WRT German migrants: Germany has never successfully invaded anyone.
WRT German migrants: Germany has never successfully invaded anyone.
Last edited by xerx; 07-12-2019 at 05:27 PM.
When you take into account 20th and 21th century only, you're right.Originally Posted by xerxe
It was a joke.
I find it baffling that some white Americans (and most of the world outside America) think white Americans are the only “real” Americans. Nobody’s ancestors were “from here” more than a few hundreds years ago, minus Native Americans whose communities have to bear the generational burden of having been slaughtered, displaced, and still routinely under-resourced. Your nationality is how you were socialized or what culture(s) you exist in, not just how you look and how that abstractly ties into some historical “identity” that you’re disrespecting while also pretending to be American. And if that were true, why wouldn’t a second generation Swedish person with no accent be held to that standard?
It’s both racism and stupidity/disrespect, like ppl not having a clue how others feel about themselves and deciding they “should” feel within a box defined by mental concepts that have nothing to do with that person’s experience of reality.
I don't entirely understand what the fear of globalization is to begin with, and maybe part of that is not having any sort of nostalgia for a past ideal. Historically, countries and their borders were determined by warfare, conquest, and violence; power-struggles that were not really begun for the well-being of the peasant. The only anti-globalization sentiment I've had has something to do with how free trade has destroyed some local ecosystems, but it's created as many or more opportunities also. I can see how some people who prefer to live in a relatively independent, self-sustaining community, don't find their values met as much by the current status quo. And there's something to mourn about how the skills that people have developed over hundreds of years, say in a fishing village in Senegal, suddenly aren't adaptable to meeting the fast-paced changes of today's global economy.
I do understand not knee-jerk deriding someone who doesn't hold the liberal opinion. *However* I find the behavior of economic refugees understandable and don’t think it’s generally these people making life for the average person in a western country worse. It’s such an easy sentiment for politicians to exploit. Why focus on immigration? Why not generate / redistribute wealth in a much more effective channel, so your nation can accept as many refugees / immigrants as it likes? IMO, There’s not a one-size-fits-all need for all modern nations to adapt the same mold. But when making those complex decisions about borders, one should have some empathy.
PS It's prob easier for a poor white person to project themselves as a really, really ridiculously wealthy white person than as an "immigrant" lol. I wonder how much of the general population believes they live in a society where they could *be* that rich person unless the radical leftists got in the way.
Last edited by lemontrees; 07-12-2019 at 08:20 PM.
Mutlitculturalism is actually just a transitional phase between evolving monocultures.
This is pretty standard to evolution of cultures and societies. It's inevitable, and I think fighting it leads to the rise of authoritarian movements and extreme nationalism, i.e. what we saw in fascist nations of the 20th century Europe, or currently on the American far right.
Western Roman society became more "multicultural" and less latin during the great migration as Germanic tribes were forced to migrate into Roman lands due to the masses of central Asian migrants pushing them, and from this the European culture of the middle ages eventually arose.
I liken it to the Hegelian Dialect.
I missed both of the debates, but from the looks of it Bernie won the first debate and Warren was runner up and Tulsi won the second debate and Yang was runner up IMO. The rest of the Democratic candidates had either mediocre or poor performances. The highlight was Tulsi owning Kamala.
If I had to pick my favorite Democratic candidates, it would be Tulsi, Yang, Bernie and Warren in that order. Even though I like Tulsi and Yang more, Bernie and Warren have a much better chance to win. These videos give a good run through of what happened in the last two debates recently:
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
A good summary of the second democratic debates:
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
I remember in the first debate I was kind of lapping what Kamala Harris said up even though someone had told me - maybe don't trust her, she's saying what she needs to say and doesn't really believe it. After that I watched some videos about her record and good lord my opinion on her dropped like a rock. This time around I was saying hopefully someone will stand up and take her out, and I'm glad someone did. She took Biden out, Tulsi took her out. In some people's opinions someone needs to take Tulsi out, too, saying she's a war hawk. I haven't seen that hawkishness from her, in fact, mostly, of the stuff I've seen, she seems to be quite reticent to advise war, but I don't know a hell of a lot about any of these candidates this time around, so I could be wrong.
You are pretty much spot on in regards to the Democratic candidates. Tulsi is not a war hawk, in fact she is the complete opposite. The media spinsters try to frame her as an Assad apologist because she met with Assad for seeking peace.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
The gist of todays' article apes up everything I've been saying since day one, that "Kamala Harris is nothing more than a low intelligence shin-kicker who starts shit she can't finish..."
As usual, the fat-faced pundits are slow to catch up to that which was obvious to me from the first debate. I love it. Hopefully poop for brains embarassed her state enough they don't send her back to the senate.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kamala-ha...200629326.html
"Mehlenbacher wrote, assailing Rodriguez and Harris’ sister, Maya, the campaign chairwoman, for laying off aides with no notice. “With less than 90 days until Iowa we still do not have a real plan to win.”
It was hardly the only time Harris has appeared uneasy or indecisive about whether to go on the offensive. In the July debate, Harris did not respond sharply to an attack on her prosecutorial record from Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, even after Harris had been prepped for the topic.
On a conference call after the debate, several of Harris’ donors were alarmed and urged the campaign to strike back at Gabbard more aggressively, two people on the call said.
Harris also knew her response had been insufficient, a view quickly reinforced by her advisers. In interviews, many of them point to that debate moment as accelerating Harris’ decline and are so exasperated that they bluntly acknowledge in private that Harris struggles to carry a message beyond the initial script.
"The 2020 Democratic field has been defined by its turbulence, with some contenders rising, others dropping out and two more jumping in just this month. Yet there is only one candidate who rocketed to the top tier and then plummeted in early state polls to the low single digits: Harris."
"In one instance after another, Harris and her closest advisers made flawed decisions about which states to focus on, issues to emphasize and opponents to target, all while refusing to make difficult personnel choices to impose order on an unwieldy campaign, according to more than 50 current and former campaign staff members and allies, most of whom spoke on condition of anonymity to disclose private conversations and assessments involving the candidate."
"Many of her own advisers are now pointing a finger directly at Harris. In interviews several of them criticized her for going on the offensive against rivals, only to retreat, and for not firmly choosing a side in the party’s ideological feud between liberals and moderates."
@Kill4Me I'm curious who you think would win between Biden and Trump.
Kill4Me's Trump imitation is weird as shit
Personally, I'd vote for a box of rocks before I'd vote for Trump. I'd vote for a broken toilet before I'd vote for Trump. And something is happening on Match.com, where about 30% of the women are putting in their profiles "I value my family and I'm looking for a guy who is honest and intelligent and interested in sports, but IF YOU SUPPORT TRUMP, I DON'T THINK WE WILL GET ALONG." Which I find to be remarkable. The hate is palpable.
Regarding the candidates, it's true that Biden's brain is melting, although he's a decent enough guy, and decency is the last thing to go, from what I've seen. He's not as decent as Buttigieg, but Buttigieg is gay and 80% of America is secretly or openly homophobic. It's true that Bloomberg is a casual racist and was a Republican last week and is only in it for the money. (And if you think that a guy with $80B ever stopped caring about money, you are sadly mistaken. The last thing we need is an actually smart billionaire in the White House.) It's true that Warren comes off as strident. And it's true that Bernie has the Youth vote. Hell, every time I walk around town, some guy in his twenties with a voter registration clipboard is asking me to vote for Bernie. I don't really think Bernie's economic ideas are up to the level of Warren's, not even close. But as I said, I'll vote for anyone but Trump. But here's Bernie's particular problem:
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...youth-turnout/
The truth of the matter is that old farts vote. Almost all of them vote. Who do you think they are going to vote for?
As I said, I'm voting for anyone but Trump. But I'm voting.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 03-02-2020 at 02:30 AM.
Yeah, ultimately, I'm going to vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is, period--though I'd probably have to sufficiently drug myself if it were Bloomberg (which, at this point, it's fairly safe to say it won't be). He proves his garbage-hood by his narcissistic lack of priority. Imagine if he had devoted the hundreds of millions WASTED on his campaign to shoring up down ballot senate races or pushing back on the very real voter suppression? Or if he cares about the black vote and making amends, pouring money into Flint, Michigan and their ongoing water crisis or something along those lines? Anyway, I first chose Warren over Sanders because I believe her policy ideas are more practical, effective and fleshed out, but I think a mix of sexism and the understandably petrified corporate media took her down by way of propping up MFers like Buttigieg, who was descent in as much as he was ripe with flowery platitudes, though lacking in convincing and substantive arguments. But he dropped out today so he's no longer a factor.
At this point, the only viable candidates are Biden and Sanders, neither of whom are perfect nor ideal--one's brain is made of swiss cheese and the other had a heart attack not too long ago. But overall Sanders is sharper, more coherent and competent, and better appeals to things I care about, like making America look more like Canada and Western Europe. lolIt's true that he's yet to significantly mobilize the youth vote but it's also true that up until the SC primary, he was winning the popular vote, and still has the most delegates--my point is that he's the front runner, and evidently procuring the votes he needs to be that. The SC primary hit 2008 numbers of voter turnout, which I pray is a harbinger. If the polls are to be believed, the California primary will most likely deal a deathblow to most of the other candidates and effectively anoint Sanders as the presumptive nominee. We will see.
Buttigieg has dropped out. That honestly surprises me. The Klob hasn't been doing well so far, and so I figured she would be the next to drop.
Personally, I'm not convinced he was planning this. He was campaigning until the end. The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if the DNC forced him out to force voters to coalesce around Biden and slow Sanders' momentum. Maybe he was promised a VP, but I don't think he's a strategically good choice to balance Biden. Either way I expect he'll probably endorse Biden.
I figure Warren is too much a narcissist to drop out for a while. She's a snake, though, and this is increasingly clear to the average voter. She's not going to gain many new supporters, and as her campaign circles the drain she might lose a few. I'm not sure where they'd siphon to -- Sanders, maybe?
Bloomberg is trying to buy the election. I almost want him to win so I can hear Democrats try to explain what makes him better than Trump.
Biden is a corrupt soup-brain, and Trump will slaughter him on the debate stage. But I imagine a lot of people will vote for a vegetable over Trump, so no bets on the general election.
Sanders may be a succdem, but a social democrat is better than a liberal, and he's fundamentally a good person, unlike anyone else in this race, and, frankly, if he manages to get M4A implemented, the lives of everyone I know will be improved. He's the best candidate by far. He won't do very hot in the southeast because Southern Democrats are exclusively black church women, and the black religious establishment's allied itself with Biden (the SC party boss is James Clyburn, who particularly runs a well-oiled machine). Black people are also generally conservative, as a rule. But I'm cautiously optimistic about his chances in Texas; most Latino youth seem to like Sanders, and I think their enthusiasm might stand a chance of swaying their families.
Edit: I forgot Gabbard was a thing. She also seems like a decent person, aside from being the ambassador for Hindu Nazis. Unfortunately, her campaign is doomed. I think she'll endorse Sanders once she drops.
Last edited by FreelancePoliceman; 03-02-2020 at 04:40 PM.
The Klob is out, a day after Butt. Conspiracies? Probably! What do they mean? I'm not sure!
Depending on how many Minnesotans early voted (IIRC, those votes will still go to the Klob), Minnesota will probably go for Sanders.
She's going to endorse Biden this evening and word is the Biden campaign is in the processing of securing the same from Butt. The moderates are consolidating around Biden, in order to get him across the 15% thresh hold for a major delegate haul in California; meanwhile Warren is still pointlessly holding out when she should also drop out and support Sanders, especially if she actually cares about a progressive agenda.
I agree with K4M in that it's hopelessly naive to think that any left-winger can become president. America itself is fundamentally a right-wing nation and elections are mostly just there to provide superficial lip service towards democracy and to distract idiots from taking more forceful, grassroots methods of political change. The furthest left America has even been was when it was under FDR and that only happened because of the Great Depression. And even FDR(and Bernie) wasn't a true leftist or radical, he merely did what was strategic and necessary to preserve the establishment in the long run. Anyone who considers them a leftist ought to completely tune out from American politics and focus their attention elsewhere. Elections are only ever going to be between moderate right-wing candidates (like Biden) and far-right candidates (like Trump), with centrist like Bernie MAYBE having a shot if there is a serious economic crisis going on.
Last edited by Muddy; 03-05-2020 at 03:58 AM.
I think that the US can have a leftist President, and will, but not until the influences of corporations are removed from politics, and the wealth of the 1% is brought down to be more in line with the 99%.
I’m confident that this will happen, but probably not for thirty years or so, and when it does happen, the world economy is going to look very different from what it looks like now.
Demographics are against the Authoritarian Republicans. If they could embrace the average citizen, they would find plenty of conservatives in the ranks of the poor and non-white. But presently, their racism seems to be tripping them up. They are like the Nazies, who first came for the mentally ill, then the communists, then the unionists, and on and on, in their search for the “purest of the pure.” Of course, ultimately, no one was pure enough for them. Everyone was their enemy.
Additionally, environmental damage from the very energy we need to use to solve the environmental damage is going to reduce our standard of living. It actually already is happening but the fall in wages is being masked by the media outlets of the rich, who are saying “Don’t look over there. Here is something different that you can be outraged about but are impotent to change, so it is a safe target for you. And us.”
As the damage mounts, it will become harder to hide, and it will force a redistribution of wealth because distributed wealth is what it will take to achieve even a relatively soft landing. Billionaires buying yachts and elections are not going to fix the problems. It will take all of our resources being directed at pollution reduction to even stabilize the pollution at a lower number of humans.
If the wealth isn’t distributed, then comes the deluge. Not from an aware and angry populace, but from a terminally polluted world.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 03-05-2020 at 04:19 AM.
Bernie out.
I don't think there's going to be very much change until Millennials and Zoomers are the right age to be leading major institutions. I mean institutions like General Electric and the American Bar Association, not Facebook. This is also usually the age at which people start to take their civic privileges seriously and begin to vote en masse.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote