USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

[Love Mountain]

Whether your non response was originally part of a paragraph is irrelevant.

What?

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.

Yet the American continent continues to speak English to this day and draws their roots to the colony of Virginia. What exactly is your point here?

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.

Pretty sure Jamestown and the year 1619 have a lot to do with each other in Rourke's comments.

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.

The only reason you're claiming that he's lying, is because you don't like his message. There isn't a real falsehood in his statement, though it is entertaining to watch you try to fabricate one.

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.

Pretty sure we've already mentioned the "wider implications". I don't really see how emphasizing the racist history and nature of United States in a question about... racism in United States, is controversial. You've already said your piece on it too, about how Beto is "pandering to progressive racialists". I get it, couldn't have said a less clear and ludicrous statement myself..

[quote]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.

I'm pretty sure everyone has an interest in politicizing the past. Whether it's a wish to downplay or emphasize racism, both sides are interested in contextualizing history to fit their own worldview. To claim otherwise is intellectually dishonest. The only thing we can, factually, is that a lot of polls indicate that people aren't interested in paying reparations to Black people. So no, your statement is completely irrelevant as we are all aware that there are people who'd prefer to pretend that racism did not exist and don't want it to be a national issue. This is a pointless tangent, though I suppose yes, you're right. .This would be a useful discussion to have in a thread, just not in your reply to me.

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.

You're right, I suppose fascists would also find the claim ludicrous. As would many other variations of "center-right, close-racists" perspectives, but it's nice to see you get easily distracted from the main discussion, again.

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.

Uh huh. Why don't you focus on what Beto actually said, instead of what you think he said.

There is a spectrum of historical acceptability. Claiming that 1619 marks the creation of the US does not fall into that spectrum.

This would make sense if we were talking about a specific event in question, we are not.

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.

Both of these things were addressed.

1. There is a mountain of evidence alleging that racism in United States is leading to unequal outcomes (which you don't agree with).
2. Again, are you claiming that for racism to be "endemic" or "foudnational" it has to be codified or written into law?

Either way, your argument falls apart because I'm not defending that "racism is endemic". I'm defending that one can certainly make that argument without being a liar or intentionally misleading someone. Of course you're also getting tripped over words like "endemic" or "foundational" instead of just speaking your mind.

Unlike yours, my analysis doesn't need to invent meaning to his statement in order to justify it.

You're literally claiming that Beto is lying. Yet you're ignoring context and any possible extrapolation that shows otherwise. Aside from the fact that there isn't an explicit lie in Beto's statement.

Yeah, as shown above, this is just laughable projection. The only person jumping through semantic hoops is you.

"Endemic", "Country was founded in 1619", and whoever the heck a "progressive racialist" is. Again, is it me? Is it my Black friend? Is it Cory Brooker? You take the most uncharitable interpretation of Beto's words, ignore the context of the question, the history he is referring to, and refuse to actually think about what he meant. Yet I'm the one playing semantics. Just so we're on the same page, when was United States founded? Can you tell me precisely so I can tell you whether it's true or false?

Why would your incoherent rambling about "closet racists" hurt my feelings?

Wouldn't know, don't really need to. Oh and Trump is in the news again, but what evil thing are Dems doing now to exploit this unfortunate accident? Do tell, since we are in a Dem thread.

[Cope]

Yet the American continent continues to speak English to this day and draws their roots to the colony of Virginia. What exactly is your point here?

My point - which I've made repeatedly - is that neither the United States of America nor American "society" was created in 1619. I don't know how I can express this basic idea more plainly. The fact that English is spoken on the "American continent" has nothing to do with the fist Africans arriving in Virginia or the United States allegedly being created in 1619.

Pretty sure Jamestown and the year 1619 have a lot to do with each other in Rourke's comments.

You introduced Jamestown to the discussion in an attempt to argue that it would be permissible to suggest that its founding marked the creation of America. Even if I were to accept that argument (which I wouldn't) it still has nothing to do with O'Rourke's claim - which is contingent, not upon the founding of the first English colony, but upon the arrival of Africans to it.

The only reason you're claiming that he's lying, is because you don't like his message. There isn't a real falsehood in his statement, though it is entertaining to watch you try to fabricate one.

I'm claiming that O'Rourke lied because he did in fact lie. The only person trying to "fabricate" his "message" is you. You can hide behind the abyss of the subjectivity argument till kingdom come for all I care but it will continue to avail you not.

Pretty sure we've already mentioned the "wider implications". I don't really see how emphasizing the racist history and nature of United States in a question about... racism in United States, is controversial.

Lying about the creation of the United States in order to fan the flames of racial division is controversial.

You've already said your piece on it too, about how Beto is "pandering to progressive racialists".

Which he is.

I get it, couldn't have said a less clear and ludicrous statement myself..

That's an interesting (by which I mean laughable) observation coming from someone who's spent the last ten posts performing mental gymnastics to justify a lie, which, by his own admission, he doesn't even believe in.

I'm pretty sure everyone has an interest in politicizing the past. Whether it's a wish to downplay or emphasize racism, both sides are interested in contextualizing history to fit their own worldview. To claim otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Whataboutism.

The only thing we can, factually, is that a lot of polls indicate that people aren't interested in paying reparations to Black people.

And that America wasn't created in 1619.

So no, your statement is completely irrelevant as we are all aware that there are people who'd prefer to pretend that racism did not exist and don't want it to be a national issue.

The fact that there are people in existence who'd "prefer to pretend that racism did not exist" has no bearing on O'Rourke lying about the current extent of discrimination in the United States.

This is a pointless tangent, though I suppose yes, you're right. .This would be a useful discussion to have in a thread, just not in your reply to me.

Given the historical illiteracy of your arguments (real communism has never been tried, border facilities are "concentration camps", the NSDAP were non-violent and 1619 can mark the creation of the US etc.) I think it's safe to say that you'd have no credibility in such a discussion.

You're right, I suppose fascists would also find the claim ludicrous. As would many other variations of "center-right, close-racists" perspectives

"People who disagree with me are fascists and closet racists!"

but it's nice to see you get easily distracted from the main discussion, again.

Debunking your tedious apologism isn't being "distracted from the main discussion".

Uh huh. Why don't you focus on what Beto actually said, instead of what you think he said.

As previously shown, it is laughable that you - a person who's jumped through endless semantic hoops to justify O'Rourke's lies - would accuse anyone else of not "focussing on what Beto actually said". The fact that I introduced an analogy to expose the extent to which you are using subjectivity to excuse O'Rourke's dishonesty was entirely appropriate. His 1619 claim has no more credibility than a declaration that the US was created on the day of Christ's birth.

1. There is a mountain of evidence alleging that racism in United States is leading to unequal outcomes (which you don't agree with).

Where is it?

2. Again, are you claiming that for racism to be "endemic" or "foudnational" it has to be codified or written into law?

Anti-discriminatory practices and procedures are codified and institutionalized by way of statutes, regulations and social conventions. This alone disproves the "wider implications" of O'Rourke's comments. Simply claiming that racism doesn't have to be codified for it to exist doesn't at all indicate that it actually exists endemically.

Either way, your argument falls apart because I'm not defending that "racism is endemic". I'm defending that one can certainly make that argument without being a liar or intentionally misleading someone.

The only way you could make the argument without being a liar is if you were woefully misinformed - which, thanks to the hysterical, self-serving drivel of figures like O'Rourke, many people are.

Of course you're also getting tripped over words like "endemic" or "foundational" instead of just speaking your mind.

I like how two minutes ago you were accusing me of not focussing on what "Beto actually said" but now you're whining about me getting "tripped over" the language he did in fact use. And again, I have spoken my mind: I think O'Rourke lied to the audience about the creation of the US and existence of endemic racism.

You're literally claiming that Beto is lying.

Which he did.

Yet you're ignoring context and any possible extrapolation that shows otherwise.

As hard as you've tried to present any such "context" which "shows otherwise" you've produced no results.

Aside from the fact that there isn't an explicit lie in Beto's statement.

Crutching on the infallibility of subjectivity once more I see.

"Endemic", "Country was founded in 1619", and whoever the heck a "progressive racialist" is. Again, is it me? Is it my Black friend? Is it Cory Brooker? You take the most uncharitable interpretation of Beto's words, ignore the context of the question, the history he is referring to, and refuse to actually think about what he meant. Yet I'm the one playing semantics.

Yes you are - and self-evidently so. Your inability to comprehend the term progressive racialism (despite it having been explained to you repeatedly) doesn't somehow disprove the existence of progressive racialism. And I note that the only time you lodged an objection to my use of the term was when you decided that you were going to use the semantics of the term to obstruct the debate.

Just so we're on the same page, when was United States founded? Can you tell me precisely so I can tell you whether it's true or false?

As has been repeatedly stated, there are a range of historically reasonable answers to this question, none of which include 1619. The signing of the Declaration of Independence and the ratification of the Constitution are the two most popularly cited events marking the creation of the US.

[Cope]

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.

If you're going to insist on posting talking points which bear no particular relevance to the conversation then I'm simply going to start ignoring you. At no point did I say that slavery wasn't part of American history and my reference to ethnicity was designed to show that American "society" wasn't somehow created in 1619. So I reiterate, either pay attention to the discussion and respond accordingly or I won't bother wasting my time replying.

[Ludicus]

If you're going to insist on posting talking points which bear no particular relevance to the conversation ... American "society" wasn't somehow created in 1619. .

...there are a range of historically reasonable answers to this question, none of which include 1619. The signing of the Declaration of Independence and the ratification of the Constitution are the two most popularly cited events marking the creation of the US.

It's not my fault that you are not willing to understand what I have been saying.

O'Rourke has offered a non romanticized (to put it mildly) narrative for the creation America, and goes to the bottom of the question. That's what bothers you. Trump also recently said that America, symbolically speaking, was created in 1619. (1)
---

People have always moved in search of better living conditions for themselves, fleeing from political/social/religious/physical oppressive conditions. Nowadays, the aim/goal of those who immigrate isn't a "great replacement" or a new colonial project.

Very much on the contrary, precisely because of an specific colonial project, European emigration was always linked to racism. The colonization of the Americas, through claims of racial and religious superiority, offered Europeans opportunities for exploitation/cultural domination. The distinction of races between Europeans and non-Europeans quickly became apparent in Americas as the ultimate justification for exploitation.
The 1619 represents a landmark in the history of slavery in European colonies, and the beginning stages of what would become the institution of slavery in America.

With that being said, (1) that's precisely because what happened in the year 1619 staged America as a race-based nation, with race-based laws (see previous post, previous link), Trump proudly addressed a joint assembly of the Virginia Legislature,

"On this day in 1619, just a mile south of where we are gathered now, 22 newly elected members of the House of Burgesses assembled in a small wooden church. It had been only 13 years since three small ships — the Susan Constant, the Godspeed, and the Discovery — set sail across a vast ocean. They carried 104 settlers to carve out a home on the edge of this uncharted continent. They came for God and country. The settlers forged what would become the timeless traits of the American character"

The white settlers, of course.

[Cope]

It's not my fault that you are not willing to understand what I have been saying.

O'Rourke has offered a non romanticized (to put it mildly) narrative for the creation America, and goes to the bottom of the question. That's what bothers you. Trump also recently said that America, symbolically speaking, was created in 1619. (1)

No. O'Rourke lied about when the US was created in order to pander to a subset of likely Democrat voters. That's it.

[Ludicus]

No. O'Rourke lied about when the US was created

No, he is right...Trump says exactly the same thing, but commemorates the year 1619 from a different ( white) perspective. Doesn't it bother you? of course not.

---
Back to the topic, the candidates. Trump's call transcript,
"The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Bidens's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution...Biden went about bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it"
Its crystal clear that Trump pushed Ukraine to investigate Biden. With that being said, since dichotomy says its either true or false, in the name of transparence, I'm curious to know...is it true or false?

[Cope]

No, he is right...Trump says exactly the same thing, but commemorates the year 1619 from a different ( white) perspective. Doesn't it bother you? of course not.

Trump did not say "exactly the same thing", but if he had, he too would be wrong. The United States was not created in 1619. That's fact I'm afraid.

[Abdülmecid I]

Please debate in good faith and concentrate on the subject of the thread, which concerns the Democratic primaries for the 2020 presidential elections. The beginning of the American history and the Norman conquest of England are not really relevant, while slightly personal zebra-posting threatens to derail the rest of the conversation.

[Squiggle]

Before i even post, what the happened to twc? This site is unbearably slow.

How many candidates are pro reparations? I've seen Warren is pro. What are the statute of limitations?

If black people are owed reparations, then they owe the rest of the world reparations. It is never the winner in a fight that has to do what the loser wants then leave their land and go somewhere far enough away the loser can't force their will on them. Their ancestors forced the ancestors of the rest of the world out., So technically they are the descendants and beneficiaries of the people who started the whole damn thing. They forced the rest of the world's ancestors away. That distance was so far and hard to travel the diverging sides would barely interact with each other till the 1500s. We've all been evil to each other now, let's move on, or...

Hooray for making everything about race, now we can go back to killing each other like the good old days.

#neveragain

Yeah, the reparations issue is extremely worrying. First, you already have an ethnic party-- the Republicans-- so racial polarization is set up as political polarization, and thats frightening, because it means politics has once again become a struggle of races instead of civic aspirations. Or at least it means it could easily become that.

The thing about reparations is, large bodies of the white population that lived there then, let alone the current population [immigrants etc] had nothing to do with oppressing black people-- on the contrary, they too were oppressed by the same plutocrats. And the chances that reparations will only target the hyper rich families that we can document had a hand, directly or indirectly, with oppressing the lower classes, is very small. Hell, the possibility that reparations will be justified in that way is essentially zero-- it is already racialized. Forget all the civil rights abuses against whites in the past-- or the present-- and how americas kleptocratic class has been robbing Americans of their wealth for centuries. Instead, if we get anything, it will be an idiotic cheque to 'black people' taxed at the general publics expense.

The other worrying bit is the opposite of that. What if they do try to use reparations as a means of redistributing resources generally? Well, I actually think thats fairly justifiable, and the justification for reparations I dont think can logically be limited only to black people, only for slavery. So now you have a very powerful argument thats partially been accepted into politics that could used to call for, essentially, taking everything from the bushes, the clintons, and all the rest who've used the American state to enrich themselves at the expense of others. That mentality, as I said I find it justifiable, is a very scary one as well. So is leaving the bastards to continue their abuse though, I suppose.

[Cope]

Sanders just had stents fitted after suffering from chest pains. He has canceled all of his upcoming events until further notice. This is a pretty serious development (particularly at his age) because it's an indicator that he's at risk from suffering, among other things, a cardiac arrest. If he does continue his VP pick will be particularly significant, though its looking increasingly like Warren is going to be the Democratic nominee.

[athanaric]

First, you already have an ethnic party-- the Republicans--

"Republican" is an ethnicity now?

[Aexodus]

I suppose all the non-white Republicans are Uncle Toms.

[Ludicus]

Sanders just had stents fitted after suffering from chest pains. He has canceled all of his upcoming events until further notice. This is a pretty serious development (particularly at his age) because it's an indicator that he's at risk from suffering, among other things, a cardiac arrest. If he does continue his VP pick will be particularly significant, though its looking increasingly like Warren is going to be the Democratic nominee.

Yes, I agree, Warren is going to be the democratic candidate. But from a medical point of view, Sanders is not in risk of suffering a cardiac arrest. Not at all. Much on the contrary- he has now clean coronaries, never suffered a myocardial infarction, and there is no ventricular dysfunction.
Are you sure that your coronaries are clean? Manifestations of coronary atherosclerosis in young trauma victims-

[Love Mountain]

Yes, I agree, Warren is going to be the democratic candidate. But from a medical point of view, Sanders is not in risk of suffering a cardiac arrest. Not at all. Much on the contrary- he has now clean coronaries, never suffered a myocardial infarction, and there is no ventricular dysfunction.
Are you sure that your coronaries are clean? Manifestations of coronary atherosclerosis in young trauma victims-

Even if true, most people who won't bother reading, i.e. 99% of the electorate, will simply assume Sanders' health is frail. We need to think about the effect this will have on the psychology of the voters, rather than the actual physical condition of Sanders. Optics matter.

[Ludicus]

Even if true, most people who won't bother reading, i.e. 99% of the electorate, will simply assume Sanders' health is frail. We need to think about the effect this will have on the psychology of the voters, rather than the actual physical condition of Sanders. Optics matter.

Age matters, certainly. But in some studies, five years after the procedures, 90% of the patients are still alive. Sanders campaign confirmed that Sanders will participate in the debate on October 15. The paralytic illness (Guillain Barré or polio, we don't know for sure) of Roosevelt began in 1921 - and he trounced Hoover in the 1932 election...but yes, age is a real issue- for Biden and Sanders. Biden seems slightly senile (calls Sanders the President during the debate). It's time to start testing the cognitive abilities of the presidential candidates - impairment of cognitive function is the central feature of incipient dementias-Alzheimer and vascular dementia.

[Prodromos]

I don't see the problem with old presidents. Old age is a plus. A president should be at least 70 years old.

[Ludicus]

Sanders: the rest of his arteries were normal.

A president should be at least 70 years old

I see, 70 years is a magic number.
Trump is 73 years old. Megalomaniac since he was born...but now his behavior has become more erratic and bizarre.
Seriously now,
Risk of Developing Dementia at Older Ages in the United States - NCBI

This study provides the first nationally representative estimates of the probability that an average dementia-free person at various ages will develop dementia before death. These estimates suggest that approximately 27 % of dementia-free 70-year-old males and approximately 35 % of dementia-free 70-year-old females in the 1920 birth cohort will develop dementia before they die.

[alhoon]

Sanders just had stents fitted after suffering from chest pains. He has canceled all of his upcoming events until further notice. This is a pretty serious development (particularly at his age) because it's an indicator that he's at risk from suffering, among other things, a cardiac arrest. If he does continue his VP pick will be particularly significant, though its looking increasingly like Warren is going to be the Democratic nominee.

Sanders thankfully survived the heart attack this time and says he's ready to resume the campaign trail.

However, I believe his campaign is effectively finished. His chances to survive till 2024 are not great. He is simply put, an old man. As such, I believe not enough voters would be behind him as there's a huge field of people that say more or less what he does with small variations.

His time was 15 years ago. Now it's too late.

Warren is not young either BTW.

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

However, I believe his campaign is effectively finished. His chances to survive till 2024 are not great. He is simply put, an old man. As such, I believe not enough voters would be behind him as there's a huge field of people that say more or less what he does with small variations.

That's how the media puts it, in reality there are significant enough differences between Sanders and Warren in economic terms, and in foreign policy the differences are much greater.

Warren is not young either BTW.

Neither is Biden. Warren, Biden and Sanders are the only ones who can spar with Trump in the debates, maybe Harris. While extremely unlikely, I sure hope we don't get to see Trump vs Buttigieg debate, Trump would annihilate poor little Pete... Biden on the other hand... if his memory, or teeth, doesn't fail him during the debate might have a fighting chance.

[sumskilz]

Biden on the other hand... if his memory, or teeth, doesn't fail him during the debate might have a fighting chance.

Yeah, and... Help, I Can't Look Away From Joe Biden's Bloody Eyeball