View Poll Results: Who's your favourite candidate for the 2020 Democratic Primaries?

Voters
39. You may not vote on this poll
  • Bernie Sanders.

    19 48.72%
  • Joe Biden.

    5 12.82%
  • Neither.

    15 38.46%
Page 40 of 116 FirstFirst ... 153031323334353637383940414243444546474849506590 ... LastLast
Results 781 to 800 of 2310

Thread: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

  1. #781

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    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.
    Populism as a social and political concept is inherently reactionary and transitional by nature. It is has no more substance as a political philosophy or sustainable method of governance than does its rhetorical antithesis, elitism. The conceptual existence of such a dichotomy is not evidence of a “globalist” conspiracy.


    Anyway, I was referring specifically to the fact that the American public, by and large, is significantly further to the left and less laissez faire than the political establishment, precisely because the minority - in this case, right wing conservatism - has outsized influence over the political process due to the nature of republican government.
    Last edited by Lord Thesaurian; September 22, 2019 at 10:44 AM.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  2. #782
    Ludicus's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    13,064

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    , 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.
    It seems that you are not willing to understand that the transition from a society with slaves to a slave society is a gradual process. Obviously, the year of 1619 is a date of particular relevance.
    A Study of the Africans and African Americans on Jamestown Island and at Green Spring, 1619-1803.Read the Chapter 5 "The Wider Context". (page 15)
    I quote, from the introduction,

    The materials presented in this study of Africans and African-Americans at Jamestown and Green Spring document the meeting and merging in the Chesapeake of two streams of Old World immigrants, one voluntary and one forced.
    They also document the evolution, in a local context of a society with slaves into, by the second third of the eighteenth century, a slave society. The distinction between the two, Ira Berlin argues in his recent book, Many Thousands Gone:The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North America, is that in societies with slaves:

    "slaves were marginal to the central productive processes; slavery was just one form of labor among many.
    Slave owners treated their slaves with extreme callousness and cruelty at times because this was the way they treated all subordinates, whether indentured servants, debtors, prisoners-of-war,pawns, peasants, or simply poor folks.
    In societies with slaves, no one presumed the master-slave relationship to be the social exemplar (Berlin 1998).
    When societies with slaves became slave societies, Berlin continues, “slavery stood at the center of economic production, and the master-slave relationship provided the model for all social relations” (Berlin 1998: 8).
    It was an all encompassing system from which, in the words of Frank Tannenbaum, “Nothing escaped, nothing, and noone” (Tannenbaum 1946: 117)"


    ...In the Chesapeake the prerequisite commodity was tobacco. The transformation from a society with slaves to a slave society...evolved in a slow, piecemeal fashion, well illustrated in this study by the patchwork of laws and legal rulings that led up to Virginia’s first fully elaborated slave code in 1705...Other colonies with slaves in British North America did not develop into full slave societies.
    ---
    Read also the Chapter 6.1619-1630: Arrival and Dispersion (page 27)
    "In August 1619 an event occurred that irrevocably changed the course of Virginia history. It was then that a Dutch frigate, fresh from a plundering expedition in the West Indies, sailed into Hampton Roads bearing 20-some Africans..."

    ---

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    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.
    Bollocks, sorry.The ideational core of populism- People centrality, antiestablishement, anti-economic elites, anti-experts (eg. climate change),anti-media (Hungary is not alone in its assault on media freedoms; in 2014 Orban tried to silence dissent in the country by making internet access more expensive), in-group superiority- reveals its anti-democratic nature.The populist Hungary's Fidesz party/Orban have consolidated power and seem likely to continue to thrive,and there is no democracy in Hungary anymore.
    And let's not even start talking about Brazil.

    --
    Edit, I'm puzzled.Just because something may be legal certainly doesn't make it right.

    Biden's Anticorruption Effort in Ukraine Overlapped With Son's Work in ...

    Soon after Moscow invaded the country in 2014 and annexed its peninsula of Crimea, Mr. Biden took a lead role in U.S. efforts to support the fragile government in Kiev. He shuttled back and forth to the Ukrainian capital, coordinating U.S. aid packages and cajoling the officials to enact reforms even as the country fought off Russian-backed rebels in the country’s east.
    Mr. Biden’s son Hunter took a board position with a Ukrainian natural gas extraction company, Burisma Holdings Ltd., in May 2014.
    2014. One hell of a coincidence, wouldn't you say?
    Last edited by Ludicus; September 22, 2019 at 07:12 PM.
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  3. #783

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    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.
    My accusation of melodramatic carping was a response to your "you'll be sorry when Emperor Sanders III seizes power" warning. Thereafter you posted a list of half-truths and misrepresentations about Trump to which I ironically added my own examples to expose your amateur dramatics. You then started whining about a "fake news defense", accused me of trolling and demanded to know what my point was, even though it was (and is) perfectly clear that my point was to mock your asinine doom mongering.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    It seems that you are not willing to understand that the transition from a society with slaves to a slave society is a gradual process. Obviously, the year of 1619 is a date of particular relevance.
    A Study of the Africans and African Americans on Jamestown Island and at Green Spring, 1619-1803.Read the Chapter 5 "The Wider Context". (page 15)
    The statement about "relevance" was in made with reference to O'Rourke's claim that the US was created in that year, not as a general point. Don't join the conversation 3 pages late and start recycling claims which have already been covered because you couldn't be bothered to read the exchange.

    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.
    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.
    It [the arrival of Africans in Virginia] bears no particular relevance to the creation of the United States. Hiding behind the infinite regress of subjectivity is a non argument.
    Last edited by Cope; September 23, 2019 at 12:41 AM.



  4. #784

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    My accusation of melodramatic carping was a response to your "you'll be sorry when Emperor Sanders III seizes power" warning. Thereafter you posted a list of half-truths and misrepresentations about Trump to which I ironically added my own examples to expose your amateur dramatics. You then started whining about a "fake news defense", accused me of trolling and demanded to know what my point was, even though it was (and is) perfectly clear that my point was to mock your asinine doom mongering.
    This sort of melodramatic carping is precisely what’s so amusing about your refusal to substantiate your claim.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  5. #785

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    This sort of melodramatic carping is precisely what’s so amusing about your refusal to substantiate your claim.
    Imitation is indeed the sincerest form of flattery



  6. #786

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Imitation is indeed the sincerest form of flattery
    Yes, you’re my hero. Which one of the items I listed constitutes “misrepresentations and half-truths about Trump?”
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  7. #787

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Yes, you’re my hero. Which one of the items I listed constitutes “misrepresentations and half-truths about Trump?”
    If you want to have a serious discussion then make a serious proposition in a relevant thread. This empty wailing about how a constitutionally legitimate declaration of emergency should "bring Americans into the streets en masse" or how the president has "taken a sledgehammer to American alliances" as if there has been any sort of noticeable geopolitical realignment over the past 2.5 years is just NPC copery. The items on your list have been - and continue to be - discussed across the D&D (often by me) in correctly labelled threads where people have actually made an effort to present a case of their choosing.



  8. #788

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    So the reason you can’t substantiate your claim in this thread specifically about something I posted in this thread is that it’s the wrong thread? Ok then, rules are rules, after all? Certainly didn’t stop you from making related assertions couched in non-responses for a full page. Cheers.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  9. #789

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    So the reason you can’t substantiate your claim in this thread specifically about something I posted in this thread is that it’s the wrong thread? Ok then, rules are rules, after all? Certainly didn’t stop you from making related assertions couched in non-responses for a full page. Cheers.
    You didn't attempt to make any sort of serious point; I don't know why you're now crying about not getting a serious response. I mean the origin of this conversation was a message you posted with a Bill Maher comedy sketch in it.



  10. #790

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    You didn't attempt to make any sort of serious point; I don't know why you're now crying about not getting a serious response. I mean the origin of this conversation was a message you posted with a Bill Maher comedy sketch in it.
    Speak for yourself. You specifically dismissed a list of harmful precedents set by Trump, and the underlying claim that Republicans are harming the country by protecting Trump from consequences, as “a level of cope,” “melodramatic” and “unserious” because you’d rather make unsubstantiated assertions and wisecracks about it than take a position on said assertions. Now you say I’m not serious because you’re apparently not serious. You were better off calling it off topic. Should have quit while you’re ahead.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  11. #791

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Speak for yourself. You specifically dismissed a list of harmful precedents set by Trump, and the underlying claim that Republicans are harming the country by protecting Trump from consequences, as “a level of cope,” “melodramatic” and “unserious”
    A point which you persistently affirm with your every post.

    because you’d rather make unsubstantiated assertions and wisecracks about it than take a position on said assertions.
    You just drew up a low-effort list of complaints and then demanded that I disproved it. But sure, I'm the one making "unsubstantiated assertions"

    Now you say I’m not serious because you’re apparently not serious.
    I say you're not serious because you are in fact not serious. If you're going to make melodramatic predictions about the US being taken over by a socialist Emperor - which you then attempt to justify on the basis of series of unsourced, unqualified statements -don't turn around a throw a tantrum when people don't treat you with sincerity.

    You were better off calling it off topic. Should have quit while you’re ahead.
    With insults as soft as this I'll always be ahead.



  12. #792

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    You just drew up a low-effort list of complaints and then demanded that I disproved it. But sure, I'm the one making "unsubstantiated assertions"
    Throughout your full page of deflections and non-responses, I’ve had one simple request:
    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Which one of the items I listed constitutes “misrepresentations and half-truths about Trump?”
    Your only response this whole time with any substance or relevance is:
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    This empty wailing about how a constitutionally legitimate declaration of emergency should "bring Americans into the streets en masse" or how the president has "taken a sledgehammer to American alliances" as if there has been any sort of noticeable geopolitical realignment over the past 2.5 years is just NPC copery.
    If I’m to take this as your counter to points 1 and 7, your counter would be a strawman, since points 1 and 7 are not predicated on constitutionality or “noticeable geopolitical realignment.” If you’re not going to put forth the bare minimum effort of explaining what exactly you’re disputing, why should I try to make a counterargument against myself for you?


    Trump used a national emergency declaration to bypass the Congressional power of the purse. Congress failed to stop him, and SCOTUS declined to do so. This precedent makes it easier for future presidents to do it too. Calling that problematic in the medium to long term for the country is not “unserious, melodramatic,” or a “level of cope,” no matter how badly you want to cast aspersions on the idea without having to confront it directly.


    Trump unilaterally pulled the US out of, for example, the JCPA, leaving the remaining cosigners, including US allies, scrambling to save a US-led initiative from the US itself. We are already in the midst of the fallout from more than one such case. Giving US allies reasons to work against us, damaging relationships, is an objectively negative development. Calling that trend problematic in the medium to long term for the country is not “unserious, melodramatic,” or a “level of cope,” no matter how badly you want to cast aspersions on the idea without having to confront it directly.
    Last edited by Lord Thesaurian; September 23, 2019 at 10:37 AM.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  13. #793

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Throughout your full page of deflections and non-responses, I’ve had one simple request:

    Your only response this whole time with any substance or relevance is:

    If I’m to take this as your counter to points 1 and 7, your counter would be a strawman, since points 1 and 7 are not predicated on constitutionality or “noticeable geopolitical realignment.” If you’re not going to put forth the bare minimum effort of explaining what exactly you’re disputing, why should I try to make a counterargument against myself for you?


    Trump used a national emergency declaration to bypass the Congressional power of the purse. Congress failed to stop him, and SCOTUS declined to do so. This precedent makes it easier for future presidents to do it too. Calling that problematic in the medium to long term for the country is not “unserious, melodramatic,” or a “level of cope,” no matter how badly you want to cast aspersions on the idea without having to confront it directly.


    Trump unilaterally pulled the US out of, for example, the JCPA, leaving the remaining cosigners, including US allies, scrambling to save a US-led initiative from the US itself. We are already in the midst of the fallout from more than one such case. Calling that trend problematic in the medium to long term for the country is not “unserious, melodramatic,” or a “level of cope,” no matter how badly you want to cast aspersions on the idea without having to confront it directly.
    Let's make one thing clear: your list was initially designed to justify the clownish assertion that the US was on a path toward being a " hole" ruled by a socialist dictator. The fact that you've moderated this down to what is "problematic in the medium to long term for the country" serves only to prove how melodramatic your original claims actually were. So as I said, if you want a serious discussion make a serious post. Don't post hysterical cope-tier drivel which imitates a comment on an NYT opinion piece if you want thoughtful responses.

    Feel free to re-frame your argument if it please you.



  14. #794

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Let's make one thing clear: your list was initially designed to justify the clownish assertion that the US was on a path toward being a " hole" ruled by a socialist dictator. The fact that you've moderated this down to what is "problematic in the medium to long term for the country" serves only to prove how melodramatic your original claims actually were. So as I said, if you want a serious discussion make a serious post. Don't post hysterical cope-tier drivel which imitates a comment on an NYT opinion piece if you want thoughtful responses.

    Feel free to re-frame your argument if it please you.
    Your strawmanning of my position, and melodramatic carping about my contextual descriptions of precedent, doesn’t oblige me to “reframe” points that were already clearly delineated in an itemized list of examples. It also doesn’t justify your pointless attempts to denigrate them without debating them. Your qualitative objections to my descriptions of precedent were addressed in summary fashion by the list itself a full page ago.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  15. #795

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Your strawmanning of my position, and melodramatic carping about my contextual descriptions of precedent, doesn’t oblige me to “reframe” points that were already clearly delineated in an itemized list of examples. It also doesn’t justify your pointless attempts to denigrate them without debating them. Your qualitative objections to my descriptions of precedent were addressed in summary fashion by the list itself a full page ago.
    I'm quite sure that even you have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

    melodramatic carping
    Again, flattered.



  16. #796

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    A non response.
    This was already addressed in a larger point. The "significance" of Africans arriving to Virginia can indeed be used as a starting point for discussing the founding of America.

    Then it isn't relevant to the conversation.
    On what basis?

    Semantics...again.
    The one who's obsessing over semantics, is you. I don't pick at every single phrase and utterance my opposition says at all times, I'm more concerned with the message and wider implications.

    A non response.
    To a non-statement.

    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.
    Not particularly. The only context in which it would appear ludicrous, is from an ignorant "color-blind" point of view that seeks to ignore underlying inequality and racism.

    Only if you fall into an infinite regress where nothing can be proven to mean anything and everything can be proven to mean nothing.
    Says the man who keeps saying "ludicrous" ad naseum and posits his opinion as if they debunk something.

    And many are wrong.
    Not in a manner you believe.

    Only because you have no evidence against it.
    I don't need evidence to dismiss statements that do not provide any.

    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.
    "Semantics, again"

    Infinite regress drivel...again.
    Reminding you of your inability to substantiate your statements? Yes, I suppose.

    The comment that ""non-racists" are just tired of minorities getting preferential treatment" is incoherent.
    The comment points out that closet racists falsely believe that minorities are getting an easy ride as a justification for their thinly veiled racism.

  17. #797

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    This was already addressed in a larger point. The "significance" of Africans arriving to Virginia can indeed be used as a starting point for discussing the founding of America.
    1. Your non response wasn't addressed in a larger point because it was a non response.

    2. Africans arriving in Virginia doesn't mark the creation of the US.

    On what basis?
    On the basis that we're discussing O'Rourke's comments not your views on the relevance of Jamestown.

    The one who's obsessing over semantics, is you. I don't pick at every single phrase and utterance my opposition says at all times, I'm more concerned with the message and wider implications.
    Yeah, because its not as if your entire argument is based on trying either to ignore and/or excuse "the message and wider implications" of O'Rourke's comments - which is that the US is a fundamentally racist enterprise.

    To a non-statement.
    Highlighting that majority opinion isn't based on politicized absurdities of left-wing radicals isn't a "non-statement".

    Not particularly. The only context in which it would appear ludicrous, is from an ignorant "color-blind" point of view that seeks to ignore underlying inequality and racism.
    Color-blindness doesn't "ignore" racism.

    Says the man who keeps saying "ludicrous" ad naseum and posits his opinion as if they debunk something.
    Yeah, the claim that America didn't start in a "stable in Bethlehem" isn't an opinion.

    Not in a manner you believe.
    Huh?

    I don't need evidence to dismiss statements that do not provide any.
    Just as well because you don't have any.

    "Semantics, again"
    You know that we are discussing the specifics of O'Rourke's comments right? My analysis of his actual words (as opposed to your apologist extrapolations) is relevant. Whether or not you think 1619 is a "key point" in US history has no bearing on O'Rourke's claim that it marked the creation of the US.

    Reminding you of your inability to substantiate your statements? Yes, I suppose.
    No, you're just hiding behind the intellectually dishonest idea that subjectivity validates any position no matter how misleading or inaccurate it is. Wait, you're not a post-modernist are you?

    The comment points out that closet racists falsely believe that minorities are getting an easy ride as a justification for their thinly veiled racism.
    What does that have to do with my amusement at the angst of progressive racialists? Oh right, nothing.



  18. #798

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    1. Your non response wasn't addressed in a larger point because it was a non response.

    2. Africans arriving in Virginia doesn't mark the creation of the US.
    1. It was, because the original sentence was in a paragraph. I understand how detaching it from the rest of the paragraph has cause you confusion.

    2. As a sovereign state, sure. As a society? Yes, it was.

    On the basis that we're discussing O'Rourke's comments not your views on the relevance of Jamestown.
    My, or anybody else's views on the relevance of Jamestown are relevant to the discussion of Rourke's comments. As Rourke referenced 1619, which refers to African slaves arriving to Jamestown.

    Yeah, because its not as if your entire argument is based on trying either to ignore and/or excuse "the message and wider implications" of O'Rourke's comments - which is that the US is a fundamentally racist enterprise.
    You attempted to prove that Rourke is lying by stating that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776.

    Highlighting that majority opinion isn't based on politicized absurdities of left-wing radicals isn't a "non-statement".
    It's a "non statement" because it's irrelevant to the discussion.

    Color-blindness doesn't "ignore" racism.
    This is a meaningless tidbit that doesn't address my original statement.

    Yeah, the claim that America didn't start in a "stable in Bethlehem" isn't an opinion.
    What?

    Huh?
    I disagree with your assertion. There is no categorical right or wrong on this issue.

    Just as well because you don't have any.
    I'm not the one making an absurd claim.

    You know that we are discussing the specifics of O'Rourke's comments right? My analysis of his actual words (as opposed to your apologist extrapolations) is relevant. Whether or not you think 1619 is a "key point" in US history has no bearing on O'Rourke's claim that it marked the creation of the US.
    Your analysis is incapable of extrapolation (presumably because to do so would be to engage in apologism). The fact that the year 1619 is a "key point" is precisely why Rourke chose it. I'm not sure what you're addressing here.

    No, you're just hiding behind the intellectually dishonest idea that subjectivity validates any position no matter how misleading or inaccurate it is. Wait, you're not a post-modernist are you?
    You do realize your entire critique is based on intellectual pedantry? Check yourself, before you wreck yourself.

    What does that have to do with my amusement at the angst of progressive racialists? Oh right, nothing.
    Lol okay. Sorry that I hurt your feelings.

  19. #799

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    1. It was, because the original sentence was in a paragraph. I understand how detaching it from the rest of the paragraph has cause you confusion.
    Whether your non response was originally part of a paragraph is irrelevant.

    2. As a sovereign state, sure. As a society? Yes, it was.
    1619 does not mark the creation of the US "as a society". To put the lunacy of this claim into perspective, the population of the US in 1776 was ~2,500 times larger than the Colony of Virginia was in 1619. The ethnic and religious differences were also substantial; the Virginia Colonists in 1619 were almost entirely English, while <50% of the population of the Thirteen Colonies was of English heritage by 1776.

    My, or anybody else's views on the relevance of Jamestown are relevant to the discussion of Rourke's comments. As Rourke referenced 1619, which refers to African slaves arriving to Jamestown.
    You introduced the founding of Jamestown as being relevant to the creation of the US despite the fact that this has nothing to do with O'Rourke's comments.

    You attempted to prove that Rourke is lying by stating that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776.
    That of course is the easiest way of proving that he was lying. And since you couldn't rebuff this factually, you simply lurched toward the semantic (yet absurd) claim that O'Rourke's reference to "this country" was actually a reference to the people of America. To this I responded, as I responded above, by arguing that even were such a ludicrous claim true it still would not be the case that the US "as a society" was created in 1619.

    But sure, what you really care about is the "wider implications" of O'Rourke's comments, despite the fact that you've spent the better part of this argument trying to obfuscate them.

    It's a "non statement" because it's irrelevant to the discussion.
    Of course its relevant. The reason why O'Rourke has this bizarre view about when the US was created is because he, unlike the majority of people, has an interest in politicizing the past for electoral purposes.

    This is a meaningless tidbit that doesn't address my original statement.
    The argument that only an "ignorant color-blind" perspective would think the claim that 1619 marks the creation of the US is ludicrous is, once again, itself an utterly ludicrous claim.

    What?
    I supposed that your argument was as meritless as claiming that America was created in a stable in Bethlehem to which you retorted by making a glib appeal to "context". I then accused you of once again appealing to the infinite regress and you responded to this by claiming that my "opinion" didn't debunk anything. So I decided to remind you that claiming that the US was created in Bethlehem isn't actually an opinion.

    I disagree with your assertion. There is no categorical right or wrong on this issue.
    There is a spectrum of historical acceptability. Claiming that 1619 marks the creation of the US does not fall into that spectrum.

    I'm not the one making an absurd claim.
    Yes you are. You're trying to defend the O'Rourke's claim that racism is "endemic" in the US. This is despite the fact that not only can you produce no codified evidence to support this claim (because it doesn't exist) but there is actually a mountain of codified evidence demonstrating the very opposite - that the US is a society which categorically opposes white supremacy on an institutional level. Even the very site we're debating on has anti-hate speech rules.

    Your analysis is incapable of extrapolation (presumably because to do so would be to engage in apologism). The fact that the year 1619 is a "key point" is precisely why Rourke chose it. I'm not sure what you're addressing here.
    Unlike yours, my analysis doesn't need to invent meaning to his statement in order to justify it.

    You do realize your entire critique is based on intellectual pedantry? Check yourself, before you wreck yourself.
    Yeah, as shown above, this is just laughable projection. The only person jumping through semantic hoops is you.

    Lol okay. Sorry that I hurt your feelings.
    Why would your incoherent rambling about "closet racists" hurt my feelings?
    Last edited by Cope; September 24, 2019 at 02:51 AM.



  20. #800
    Ludicus's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    13,064

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    ...the Virginia Colonists in 1619 were almost entirely English, while <50% of the population of the Thirteen Colonies was of English heritage by 1776.
    [/QUOTE]
    The 1619 Project isn't your cup of tea, right? like it or not,American history is rooted in white supremacy and slavery. Don't be lazy, read the full paper A Study of the Africans and African Americans on Jamestown Island and at Green Spring, 1619-1803.

    ...Between 1619, when the first Africans arrived in Virginia, and the close of the seventeenth century, blacks and Native Americans steadily were divested of their rights under the law. They also paid a terrible price in human terms. Unlike the indentured servant, whose term could be extended for wrongdoing, the African in service for life was subjected to brutal corporal punishment, or worse.

    ...It is estimated that by 1649 there were approximately 300 blacks in Virginia, who comprised two percent of the colony’s total population of 15,000. In 1671 there were approximately 2,000 blacks in Virginia out of a total population of 48,000. Around 1690, Africans or their descendants comprised approximately 7 percent of the total population of Virginia and Maryland, which together had nearly 75,000 residents. By 1720, blacks made up approximately 20 percent of Virginia and Maryland’s total population of ca. 158,000 .

    Racial prejudice played a major role in relegating blacks to an inferior status. English ethnocentrism is evident in many of the early documents produced by colonial officials. Historical documents suggest that the first English colonists were somewhat suspicious of anyone who was "different". In 1691 inter-racial sexual liaisons became illegal.

    ...Thanks to the passage of increasingly restrictive legislation, blacks (like livestock) were relegated to the status of personal property that could be bought, sold, and conveyed by bequest. Native Americans, whose population dwindled as the seventeenth century wore on, suffered a similar fate. By the 1680s, Africans had replaced European bound servants and slavery had become commonplace. In time, it became the underpinning of Virginia’s plantation economy.
    Slavery was the route many Virginia planters took in their drive to accumulate wealth and power At first, white indentured servants comprised the majority of workers in Virginia. However, as that labor supply dried up and the influx of European servants slowed to a trickle, planters became increasingly dependent upon Africans.
    ... As much of the legislation that was passed was race-specific, it repetitiously linked African ancestry with the concept of lifetime enslavement"

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    You're trying to defend the O'Rourke's claim that racism is "endemic" in the US.This is despite the fact that not only can you produce no codified evidence to support this claim (because it doesn't exist)
    Learn from those who teach, Exposing Bias: Racism in America | Harvard Extension

    Historically speaking, US was established as a white society, founded under the genocide of another race, and then the enslavement of yet another. In the Age of Trump, racism is pandemic.

    --



    It's more like.."We the White People"
    Last edited by Ludicus; September 24, 2019 at 05:55 PM.
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •