Future of the Democratic Party


Off-Topic Discussions

3,301 to 3,350 of 4,260 << first < prev | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Guy Humual wrote:
You think that the lives of democratic voting minorities are better in New York under a democratic governor, with democratic senators, and had Hillary won, a democratic president? I don't.
Quote:
Bill de Blasio was mayor of the city at the time. He did end the stop and frisk program. That means the lives of minorities are now slightly less s**#ty then they were before.

So, Democrat governance made things "slightly less s**#ty", but in no way "better".

Your 'position' is no longer coherent enough to refute.

Sovereign Court

CBDunkerson wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
You think that the lives of democratic voting minorities are better in New York under a democratic governor, with democratic senators, and had Hillary won, a democratic president? I don't.
Quote:
Bill de Blasio was mayor of the city at the time. He did end the stop and frisk program. That means the lives of minorities are now slightly less s**#ty then they were before.

So, Democrat governance made things "slightly less s**#ty", but in no way "better".

Correct, I'm saying that their lives are still horrible in New York, they know the police can murder them without fear of prosecution, sure they don't have to suffer unconstitutional searches anymore like the majority of Americans, but one less indignity doesn't erase the fact that they still have to fear being targeted or outright murdered by the police.

If you improve an abattoir it make it less stressful and frightening for the animals they still end up dead. If you have to tell your kids, especially your boys, that they have to be very careful around the police because they could end up dead that sad reality isn't changed now that they don't have to worry about illegal searches.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Guy Humual wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
if CBDunkerson thinks that the democrats don't need to change much

What I said was that they don't need to change much in order to win future elections... because by most measures they won the last election;

They picked up seats in the House. They picked up seats in the Senate. They won the presidential popular vote by a significant margin.

The electoral college loss was a statistical fluke.

Quote:
This is the new normal in America. If you're black or suffer from mental disabilities or both your chances of being killed by the police is going to be five times higher. Adjust your lifestyle accordingly as voting democrat or republican isn't going to fix the system.

Democrats were taking action on those issues. Republicans are now rolling those actions back. If you can't see the difference then you have some sort of political blindness.

The Democrats can and should 'change' to do more, but the claim that they aren't doing anything different than the Republicans has no foundation in reality.

I didn't say democrats weren't doing anything, I'm saying what they're doing isn't going to make any difference, and so voting republican or democrat isn't going to address the root problems that are allowing this to happen. If you live in New York you can't vote in a democratic governor in Texas, heck Eric Garner was murdered, on video, by the police, in New York, a democratic strong hold, and the only one to face jail time was the person who recorded the video. If the democrats aren't going to fix some of the root causes, like say income inequality, all the DoJ investigations in the world aren't going to fix the problem.

You have your root causes mixed up. The root cause isn't income inequality, that's also result of the actual root cause, racism.


Squeakmaan wrote:


You have your root causes mixed up. The root cause isn't income inequality, that's also result of the actual root cause, racism.

Current methodology has done so much to curb that too.

Sovereign Court

Squeakmaan wrote:
You have your root causes mixed up. The root cause isn't income inequality, that's also result of the actual root cause, racism.

Can you fix racism?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
You think that the lives of democratic voting minorities are better in New York under a democratic governor, with democratic senators, and had Hillary won, a democratic president? I don't.
Quote:
Bill de Blasio was mayor of the city at the time. He did end the stop and frisk program. That means the lives of minorities are now slightly less s**#ty then they were before.

So, Democrat governance made things "slightly less s**#ty", but in no way "better".

Correct, I'm saying that their lives are still horrible in New York, they know the police can murder them without fear of prosecution, sure they don't have to suffer unconstitutional searches anymore like the majority of Americans, but one less indignity doesn't erase the fact that they still have to fear being targeted or outright murdered by the police.

If you improve an abattoir it make it less stressful and frightening for the animals they still end up dead. If you have to tell your kids, especially your boys, that they have to be very careful around the police because they could end up dead that sad reality isn't changed now that they don't have to worry about illegal searches.

Of course, Bill de Blasio had been in office about 6 months when that happened, after about 20 years under Republican mayors, but because he didn't change the entire culture of the police and the courts overnight, we know it doesn't matter at all.

And getting rid of Stop & Frisk isn't separate. Policies like that are closer to the actual root of the problem. The high profile killings are just the most obvious symptoms. The constant lower level harassment not only increases the chances of a killing by increasing the number of hostile interactions, but also raises the tension, the anger and the distrust between the police and the community, which also increases the chances of a killing.

Even when the official policies change it still takes time for attitudes to change - for police to actually adapt to new practices, if they can be pushed to do so and for the community to trust that things really have changes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Woman convicted for laughing at claim that Jeff Sessions treats everyone equally under the law

That is literally horrifying.

How anyone can still consider the United States a free country is beyond me.


Guy Humual wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
You have your root causes mixed up. The root cause isn't income inequality, that's also result of the actual root cause, racism.
Can you fix racism?

Can you fix income inequality?


Guy Humual wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
You think that the lives of democratic voting minorities are better in New York under a democratic governor, with democratic senators, and had Hillary won, a democratic president? I don't.
Quote:
Bill de Blasio was mayor of the city at the time. He did end the stop and frisk program. That means the lives of minorities are now slightly less s**#ty then they were before.

So, Democrat governance made things "slightly less s**#ty", but in no way "better".

Correct, I'm saying that their lives are still horrible in New York, they know the police can murder them without fear of prosecution, sure they don't have to suffer unconstitutional searches anymore like the majority of Americans, but one less indignity doesn't erase the fact that they still have to fear being targeted or outright murdered by the police.

If you improve an abattoir it make it less stressful and frightening for the animals they still end up dead. If you have to tell your kids, especially your boys, that they have to be very careful around the police because they could end up dead that sad reality isn't changed now that they don't have to worry about illegal searches.

We understand that their lives are still bad. We know. Got it. The argument is that voting Democrat makes their lives BETTER whereas voting Republican makes their lives equally bad or WORSE. (Note: this is not a position I hold to be inherently universally true, due in large part to "better" being a subjective term just like "good")


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
You have your root causes mixed up. The root cause isn't income inequality, that's also result of the actual root cause, racism.
Can you fix racism?
Can you fix income inequality?

We have more evidence that one can be mitigated than the other.

Edit: we also have more evidence that as income inequality increases racism does as well since minorities are an easy target of blame. "dey tuk r jerbs" and all.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:

Of course, Bill de Blasio had been in office about 6 months when that happened, after about 20 years under Republican mayors, but because he didn't change the entire culture of the police and the courts overnight, we know it doesn't matter at all.

And getting rid of Stop & Frisk isn't separate. Policies like that are closer to the actual root of the problem. The high profile killings are just the most obvious symptoms. The constant lower level harassment not only increases the chances of a killing by increasing the number of hostile interactions, but also raises the tension, the anger and the distrust between the police and the community, which also increases the chances of a killing.

Even when the official policies change it still takes time for attitudes to change - for police to actually adapt to new practices, if they can be pushed to do so and for the community to trust that things really have changes.

Bill raised New York to the standard of law that is in the constitution. If all of Obama's changes can be undone by the next republican president then you're not fixing anything, you're changing the paint.

Sovereign Court

Ryan Freire wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
You have your root causes mixed up. The root cause isn't income inequality, that's also result of the actual root cause, racism.
Can you fix racism?
Can you fix income inequality?

We have more evidence that one can be mitigated than the other.

Edit: we also have more evidence that as income inequality increases racism does as well since minorities are an easy target of blame. "dey tuk r jerbs" and all.

exactly, we don't have a racism code that determines how much racism everyone is allowed to have.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wake up, people. When folks are getting tossed into prison for daring to laugh at the emperor's lackey, it isn't the future of the Democratic Party we should be concerned about; it's the future of democracy. Who is likely to win the next election only matters if there IS another election.

Seriously, we're there. It's time for that conversation.


bugleyman wrote:

Wake up, people. When folks are getting tossed into prison for daring to laugh at the emperor's lackey, it isn't the future of the Democratic Party we should be concerned about; it's the future of democracy. Who is likely to win the next election only matters if there IS another election.

Seriously, we're there. It's time for that conversation.

Well, whether or not that's actually what she's getting tossed in prison for is the subject of debate. Her story and the court's story don't match up, and given Code Pink's history, I'm not inclined to give her account of events more weight than the court's.

Sovereign Court

Captain Battletoad wrote:
We understand that their lives are still bad. We know. Got it. The argument is that voting Democrat makes their lives BETTER whereas voting Republican makes their lives equally bad or WORSE. (Note: this is not a position I hold to be inherently universally true, due in large part to "better" being a subjective term just like "good")

What upsets me is that the Democrats aren't offering real change, just marginal/incremental change. Things are slightly better under a democrat, things are worse under a republican, it's the carrot and the stick that democrats believes guarantees the minority vote. I think Clinton lost a lot of that vote because folks didn't feel like marginal change was going to do it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Well, whether or not that's actually what she's getting tossed in prison for is the subject of debate. Her story and the court's story don't match up, and given Code Pink's history, I'm not inclined to give her account of events more weight than the court's.

If she didn't engage in violence, then there is no excuse for a prison sentence.

Think about what you're saying...the government is tossing people in jail for nothing more than what they said, and neither side debates this. What exactly was said, or how loudly, is totally irrelevant.
The idea that anyone is even remotely accepting of this is a death knell for freedom of speech.

I'm a well-educated, level-headed American, and I have absolutely no doubt that is now time -- hell, past time -- to leave. This country is done.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Democrats lose from not focusing on race and from focusing too much on race.


bugleyman wrote:
...I have absolutely no doubt that is now time -- hell, past time -- to leave. This country is done.

B'bye!


Guy Humual wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
We understand that their lives are still bad. We know. Got it. The argument is that voting Democrat makes their lives BETTER whereas voting Republican makes their lives equally bad or WORSE. (Note: this is not a position I hold to be inherently universally true, due in large part to "better" being a subjective term just like "good")
What upsets me is that the Democrats aren't offering real change, just marginal/incremental change. Things are slightly better under a democrat, things are worse under a republican, it's the carrot and the stick that democrats believes guarantees the minority vote. I think Clinton lost a lot of that vote because folks didn't feel like marginal change was going to do it.

What non-marginal change do you think Democrats at the state or federal level could realistically enact in a short time span that they aren't currently?

Sovereign Court

Knight who says Meh wrote:
Democrats lose from not focusing on race and from focusing too much on race.

Race shouldn't be the democrat's cross to bear. "All men are created equal" and all that. Equality is supposed to be an American ideal.


Atavar wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
...I have absolutely no doubt that is now time -- hell, past time -- to leave. This country is done.
B'bye!

Edit: That seemed kinda hostile and more than a little smug, though I understand the need to re-assure yourself about your own decisions.


bugleyman wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Well, whether or not that's actually what she's getting tossed in prison for is the subject of debate. Her story and the court's story don't match up, and given Code Pink's history, I'm not inclined to give her account of events more weight than the court's.

If she didn't engage in violence, then there is no excuse for a prison sentence.

Think about what you're saying...the government is tossing people in jail for nothing more than what they said, and neither side debates this. What exactly was said, or how loudly, is totally irrelevant.
The idea that anyone is even remotely accepting of this is a death knell for freedom of speech.

I'm a well-educated, level-headed American, and I have absolutely no doubt that is now time -- hell, past time -- to leave. This country is done.

(Emphasis mine)

False. The reason she was in court was because she allegedly disrupted the proceedings and failed to comply with law enforcement when they tried to get her to initially stop. Whether or not that's actually how things went down is the subject of the debate that I referred to in my previous post. I'm a fan of "the end is nigh" type rabble rousing, but it just doesn't really fit here.


bugleyman wrote:
Atavar wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
...I have absolutely no doubt that is now time -- hell, past time -- to leave. This country is done.
B'bye!

Another faux patriot that has apparently never heard of brain drain. Oh well, you'll figure it out eventually.

Neither of your attitudes are particularly helpful.


Guy Humual wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
We understand that their lives are still bad. We know. Got it. The argument is that voting Democrat makes their lives BETTER whereas voting Republican makes their lives equally bad or WORSE. (Note: this is not a position I hold to be inherently universally true, due in large part to "better" being a subjective term just like "good")
What upsets me is that the Democrats aren't offering real change, just marginal/incremental change. Things are slightly better under a democrat, things are worse under a republican, it's the carrot and the stick that democrats believes guarantees the minority vote. I think Clinton lost a lot of that vote because folks didn't feel like marginal change was going to do it.

Perhaps Democrats should run on "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" and the complete end of any form of bigotry.

Democrats run on incremental change because incremental change is possible. Also because actual change scares people. You might say that Trump won on "change", but he didn't really: Trump ran on "back to the good old days, when life was easy and those people knew their place."


Knight who says Meh wrote:
Neither of your attitudes are particularly helpful.

Some people don't want to be helped.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Battletoad wrote:
False. The reason she was in court was because she allegedly disrupted the proceedings and failed to comply with law enforcement when they tried to get her to initially stop. Whether or not that's actually how things went down is the subject of the debate that I referred to in my previous post. I'm a fan of "the end is nigh" type rabble rousing, but it just doesn't really fit here.

Vehemently disagree. There is no justification for anything more than removing her, period. Neither side's story justifies jail time. This is a full-on, frontal assault on freedom of speech. And no one seems to care.

Compared to that, I don't give a $h!t about the next election.


bugleyman wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Neither of your attitudes are particularly helpful.
Some people don't want to be helped.

Go be smug somewhere else then. I doubt much "brain drain" will be noticed in your absence.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Battletoad wrote:
What non-marginal change do you think Democrats at the state or federal level could realistically enact in a short time span that they aren't currently?

Return to at least pre Reagan era tax code, end the war on drugs, raise the national minimum wage to reflect a living wage, guarantee education, be it collage or trade, for Americans of all income levels, enact single payer heath care, or at the very least create a state insurance option to Obama Care, and enact prison reform. That's off the top of my head. Those changes would improve the lives of minorities in the US drastically without once mentioning race or even suggesting it's a factor.


Ryan Freire wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Neither of your attitudes are particularly helpful.
Some people don't want to be helped.
Go be smug somewhere else then. I doubt much "brain drain" will be noticed in your absence.

Except I'm not smug...I'm sad. But thanks for the sideways insult...did it make you feel good?


bugleyman wrote:
I truly don't care.

Uh huh...you didn't care so much that you resorted to name-calling and pointing out that you don't care.... LOL


Guy Humual wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
What non-marginal change do you think Democrats at the state or federal level could realistically enact in a short time span that they aren't currently?
Return to at least pre Reagan era tax code, end the war on drugs, raise the national minimum wage to reflect a living wage, guarantee education, be it collage or trade, for Americans of all income levels, enact single payer heath care, or at the very least create a state insurance option to Obama Care, and enact prison reform. That's off the top of my head. Those changes would improve the lives of minorities in the US drastically without once mentioning race or even suggesting it's a factor.

I said "realistically". Also some of those aren't terribly specific. What would you define as a "living wage"? Enact prison reform how?


Guy Humual wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Democrats lose from not focusing on race and from focusing too much on race.
Race shouldn't be the democrat's cross to bear. "All men are created equal" and all that. Equality is supposed to be an American ideal.

What does "should" have to do with it? It's supposed to be an American ideal, but it's one we've never lived up to.

You've said similar things before, but what do you think that translates to in practice? Pretend everything is fine and ignore the problems? What happens if Democrats stop carrying that cross - even to the extent that they are?

Plenty of other ideals the US doesn't live up to either - should parties stop working on them because they're supposed to be our ideals already?


bugleyman wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Neither of your attitudes are particularly helpful.
Some people don't want to be helped.
Go be smug somewhere else then. I doubt much "brain drain" will be noticed in your absence.
Except I'm not smug...I'm sad. But thanks for the sideways insult...did it make you feel good?

It made me feel neutral. The "OMG politics are terrible here, im moving to Sweden/Canada/etcetc" was old when I first saw it 20+ years ago. You aren't going to lead some mass exodus of the educated elite out of the country, and frankly you're going to find its a lot harder to become a citizen of nations like Canada and Sweden than you think it is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Squeakmaan wrote:


You have your root causes mixed up. The root cause isn't income inequality, that's also result of the actual root cause, racism.

Racism exists as a thing mostly as a justification for economic inequality benefiting those at the top. Medieval europe wasn't really that racist, and apparently had less hostility towards people for being black than for being french. St maurice for example was thought to be black for hundreds of years.

Then the slave trade started, and people needed reasons to justify Forcibly kidnaping other sentient human beings , getting them killed on an atlantic voyage of inhuman horrors, and then sending them and their children and their childrens children to work for you in perpetuity under the threat of being whipped or hanged. Being a lesser human, or not even human at all, fit that need.

It got entrenched further when slaves and poor whites teamed up for Bacon's rebellion. After that the elites realized that they could suppress the poor or the african americans but not both. So they started treating the poor whites a LITTLE better and set them against the african americans.

And it's still as useful thing to do. Martin Luther King tried to tie the union and african american causes together. Racism is still used to get poor whites to vote against their own economic interests. Don't vote against that tax bill that keeps the rich guy from paying any taxes, vote against the food that black person is getting! Look! A black person with lobster! Get them!

So yes. Racism exists because there was money to be made off of it, and there's STILL money to be made off of it. I don't think getting rid of the economic problems would get rid of the racism but i know racism isn't going anywhere until the economic disparity narrows.


Yeah, I'm done with the semantic playground crap.

For those of you how I've known on here for a long time, especially those of us in the U.S: Wake up. It's time to get involved, before it's too late. If it isn't already.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Lets chill out a little so this thread doesn't get locked.

EDIT: Bugleyman- I know how you feel. I've felt that was since I was put in jail in 2004. What I discovered since then is that you can't force people to learn or feel things. Everyone comes around a different times. Do your best to spread knowledge, but don't expect people to come around at your pace.


Ryan Freire wrote:
It made me feel neutral. The "OMG politics are terrible here, im moving to Sweden/Canada/etcetc" was old when I first saw it 20+ years ago. You aren't going to lead some mass exodus of the educated elite out of the country, and frankly you're going to find its a lot harder to become a citizen of nations like Canada and Sweden than you think it is.

No, I'm not. I'm well informed about the criteria, and I assure you that I qualify. But that's beside the point.

Nor am I delusional enough to believe I'll "lead" anything. Though I do think that there is some strong evidence that such an exodus is already underway.

Like you, I've seen the talk for decades. And like you, I wrote it off as hyperbole. But I'm not so sure any more. They are literally locking people up for nothing more than saying the wrong thing. For me, that's a game changer, and I didn't think mentioning it was somehow beyond the pale. Though for some people, it's apparently threatening enough to take a shot at me. So be it.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
We understand that their lives are still bad. We know. Got it. The argument is that voting Democrat makes their lives BETTER whereas voting Republican makes their lives equally bad or WORSE. (Note: this is not a position I hold to be inherently universally true, due in large part to "better" being a subjective term just like "good")
What upsets me is that the Democrats aren't offering real change, just marginal/incremental change. Things are slightly better under a democrat, things are worse under a republican, it's the carrot and the stick that democrats believes guarantees the minority vote. I think Clinton lost a lot of that vote because folks didn't feel like marginal change was going to do it.

Perhaps Democrats should run on "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" and the complete end of any form of bigotry.

Democrats run on incremental change because incremental change is possible. Also because actual change scares people. You might say that Trump won on "change", but he didn't really: Trump ran on "back to the good old days, when life was easy and those people knew their place."

Well I would argue that some people did vote for Trump thinking he'd actually bring change, I'd say that case that when Obama was elected people were ready for change is easier to prove, people would have fought in the streets as they're doing now to get single payer back then. Obama didn't really push for it, rather he almost campaigned against it, Dennis Kucinich wanted single payer IIRC, and I think Obama went to his district to fight for the system you have now. People hate Obama care, it's better then what you had before, but it's still nowhere as good as single payer. People voted overwhelmingly for change and they were disappointed. Statistics show that at least a sizable portion of people voting for Obama switched to Trump this cycle and I'd suspect that it was because he was promising change as well.


Guy Humual wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
What non-marginal change do you think Democrats at the state or federal level could realistically enact in a short time span that they aren't currently?
Return to at least pre Reagan era tax code, end the war on drugs, raise the national minimum wage to reflect a living wage, guarantee education, be it collage or trade, for Americans of all income levels, enact single payer heath care, or at the very least create a state insurance option to Obama Care, and enact prison reform. That's off the top of my head. Those changes would improve the lives of minorities in the US drastically without once mentioning race or even suggesting it's a factor.

And none of them are even vaguely possible without huge political fights. I mean, I'm not opposed to any of them, but the party would be swept out of power in a landslide and the changes reversed long before anything that sweeping could take effect.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:


You have your root causes mixed up. The root cause isn't income inequality, that's also result of the actual root cause, racism.

Racism exists as a thing mostly as a justification for economic inequality benefiting those at the top. Medieval europe wasn't really that racist, and apparently had less hostility towards people for being black than for being french. St maurice for example was thought to be black for hundreds of years.

Then the slave trade started, and people needed reasons to justify Forcibly kidnaping other sentient human beings , getting them killed on an atlantic voyage of inhuman horrors, and then sending them and their children and their childrens children to work for you in perpetuity under the threat of being whipped or hanged. Being a lesser human, or not even human at all, fit that need.

It got entrenched further when slaves and poor whites teamed up for Bacon's rebellion. After that the elites realized that they could suppress the poor or the african americans but not both. So they started treating the poor whites a LITTLE better and set them against the african americans.

And it's still as useful thing to do. Martin Luther King tried to tie the union and african american causes together. Racism is still used to get poor whites to vote against their own economic interests. Don't vote against that tax bill that keeps the rich guy from paying any taxes, vote against the food that black person is getting! Look! A black person with lobster! Get them!

So yes. Racism exists because there was money to be made off of it, and there's STILL money to be made off of it. I don't think getting rid of the economic problems would get rid of the racism but i know racism isn't going anywhere until the economic disparity narrows.

Racism in the west, sure (though I tend to defer to Hanlon's Razor), but not necessarily racism across the globe. South Korea, Japan, and parts of China have a tendency to be pretty racist in the modern day without much economic incentive. Just a small anecdote: during the ebola scare from a couple of years ago, there were quite a few bars and other establishments in Ulsan (SK) that wouldn't allow entry to anyone who was black as they were assumed to be from Africa and therefore possibly infected.

Sovereign Court

Fergie wrote:

Lets chill out a little so this thread doesn't get locked.

Please! Remember we can disagree without being jerks to each other. I might disagree with folks on some points but it doesn't mean I think the people I'm debating are idiots, quite the opposite usually, and it's perfectly natural for people to disagree on some things and still be friends. There's no reason to be rude to each other.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:


You have your root causes mixed up. The root cause isn't income inequality, that's also result of the actual root cause, racism.

Racism exists as a thing mostly as a justification for economic inequality benefiting those at the top. Medieval europe wasn't really that racist, and apparently had less hostility towards people for being black than for being french. St maurice for example was thought to be black for hundreds of years.

Then the slave trade started, and people needed reasons to justify Forcibly kidnaping other sentient human beings , getting them killed on an atlantic voyage of inhuman horrors, and then sending them and their children and their childrens children to work for you in perpetuity under the threat of being whipped or hanged. Being a lesser human, or not even human at all, fit that need.

It got entrenched further when slaves and poor whites teamed up for Bacon's rebellion. After that the elites realized that they could suppress the poor or the african americans but not both. So they started treating the poor whites a LITTLE better and set them against the african americans.

And it's still as useful thing to do. Martin Luther King tried to tie the union and african american causes together. Racism is still used to get poor whites to vote against their own economic interests. Don't vote against that tax bill that keeps the rich guy from paying any taxes, vote against the food that black person is getting! Look! A black person with lobster! Get them!

So yes. Racism exists because there was money to be made off of it, and there's STILL money to be made off of it. I don't think getting rid of the economic problems would get rid of the racism but i know racism isn't going anywhere until the economic disparity narrows.

Moreover the correlation between economic inequality and racism is so freaking blatant that it takes like a sophomore college term of history to see it spelled out over and over again across centuries of modern existence. It was the irish in the early/mid 1800's where if you hired a day laborer in the northeast there was a 90% chance he was an irishman. Black people during reconstruction, the chinese were the first race to be banned from immigration during railroad construction on the west coast. You just have to look at the evolution of the Irish earlier in the century to the workingmans party on the west coast and Kearny.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
What non-marginal change do you think Democrats at the state or federal level could realistically enact in a short time span that they aren't currently?
Return to at least pre Reagan era tax code, end the war on drugs, raise the national minimum wage to reflect a living wage, guarantee education, be it collage or trade, for Americans of all income levels, enact single payer heath care, or at the very least create a state insurance option to Obama Care, and enact prison reform. That's off the top of my head. Those changes would improve the lives of minorities in the US drastically without once mentioning race or even suggesting it's a factor.
And none of them are even vaguely possible without huge political fights. I mean, I'm not opposed to any of them, but the party would be swept out of power in a landslide and the changes reversed long before anything that sweeping could take effect.

Well none of these things are possible without a fight period. We have people in the streets looking to fight Trump right now. Give them something to demand. Folks aren't happy with marginal incremental change. It doesn't get them into the streets. If we had a leader that was willing to fight for some of this stuff and people willing to take to the streets to demand it you'd probably have far more success then just though votes alone.


bugleyman wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
It made me feel neutral. The "OMG politics are terrible here, im moving to Sweden/Canada/etcetc" was old when I first saw it 20+ years ago. You aren't going to lead some mass exodus of the educated elite out of the country, and frankly you're going to find its a lot harder to become a citizen of nations like Canada and Sweden than you think it is.
No, I'm not. I'm well informed about the criteria, and I assure you that I qualify.

Maybe get going then instead of being YET ANOTHER flouncer on the internet.


Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
We understand that their lives are still bad. We know. Got it. The argument is that voting Democrat makes their lives BETTER whereas voting Republican makes their lives equally bad or WORSE. (Note: this is not a position I hold to be inherently universally true, due in large part to "better" being a subjective term just like "good")
What upsets me is that the Democrats aren't offering real change, just marginal/incremental change. Things are slightly better under a democrat, things are worse under a republican, it's the carrot and the stick that democrats believes guarantees the minority vote. I think Clinton lost a lot of that vote because folks didn't feel like marginal change was going to do it.

Perhaps Democrats should run on "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" and the complete end of any form of bigotry.

Democrats run on incremental change because incremental change is possible. Also because actual change scares people. You might say that Trump won on "change", but he didn't really: Trump ran on "back to the good old days, when life was easy and those people knew their place."

Well I would argue that some people did vote for Trump thinking he'd actually bring change, I'd say that case that when Obama was elected people were ready for change is easier to prove, people would have fought in the streets as they're doing now to get single payer back then. Obama didn't really push for it, rather he almost campaigned against it, Dennis Kucinich wanted single payer IIRC, and I think Obama went to his district to fight for the system you have now. People hate Obama care, it's better then what you had before, but it's still nowhere as good as single payer. People voted overwhelmingly for change and they were disappointed. Statistics show that at least a sizable portion of people voting for Obama switched to Trump this cycle and I'd suspect that it was because he was promising...

Yeah, Trump was promising "change" as in back to the good old days, not anything actually new. That's a big difference. It really is.

And I fully agree that single payer would be much better and I think that if you could pass it here and actually get it into place within a few years people would love it, but you have to get a huge tax increase and a full government takeover of the healthcare system passed against rabid opposition based purely on promises of how wonderful it's going to be. That's a tall order. That's why we got the watered down version we did get


Ryan Freire wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
It made me feel neutral. The "OMG politics are terrible here, im moving to Sweden/Canada/etcetc" was old when I first saw it 20+ years ago. You aren't going to lead some mass exodus of the educated elite out of the country, and frankly you're going to find its a lot harder to become a citizen of nations like Canada and Sweden than you think it is.
No, I'm not. I'm well informed about the criteria, and I assure you that I qualify.
Maybe get going then instead of being YET ANOTHER flouncer on the internet.

It's odd that you assume I'm not already doing so. It's not a fast process, and where do you suppose I learned about the requirements? :P

Look, I appreciate the need to justify your own decisions. I really do. I just wish you would it without implying I'm being dishonest.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:


You have your root causes mixed up. The root cause isn't income inequality, that's also result of the actual root cause, racism.

Racism exists as a thing mostly as a justification for economic inequality benefiting those at the top. Medieval europe wasn't really that racist, and apparently had less hostility towards people for being black than for being french. St maurice for example was thought to be black for hundreds of years.

Then the slave trade started, and people needed reasons to justify Forcibly kidnaping other sentient human beings , getting them killed on an atlantic voyage of inhuman horrors, and then sending them and their children and their childrens children to work for you in perpetuity under the threat of being whipped or hanged. Being a lesser human, or not even human at all, fit that need.

It got entrenched further when slaves and poor whites teamed up for Bacon's rebellion. After that the elites realized that they could suppress the poor or the african americans but not both. So they started treating the poor whites a LITTLE better and set them against the african americans.

And it's still as useful thing to do. Martin Luther King tried to tie the union and african american causes together. Racism is still used to get poor whites to vote against their own economic interests. Don't vote against that tax bill that keeps the rich guy from paying any taxes, vote against the food that black person is getting! Look! A black person with lobster! Get them!

So yes. Racism exists because there was money to be made off of it, and there's STILL money to be made off of it. I don't think getting rid of the economic problems would get rid of the racism but i know racism isn't going anywhere until the economic disparity narrows.

Yes and no. Sure, they're tied together. Sure the elites manipulate people with racism for their own benefit.

But that's the point. When you try to reduce that economic disparity (and try to include the marginalized in that) you run smack into that manipulation and those existing prejudices, whatever their origins. The problems are tied to closely together. They can't really be addressed separately. It's hard, but you've got to work them in tandem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
And I fully agree that single payer would be much better and I think that if you could pass it here and actually get it into place within a few years people would love it, but you have to get a huge tax increase and a full government takeover of the healthcare system passed against rabid opposition based purely on promises of how wonderful it's going to be. That's a tall order. That's why we got the watered down version we did get

I have no idea why Americans are so afraid of socialized medicine. Even Adam @#$@# Smith knew that certain functions could NOT be done most efficiently through the free market.

Sometimes people are so ignorant it's painful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Changing the tax code requires an act of congress.

Changing peoples minds requires either an act of god, or waiting for people to meet him on their own.

I don't find an act of congress that much more likely than an act of god, but it is something you can work towards. The other not so much.


Fergie wrote:

Lets chill out a little so this thread doesn't get locked.

EDIT: Bugleyman- I know how you feel. I've felt that was since I was put in jail in 2004. What I discovered since then is that you can't force people to learn or feel things. Everyone comes around a different times. Do your best to spread knowledge, but don't expect people to come around at your pace.

Wise words. It's just frightening to not recognize your own country any more. :-(

3,301 to 3,350 of 4,260 << first < prev | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Future of the Democratic Party All Messageboards