]

More logical and understandable in terms of being a political slogan dude, not in terms of future reality.

It isn't more logical or understandable: its equally as asinine as claiming that the future is "masculine".

And let's not get into who is enabling what rubbish, because the scales are tipped heavily against conservatives. Crappy campaign slogans are nothing in comparison.

Sure, just resort to whataboutism. Avoid holding liberals responsible in any way for the abject degeneration of what was the most enlightened force in global politics.

[Katsumoto]

It isn't more logical or understandable: its equally as asinine as claiming that the future is "masculine".

It is, you just don't seem to get it. If there's never been a female president it's more understandable for a slogan to suggest there should be one, even if it is asinine.

Sure, just resort to whataboutism. Avoid holding liberals responsible in any way for the abject degeneration of what was the most enlightened force in global politics.

I'm sorry, but I can't take you seriously if you think Democrats playing identity politics is somehow significantly responsible for the 'abject degeneration of what was the most enlightened force in global politics' considering the utter hitjob Trump and Republicans have done on the rule of law and established norms.

[Basil II the B.S]

I'm not sure why this is a challenging idea for you to grasp but the reason 'our future is white and male' doesn't quite have the same ring to it is because 99.99% of the past is white and male, which is why some folks might want to advocate for a female president. Not quite the same as calling for the genocide of white men.

And we have been doing well. Most successful societies in human history. Why change?

Why should white men step aside to begin with? Especially when we are doing well?

[Aexodus]

Are you folks seriously triggered by "Our future is female"?

Intersectional feminism is something many people are opposed to. Her brand of feminism ultimately leads to discrimination on the basis of sex if allowed to reach its logical conclusion, such as all women shortlists.

[Katsumoto]

Intersectional feminism is something many people are opposed to. Her brand of feminism ultimately leads to discrimination on the basis of sex if allowed to reach its logical conclusion, such as all women shortlists.

That's fine, intersectional feminism seems pretty daft and vague to me as well, but it's also daft for people like Basil to be screeching about the oppression of white men just because a presidential candidate alludes to a future with a female president.

[Cope]

It is, you just don't seem to get it. If there's never been a female president it's more understandable for a slogan to suggest there should be one, even if it is asinine.

1. Stating that "the future is female" isn't synonymous with arguing that "the president should be female".
2. Stating that "the president should be female" is equally as asinine as stating that "the president should not be female". There is no "understandable" logic behind the sentiment that something should happen simply because it has not yet happened.

I'm sorry, but I can't take you seriously if you think Democrats playing identity politics is somehow significantly responsible for the 'abject degeneration of what was the most enlightened force in global politics' considering the utter hitjob Trump and Republicans have done on the rule of law and established norms.

You're living in denial: the abject degeneration of liberalism is what precipitated Trump's election in the first place. It takes years of political erosion before an electorate will reach to a character like Trump for solutions. This didn't just start in 2016 and it isn't going to end in 2020. At the same time that middle America is suffering the effects of the financial crisis, the liberal elite is busy indulging in the poisonous, divisive and alienating politics of identity, entertaining Utopian fantasies and shouting empty slogans. While you're busy making excuses, Trump is preparing to be re-elected.

[Katsumoto]

1. Stating that "the future is female" isn't synonymous with arguing that "the president should be female".

What do you think it means?

2. Stating that "the president should be female" is equally as asinine as stating that "the president should not be female". There is no "understandable" logic behind the sentiment that something should happen simply because it has not yet happened.

There is but I can't seem to explain it to you so I will refrain from attempting further.

You're living in denial: the abject degeneration of liberalism is what precipitated Trump's election in the first place. It takes years of political erosion before an electorate will reach to a character like Trump for solutions. This didn't just start in 2016 and it isn't going to end in 2020. At the same time that middle America is suffering the effects of the financial crisis, the liberal elite is busy indulging in the poisonous, divisive and alienating politics of identity, entertaining Utopian fantasies and shouting empty slogans. While you're busy making excuses, Trump is preparing to be re-elected.

You're not entirely wrong but you seem to have conveniently ignored the 'poisonous, divisive and alienating politics' that Trump employed to get himself elected in the first place, not to mention the resentment and fearmongering the right-wing media has been peddling in the years leading up to 2016. In any case, the reasons for Trump's election are for a different thread.

[Cope]

What do you think it means?

It means nothing; its an incoherent statement.

There is but I can't seem to explain it to you so I will refrain from attempting further.

There isn't, and you can't explain it precisely because there isn't. It continues to amaze me that, especially given Hillary's unparalleled failure, anyone would continue to think that such empty phraseology possesses any electoral value whatsoever.

You're not entirely wrong but you seem to have conveniently ignored the 'poisonous, divisive and alienating politics' that Trump employed to get himself elected in the first place, not to mention the resentment and fearmongering the right-wing media has been peddling in the years leading up to 2016. In any case, the reasons for Trump's election are for a different thread.

I'm not wrong at all. Trump isn't an evil genius who managed to manipulate the electorate into abandoning liberal democracy in the spaced of 18 months. He exploited a gap left by an over indulgent political elite, which, in conjunction with its allies in the media and academia, had spent more time segregating voter blocks on the basis of racial and gender identity than it had engaging constructively with voters. As I said to you a few posts ago, if you're going to play the identity game then you should expect to have it played against you. Liberals had an opportunity to learn from the mistakes they made in 2016, but they've become so tone deaf and detached from the realities on the ground that they've effectively entered Marie Antoinette territory. The overriding message coming out of the Democratic Party right now is simply more of the same: more hyperventilating about identity politics, more Utopanian fantasies, more ivory tower moralizing.

[Katsumoto]

I'm not wrong at all.

You are but I understand. It's more comforting to be obstinate rather than humble when one doesn't fully comprehend the complexities of a situation.

Liberals had an opportunity to learn from the mistakes they made in 2016, but they've become so tone deaf and detached from the realities on the ground that they've effectively entered Marie Antoinette territory. The overriding message coming out of the Democratic Party right now is simply more of the same: more hyperventilating about identity politics, more Utopanian fantasies, more ivory tower moralizing.

Now you're getting somewhere. I agree with you. It's a recipe for disaster and Democrats seem to be eating their own best candidate by going after Biden of all people.

[Cope]

You are but I understand. It's more comforting to be obstinate rather than humble when one doesn't fully comprehend the complexities of a situation.

Yawn.

Now you're getting somewhere. I agree with you. It's a recipe for disaster and Democrats seem to be eating their own best candidate by going after Biden of all people.

So somehow you find my remarks that Democrats are "tone deaf", "detached from reality" and in a state of hyperventilation over identity politics agreeable in the context of the 2020 election but arrogant and over simplistic in the context of 2016. How utterly bizarre. Or is it that you can only see how imbecilic, counter productive and irrelevant so much of their rhetoric is when its directed at Biden?

[Basil II the B.S]

That's fine, intersectional feminism seems pretty daft and vague to me as well, but it's also daft for people like Basil to be screeching about the oppression of white men just because a presidential candidate alludes to a future with a female president.

Wowowow. The oppression/oppressed categorization of the world is distinctively what intersectionality is about. It's also what makes it so dangerous. If it was just about studying intersections between race, gender and class it could be innocuous. It is not. It specifically wants to study those in the framework of oppressor and oppressed to then justify collective discrimination to achieve an ill-defined arbitrary ''equality of outcome''.

Which obviously leads to ''straight white men being oppressive dinosaurs and the root of all evil'', which is the dancing tone of the woke crowd. I have zero issues with a ''female president'' if it's someone like Tulsi Gabbard, who I might disagree with on a number of issues, but at least doesn't engage in intersectional feminist bs. Intersectional feminism simply wants to discriminate those like me on the basis of inherent and collective guilt. They start a war, don't blame me for deciding to fight back until one side or the other is completely annihilated. Much better if it's them.

Either way, you can drop this Antifa tactic of ''but Basil''. I didn't start anything. Antifa start violence just like the woke crowd starts demanding for collective punishments and removing my group of belonging from power in society. My society. The ones that my grandparents build and welcomed these imbecilles that it in.

[Katsumoto]

So somehow you find my remarks that Democrats are "tone deaf", "detached from reality" and in a state of hyperventilation over identity politics agreeable in the context of the 2020 election but arrogant and over simplistic in the context of 2016. How utterly bizarre. Or is it that you can only see how imbecilic, counter productive and irrelevant so much of their rhetoric is when its directed at Biden?

Your earlier comment isn't comparable. I disagreed with your overall explanation of the causes of Trump's election, since you asserted that the 'degeneration' of liberalism and Democrats' identity politics were solely to blame.

<snip>

You're right Basil, I can already hear the march of the Feminist Death Squads.