# Kamala Harris Drops Out - Democrats Concerned Their Remaining Candidates Won't Win 2020



## cots (Dec 4, 2019)

*"Kamala Harris Drops Out"*
*Liberal Democrats are Concerned Their "All White" Candidates Won't Win 2020*
* - On Overview Of The Origins of Liberal's Definition of Racism*
*an original post created for gbatemp.net authored by forum lurker cots (c) 2019 *
_
Posted (2019-12-04 - 00:12)
First Revision (2019-12-04 - 01:32) - Added Pictures_







*Note To Mods: I'm not flame baiting. I'm genuinely interested in if any forum members agree with these Liberals*.*

_** Disclaimer: Everyone has different views. When referring to Liberals in this article I'm referring to the American Liberal population that shares the same point of view that I'm discussing. Not all Liberals have the same viewpoint so I'm not generalizing. If you're a Liberal and don't share the same point of view that I am discussing then what I am discussing is not directed towards you.*_

The basis of this post is to highlight that the Liberals* have their own definition of racism and they have a reason why they don't go along with the rest of the worlds agreed upon definition. Once you understand their reasoning for making up their own definition you'll understand why all of the racism against Whites is happening and why it's acceptable for them to do so.



> The sudden exit of Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif, from the 2020 presidential campaign is causing a panic among some within the Democratic Party over the remaining candidates who are participating in the upcoming debate, who are all white.
> 
> Her departure leaves only six candidates on the debate stage: former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and billionaire Democratic donor Tom Steyer.
> 
> Liberal activists decried the potential "catastrophic" all-white debate stage amid the fallout of Harris' withdrawal, some calling it "sickening" and blaming the "implicit racism and sexism of 'electability.'"



At this point, we have 7 Democrats qualified for the December debate stage and they are all white. This is sickening.— Jim Kessler (@ThirdWayKessler) December 3, 2019


No matter your candidate, you have to recognize that going from the most diverse field ever in January to a potentially all-white debate stage in December is catastrophic. The implicit racism and sexism of "electability" is deeply damaging to democracy.— Leah Greenberg (@Leahgreenb) December 3, 2019


If Kamala Harris is dropping out today, as is being reported, that means--among other things--that no candidates of color are yet slated for the December debate. Six white candidates have qualified. Folks, that's a huge red flag, and we need to talk about it.— Charlotte Clymer 🇺🇦 (@cmclymer) December 3, 2019


So let me _*get this straight*_ (according to Liberals*);

All White Candidates = BAD
All Non-White Candidates = GOOD

According to Conservatives, Moderate Republicans/Democrats and Independents;

All White Candidates = That's fine, we don't judge on color.
All Non-White Candidates = That's fine, we don't judge on color.

*The Liberals* are playing the race card against their own party!

So if you're a White Liberal* where does this leave you? 

Remind me who are the Racist ones in this situation? *

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/media/harri...white-debate-causing-consternation-among-dems

*Sorry you SJW folks (link) , but being racist against Whites is still racism.



 
*
*You've got to remember the Democratic party are the ones behind **defending slavery by Civil War (link)**, the Jim Crowe Laws (link), the **KKK (link)** and currently support abortion! You need to read and understand these precursors to understand the rest of this post! You need to understand their mindset and where they are coming from to understand what's motivating their latest effort! If they've told you "We've changed" they're lying to you. (remember all of these things have been justified by using science)

FYI - You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.*

*This is the agreed upon overview of racism

Racism*, also called racialism, any action, practice, or belief that reflects the racial worldview—the ideology that humans may be divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races”; that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately superior to others. Since the late 20th century the notion of biological race has been recognized as a cultural invention, entirely without scientific basis.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/racism

*Here is an actual definition of racism (the Liberals* have their own definition);*
(please never use public Wiki's that any 13 year old can edit as a source for actual definitions of words)

racism NOUN mass noun

1. - Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
...  1.1 - The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. ‘theories of racism’

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/racism






*However, because of the Liberals* desire to push the USA into socialism/Marxism (which in all forms of must have a victim class and an exploiter class in order to grow and organize) we're being given an alternative definition. Yes, pushing socialism on society in the main reason why the Liberals* claim that minorities can't be racist. It has NOTHING to do with actually caring about or helping the minorities. If the majority was African American then it would be okay to be racist against them. This is the real reason behind the racism we see for White people in the USA. Don't be fooled again! You wanted to know why Liberals* are using their own definition of a word? It's because their end goal is seeing socialism implemented in the USA. Pre-2000's they lied to everyone denied this and now they are openly admitting it and expect the ones of us around to hear their lies to simply disregard they lied to us for decades! They are no longer hiding this from us and will tell you they want to rip up the Constitution of the USA! Racism for Liberals* has nothing to do with actual racism against anyone! They don't care about the minorities what-so-ever! If they claim they do then understand their parties history as it's rooted in actual racism!

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id5/marxism_racism.htm

... and here is an excerpt addressing the alternative definition of racism;*

"Another camp thinks primarily of institutional racism and factors in a person’s power to use their racist beliefs against others. As one African-American lead character from the 2014 movie “Dear White People” argues, “Black people can’t be racist. Prejudiced, yes, but not racist. Racism describes a system of disadvantage based on race. Black people can’t be racists since we don’t stand to benefit from such a system.”

What a convoluted way to absolve oneself of possible racist fault. Under this definition, yes, black individuals can’t be racist. The system is rigged in favor of white people, who have traditionally been in power. But the strange implication of this statement is that being called “prejudiced” isn’t as bad as being called a “racist” — although racism can manifest itself as prejudice, and though prejudice surely is not desired either. So Sam’s argument achieves the linguistic triumph of avoiding the label “racist,” but that’s about it. "

https://www.thecrimson.com/column/between-the-lines/article/2018/8/10/gao-who-can-be-racist/






*Sorry folks, but Socialism always fails! Don't believe me? Just ask Venezuela(link)!
*
"There is a reason socialism has never succeeded: It runs directly counter to human nature. Socialist regimes either collapse or survive only by becoming less socialist; the more a country embraces economic freedom and free markets, the more prosperous it becomes." Socialism does sound enticing on paper, but it has always failed in its purest form. Human nature is the set of hopes, ambitions, and ideals that explains why socialism succeeds politically, but also the hopes, ambitions, and ideals that explain why socialism eventually fails economically, socially, morally, and thus politically too.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_I suggest before replying, even if you don't like the sites I've linked to, to open your mind and read them anyway. If your viewpoints are solid in stone then reading a few sites that have a different opinion than you do shouldn't change anything. There's 10 sites I've linked to. If you want to understand where I'm coming from I suggest you read them (as if you don't your replying to something you don't understand). This isn't a demand or requirement - just a friendly suggestion._

It seems that the Liberals* think that minorities cannot be racist, which is fueling the racism from their party. So what about a Chinese person that discriminates against black person? What about a black person that discriminates against Latino?

*Know knowing the true motivations behind their claims do you agree with the Liberals* that minorities can't be racist? (It's okay to change your vote now too).*


----------



## skullskullskull (Dec 5, 2019)

It just looks like typical twitter shit stirring to me. Those people are probably selling books or are hired by political groups to influence elections. At least one of them tried to explain *why* having a Person Of Color running was important ("The implicit racism and sexism of "electability" is deeply damaging to democracy."), but the other two need to explain why it's a problem. It's laughable that there is any doubt a Person Of Color is unelectable in America after 2008 actually.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 5, 2019)

I'm conflicted to respond to @cots when he is now suspended as it is a one-sided rebuttal, not a discourse. But I just want to highlight Kamela had alot of issues in her campaign staffing, grassroot funding, and policy proposals.

Most people I found couldn't answer a single policy proposal from her. That's a problem when you are running for the highest office in the land. Her messaging was poor.

Grassroot supporters have stood up Yang, Warren, and Bernie for this election period. Their small dollar donations are nothing to sneeze at. The thing they all shared in common was policy proposals that stood out to the public, consistent messaging on those policies, and the public received and wanted to support those candidates via donation or polling support (if polled). 

I understand @cots is likely a troll. He's made numerous posts prior to this that tried to antagonize rather than discuss w/ sincerity, completely omit and ignore facts presented, but for anyone else who wanders into this thread this response at least is a view in reality from which those like him/her are so obviously detached from.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

One final comment. Booker is still in, by a thread, but I can at least name one major proposal from him. He seeks to decriminalize marijuana nationwide. I believe he may have a broader justice reform approach and that helps because it affects alot of disenfranchised groups but still ignores a large amount of policies that are on the forefront of the nation's mind - healthcare, education, (climate change? - at least on the democrat side).

I support him staying in the race as long as he has presented polices that elevates discussion and proposed solutions that can be examined, evaluated, and if a democrat wins implemented. There is nothing harmful in having more voices if the discussion stays substantive.

I also believe Harris may be angling for a VP spot. We'll see.


----------



## cots (Dec 5, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I'm conflicted to respond to @cots when he is now suspended as it is a one-sided rebuttal, not a discourse. But I just want to highlight Kamela had alot of issues in her campaign staffing, grassroot funding, and policy proposals.
> 
> Most people I found couldn't answer a single policy proposal from her. That's a problem when you are running for the highest office in the land. Her messaging was poor.
> 
> ...



I'm not a troll. I've been on the site since 2014. I've posted numerous stuff unrelated to politics. As per who Kamela was or why she dropped out - I'm not sure nor do I care. After seeing all of the Democratic candidates raise their hands to "Who would support open borders" they all lost my interest and I've tuned them out even since. We just can't let anyone come and go from our country unchecked at their hearts content and while they are here allow them to use public resources with no requirement for them to pay for anything or support our country. That's just lunacy and exactly why Obama is warning them that they're going to lose to Trump in 2020.

The purpose I brought her up was to highlight how the Liberals are using racism - the fact they're not even using it by its proper definition and why they are doing this. (They're using a definition created by sociologists for the purpose of pushing socialism/Marxism on countries) . If you understand their fascist and racist history and now how they are using the improper definition of the word you can cut through the reason why it's racist to only have White candidates.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 5, 2019)

cots said:


> I'm not a troll. I've been on the site since 2014. I've posted numerous stuff unrelated to politics. As per who Kamela was or why she dropped out - I'm not sure. After seeing all of the Democratic candidates raise their hands to "Who would support open borders" they all lost my interest and I've tuned them out even since. We just can't let anyone come and go from our country unchecked at their hearts content and while they are here allow them to use public resources with no requirement for them to pay for anything or support our country. That's just lunacy and exactly why Obama is warning them that they're going to lose to Trump in 2020.
> 
> The purpose I brought her up was to highlight how the Liberals are using racism - the fact they're not even using it by its proper definition and why they are doing this. (They're using a definition created by sociologists for the purpose of pushing socialism/Marxism on countries) . If you understand their fascist and racist history and now how they are using the improper definition of the word you can cut through the reason why it's racist to only have White candidates.


Your rationale is a joke. Is there any evidence that white candidates are getting preferential treatment by the DNC? Nothing has been decided based on race in how the DNC rules operate for the 2020 primary that would help one candidate more than that of another, perhaps it is how you see the world and are projecting onto this situation. Go read about Harris, her policy proposals vs her on screen interviews in the past few months. If you want to bring an article and make a claim as divisive as what is posted above, you better make sure you are right. Unfortunately, that level of commitment to factual reporting is something that you dearly lack and it shows in every engagement we have again and again.

I also state you are likely a troll. The age of an account on this site does not refute that statement. I was dismissing your statement as something to be taken seriously because you don't have actual evidence and you don't have anything other than feelings that you project out to shape and form narratives that suite your beliefs. I'd rather infer that you don't take this seriously but are just trying to be inflammatory as I'd like to infer people I discuss with aren't intellectually challenged, knowing that actual research must be conducted before making such assertions as you have above.


----------



## cots (Dec 5, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Your rationale is a joke. Is there any evidence that white candidates are getting preferential treatment by the DNC? Nothing has been decided based on race in how the DNC rules for the 2020 primary that would help one candidate more than that of another, perhaps it is how you see the world and are projecting onto this situation. Go read about Harris, her policy proposals vs her on screen interviews in the past few months. If you want to bring an article and make a claim as divisive as what is posted above, you better make sure you are right. Unfortunately, that level of commitment to factual reporting is something that you dearly lack and it shows in every engagement we have again and again.
> 
> I also state you are likely a troll. The age of an account on this site does not refute that statement. I was dismissing your statement as something to be taken seriously because you don't have actual evidence and you don't have anything other than feelings that you project out to shape and form narratives that suite your beliefs. I'd rather infer that you don't take this seriously but are just trying to be inflammatory as I'd like to infer people I discuss with aren't intellectually challenged, knowing that actual research must be conducted before making such assertions as you have above.



This post has nothing to do with certain candidates receiving any sort of preferential treatment from their own party leaders. I was simply highlighting that some Liberal members of their party are claiming its racist to only have White candidates and then pointed out that they're not using the proper definition of racism and why that is.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



skullskullskull said:


> It's laughable that there is any doubt a Person Of Color is unelectable in America after 2008 actually.



I'd have no problem voting for person regardless of their race, ethnicity, biological sex, sexual preference or skin color. Is their end game socialism? That's the main thing I'd be focused on as that's the main threat to our way of life right now.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 5, 2019)

cots said:


> This post has nothing to do with certain candidates receiving any sort of preferential treatment from their own party. I was simply highlighting that some Liberal members of their party are claiming its racist to only have White candidates and then pointed out that they're not using the proper definition of racism and why that is.


"*You've got to remember the Democratic party are the ones behind **defending slavery by Civil War (link)**, the Jim Crowe Laws (link), the **KKK (link)** and currently support abortion! You need to read and understand these precursors to understand the rest of this post! You need to understand their mindset and where they are coming from to understand what's motivating their latest effort! If they've told you "We've changed" they're lying to you. (remember all of these things have been justified by using science)"*

I was born and raised in the south, have extensive knowledge of the democrat/republican swap around integration that my parents and siblings lived through. You obviously aren't versed with southern politics or are intellectually dishonest when asserting that democrats of today consist of the same members and the ideology of the party is the same as before. Those members transitioned over to the republican party. Does that mean that the entire republican party is racist? no.


----------



## cots (Dec 5, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> "*You've got to remember the Democratic party are the ones behind **defending slavery by Civil War (link)**, the Jim Crowe Laws (link), the **KKK (link)** and currently support abortion! You need to read and understand these precursors to understand the rest of this post! You need to understand their mindset and where they are coming from to understand what's motivating their latest effort! If they've told you "We've changed" they're lying to you. (remember all of these things have been justified by using science)"*
> 
> I was born and raised in the south, have extensive knowledge of the democrat/republican swap around integration that my parents and siblings lived through. You obviously aren't versed with southern politics or are intellectually dishonest when asserting that democrats of today consist of the same members and the ideology of the party is the same as before. Those members transitioned over to the republican party. Does that mean that the entire republican party is racist? no.



If you're referring to the few instances when a minority of Democrats chose to reject their party and turned into Republicans over the years that only recently the Liberal media is using as some sort of proof as a "party switch" then you'd have to realize that there was no "party switch". It's just smoke and mirrors to distract from their past. Just like how the Liberals have been recently trying to say that the Democrats didn't start the KKK. Sure, maybe in another 50 years if the Liberals take power they can rewrite history using their lies, but until then there's decades of books, laws, magazines and other publications based on actual history they're going to have to burn so they can successfully rewrite history to their liking, So a handful of Democrats *woke* up and decided to become Republicans and thus doing so became less supportive of the racist Democrats and rejected their documented in history past. Having a handful of new Republic Congressmen and Senators *who are rejecting the Democratic past* does not indicate a party switch and *it is also a good thing for society in general*. I would support any Liberal that wakes up and wants to reject their parties past to go ahead and do so. Don't want to become a moderate Republican or Conservative? Then don't! The Independent Party could use some more loyal members.

I am also not claiming that the Democratic party today consists of the KKK or live by their old ways. Everyone around the board has changed and moved on. These people who did this are all dead. Just like how some Liberals think we should be handing out reparations to blacks that are now in society for slavery when none of them were ever slaves and none of the White people alive today were ever slave owners.  I was pointing out their past and their mindset. Instead of blatant slavery like the past they now control minorities by using a welfare state or per the brown Latino's using illegal immigration. They've just become "less racist" in appearance, but Republicans have always been and still are the party that rejects racism in all forms. They don't want to keep black minorities suppressed under welfare and they don't want to have cities full of illegal aliens who are used for hard labor and are also under their own form of welfare state -  in return the Democrats get votes.

Regardless of their documented racist past the Liberals are now trying to push socialism on the USA using a different definition of the word "racist". I just wanted to highlight how the Democratic's think and operate (they share a common mindset / state of mine and have common traits and goals) so you can understand how evil and treacherous they can be. While having minorities stuck in a welfare state or having cities full of illegal aliens are major problems and are clear signs of modern racism the main threat to democracy is the movement to adopt an old backwards way of Government that has been proven to fail time and time again. The Liberals are using an improper definition of racist along with other things like identity politics to "divide the country" so they can use our division and hatred to push socialism on us for their own personal gain. It has nothing to do with the betterment of mankind.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 5, 2019)

If you want to find a few people who you assert are liberals that say something stupid, inaccurate, misleading and then think this applies to the mindset of the entire party, boy I hope you are ready for others to go into the deep south and interview republicans who want African Americans to be noosed, not back then, but modern times, in 2019. Is that the mindset of southern republicans as a whole? Of course not! Would it be absolutely idiotic for me to make such an assertion? Of course!

You are exhibiting the rational thinking of a child. Stereotypes or inaccurate statements of a handful of people to be applied to a national stage political party.

Those who say Republicans are white nationalists are deceiving people. The majority of the white nationalists that have been publicly announced identify as Republican. See the difference, they mean two very different things. White nationalists don't want to help non-whites as they see them inferior, majority of economic republican policies are designed to promote status quo, and so by process of elimination choose the party that will resist against increasing aid to non-whites. Fiscal conservatives are resisting and desiring to cut social programs because of an entirely different purpose. To attach race to it without proof is idiotic or deceptive.



cots said:


> Instead of blatant slavery like the past they now control minorities by using a welfare state or per the brown Latino's using illegal immigration. They've just become "less racist" in appearance, but Republicans have always been and still are the party that rejects racism in all forms. They don't want to keep black minorities suppressed under welfare and they don't want to have cities full of illegal aliens who are used for hard labor and are also under their own form of welfare state - in return the Democrats get votes.



This whole welfare state, socialism is slavery argument is embarrassing when you yourself sit on disability for a medical condition? Am I misunderstanding that @cots? Are you beholden to a political party for receiving that service?

How about all the southern whites on welfare, do they vote democrat uniformly? Hmm... O I guess they don't. That's inconvenient to your narrative huh. Let's try to ignore that. We can argue about what social programs are beneficial to society as a whole or not. But to try to link it to this argument of socialism = slavery and people are buying votes is just not the case.

People aren't typically faceted around a single issue, abortion is a considerable topic to many religious southerners but so is the ability to uphold current law and allow all people the right to access as long as it is law, despite their personal beliefs.

While I can't decide if you are immature, ignorant, or dishonest, but I have become certain you are one the three given our conversations.

Final thought - institutional racism vs racism - these two terms are different. You have conflated the two to suit your purposes and narrative. Is it possible that others on both sides are also guilty of that same conflation? Of Course! But when trying to actually present and inform others it is your responsibility to understand the difference of the terms and put things in proper context.

*Racism *- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

*Institutional racism* (also known as *systemic racism*) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions. It is reflected in disparities regarding wealth, income, criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power and education, among other factors.

There are people who argue that whites cannot be victims of institutional racism in America. There is merit to the argument and is not illogical when given the importance of generational wealth.

However, white people can be victims of individual racism. Anyone who thinks or says otherwise is dishonest or a fool.

If you find anyone on either side that distort and/or conflate the two they are likely doing so for a specific purpose to push a narrative if they aren't just flat out ignorant of the difference. Given how you listed definitions of both, yet persisted in the assertions which conflated the two to suit your narrative against socialism, that narrative is rooted in a falsehood. You are one of those people by your own assertions listed above. You, @cots, are just as guilty of this as the liberals you hate.


----------



## cots (Dec 5, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> If you want to find a few people who you assert are liberals that say something stupid, inaccurate, misleading and then think this applies to the mindset of the entire party, boy I hope you are ready for others to go into the deep south and interview republicans who want African Americans to be noosed, not back then, but modern times, in 2019. Is that the mindset of southern republicans as a whole? Of course not! Would it be absolutely idiotic for me to make such an assertion? Of course!
> 
> You are exhibiting the rational thinking of a child. Stereotypes or inaccurate statements of a handful of people to be applied to a national stage political party.
> 
> ...



You're assuming when I state "republicans" or "liberals" that there aren't minorities within the party that don't speak for the majority that have opposing viewpoints. Did you not read the * in my original post? Anytime the Liberals say "Republicans (insert quote here)" or Republicans say "Liberals (insert quote here)" someone with common sense would be able to realize they aren't speaking about the entire percentage of the population their addressing. Sure, not every single Liberal is racist just like not every single Republican isn't racist. That's just common sense.

I'm also well aware of Institutional racism and that is not what I'm addressing nor what the Liberals are using for their definition of racism or when using the word racist. The liberals are using the Marxist definition of racism. Would you like an overview on it? Here is a good primer. You'll see the reasoning behind why the SJW and the Liberals are using the Marxist definition. It doesn't go into "how" they are using it though - which is what I'm addressing in this post. The "how" is simple - they are using the Marxist definition as per it's intended use, which is to force a country to adopt socialism. To say the word "racist" has evolved is wrong - as it's simply been redefined by sociologists for political purposes. Sure, it would be valid to say "Liberals are using the word correctly", but only in the sense "correctly to suite their own agenda" while "ignoring the actual definition".


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 6, 2019)

cots said:


> You're assuming when I state "republicans" or "liberals" that there aren't minorities within the party that don't speak for the majority that have opposing viewpoints. Did you not read the * in my original post? Anytime the Liberals say "Republicans (insert quote here)" or Republicans say "Liberals (insert quote here)" someone with common sense would be able to realize they aren't speaking about the entire percentage of the population their addressing. Sure, not every single Liberal is racist just like not every single Republican isn't racist. That's just common sense.
> 
> I'm also well aware of Institutional racism and that is not what I'm addressing nor what the Liberals are using for their definition of racism or when using the word racist. The liberals are using the Marxist definition of racism. Would you like an overview on it? Here is a good primer. You'll see the reasoning behind why the SJW and the Liberals are using the Marxist definition. It doesn't go into "how" they are using it though - which is what I'm addressing in this post. The "how" is simple - they are using the Marxist definition as per it's intended use, which is to force a country to adopt socialism. To say the word "racist" has evolved is wrong - as it's simply been redefined by sociologists for political purposes. Sure, it would be valid to say "Liberals are using the word correctly", but only in the sense "correctly to suite their own agenda" while "ignoring the actual definition".


I stand by what I said about people conflating the two (both the people you quoted in your cherry picked examples and yourself later in your 'theory'). You can't recognize your own hypocrisy, this is either from a lack of self-awareness or a refusal to perform an examination of your own argument in a genuine manner because that would be counterproductive to your agenda. I believe my position is self-evident to anyone who comes here to read your perspective. In the event that it isn't my reply points your hypocrisy out. Whether or not you wish to acknowledge it is up to you. I obviously cannot force you to do so.

There are only a minority of liberals who are bad actors. That doesn't suite your narrative thus you dishonestly re-frame to force your narrative as a matter of fact. It's obviously flawed and your conflation of two forms of racism in your assertion above to push such a narrative that counters expansion of social programs is an example of such. You dodged or refused to addressed most questions raised but that's fine.

I don't intend to carry much more discussion on this topic as the purpose of my rebuttal was for those seeking information that pertained to your click-bait title of "Kamala Harris Drops Out - Democrats Concerned Their Remaining Candidates Won't Win 2020". This instead was some diatribe of Liberals being racist themselves, seeking to enslave minorities, that then took a sharp turn into 'Omg socialism is coming to america by Liberals! Liberals hate america and plan to dismantle it like Venezuela'. Yes, I'm mocking you - the expansion of social programs for Americans is not equivalent to dismantling our democratic republic government in favor of a new government. I'd accept a logical discussion of the pros/cons of such an expansion but what you assert is a dishonest framing to push an agenda.

Eventually someone on the left will be elected in government because American politics is a pendulum and eventually that president will either be pressured by their party or themselves motivated to expand social programs like higher education or healthcare. The productive thing is to understand the pros and cons of such and understand what will be the best path forward for our nation. This will require bipartisanship, ideas from both sides that take the best interest of our nation as a whole. Otherwise we will end in a half implemented failure - *I'm looking at you ACA. I'm not sure if/when we will ever get back to a non-hyperpartisan time now that everyone has retreated to their own confirmation bias form of 'news' and you can find information of anything to support... well anything you want to believe.


----------



## cots (Dec 6, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I stand by what I said about people conflating the two (both the people you quoted in your cherry picked examples and yourself later in your 'theory'). You can't recognize your own hypocrisy, this is either from a lack of self-awareness or a refusal to perform an examination of your own argument in a genuine manner because that would be counterproductive to your agenda. I believe my position is self-evident to anyone who comes here to read your perspective. In the event that it isn't my reply points your hypocrisy out. Whether or not you wish to acknowledge it is up to you. I obviously cannot force you to do so.
> 
> There are only a minority of liberals who are bad actors. That doesn't suite your narrative thus you dishonestly re-frame to force your narrative as a matter of fact. It's obviously flawed and your conflation of two forms of racism in your assertion above to push such a narrative that counters expansion of social programs is an example of such. You dodged or refused to addressed most questions raised but that's fine.
> 
> ...



Fine. The "bad actors" are the leaders on top trying to push socialism in whole on the country. The Liberal "elite" following them are also a problem, but their leaders are the cause of the problem. Implementing a few select programs that are funded by the people for the people doesn't mean we're a country based on socialism. The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and has some polices that are similar to ones used in socialism. What people fail to realize that polices used in socialism are also used in other forms of Government. Implementing a few policies doesn't mean we're headed there. However, if you look at the Liberal end goal - to rip up the Constitution and implement Socialism as a whole so they can have ultimate control over everything - that is what I'm against. They used to hide the fact this is what they want to do - now their leaders and a lot of their members openly admit to it.

If you're a Liberal that doesn't believe this is the end goal then maybe you should start paying attention to what your leadership is actually after (that however would require to start to think for yourself and ask questions you're not allowed to ask). This is why being an independent is great. I don't have to say what everyone else is saying and believe what everyone else tells me to and fear rejection if I don't go along with the herd. Sure, I might be wrong now and then and that's fine - at least I'm not hell bent of destroying our way of life for some gamble on something that's been proven to fail time and time again. The Democrats have really lost of lot of support from the Independents over what the Liberal Left has been doing these last three years - that's for sure. Seeings as most of the 2020 front runners are focused too much on far-left Liberal fantasies this has also cost them even more support from the Independent voters and even some support from the actual level headed moderate Democrats.



> 'Omg socialism is coming to america by Liberals!



Seeings as this is their agenda I think your quote is spot on.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 6, 2019)

You need to define socialism because you are 


cots said:


> Fine. The "bad actors" are the leaders on top trying to push socialism in whole on the country. The Liberal "elite" following them are also a problem, but their leaders are the cause of the problem. Implementing a few select programs that are funded by the people for the people doesn't mean we're a country based on socialism. The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and has some polices that are similar to ones used in socialism. What people fail to realize that polices used in socialism are also used in other forms of Government. Implementing a few policies doesn't mean we're headed there. However, if you look at the Liberal end goal - to rip up the Constitution and implement Socialism as a whole so they can have ultimate control over everything - that is what I'm against. They used to hide the fact this is what they want to do - now their leaders and a lot of their members openly admit to it.
> 
> If you're a Liberal that doesn't believe this is the end goal then maybe you should start paying attention to what your leadership is actually after (that however would require to start to think for yourself and ask questions you're not allowed to ask). This is why being an independent is great. I don't have to say what everyone else is saying and believe what everyone else tells me to and fear rejection if I don't go along with the herd. Sure, I might be wrong now and then and that's fine - at least I'm not hell bent of destroying our way of life for some gamble on something that's been proven to fail time and time again. The democrats have really lost of lot of support from the Independents over what they've been doing these last three years - that's for sure.
> 
> ...


Get exact quotes from democratic leadership that is pushing to "replace our government from a democratic republic and replace it with socialism" (while you are at it exact quotes of "ripping up the constitution"). I am not aware of that but the burden of proof falls on you since you are the one making such a bold assertion. The only thing I am aware of is an expansion of social programs and an increased investment in our energy sector, specifically renewable energy.

"Implementing a few select programs that are funded by the people for the people doesn't mean we're a country based on socialism." 
This is reality, this is the truest statement I think you've penned in this entire thread. Neither republican or democratic leadership is doing anything but this.

The secret "Liberal end goal" that the "Liberal's" don't want you to know. Oh come on! Seriously, is this what I would have to entertain to have discourse about something that is as serious as an expansion of education or healthcare for our nation? Maybe I should just pass the torch to my kids/grandkids and hope a real world problem hits this economy so hard that people will be forced to wake the fuck up and *stop pushing fairy-tales because its easier to invent a boogeyman than deal with hard issues and tough discussions that don't have simple solutions.* This is just such a joke, such a farce that I refuse to continue with you on this. If you can't air-tight argue the agenda of the democratic leadership in this 'end goal crackpot theory' then you aren't convincing anyone anything. Just yelling in the void. Enjoy fighting the boogeyman that is ultimately a scare-tactic for fundraising not rooted in reality. 

'The adults left in the room' will have to figure out how to move our nation forward. Hopefully, one day you will join them.


----------



## cots (Dec 6, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> You need to define socialism because you are
> 
> Get exact quotes from democratic leadership that is pushing to "replace our government from a democratic republic and replace it with socialism" (while you are at it exact quotes of "ripping up the constitution"). I am not aware of that but the burden of proof falls on you since you are the one making such a bold assertion. The only thing I am aware of is an expansion of social programs and an increased investment in our energy sector, specifically renewable energy.
> 
> ...



I guess you should educate yourself on what the Liberal party leaders stand for and their end goal. No amount of text you could type could change my mind on their agenda. Especially since it's now out in the open.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=liberals+want+socialism


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 6, 2019)

cots said:


> but Republicans have always been and still are the party that rejects racism in all forms.


And yet the current POTUS is one of the most racist people alive with an extensive history of making racist remarks. Lets not forget this is the guy who  in his younger years demanded the owners of the apartment block that Trump had an apartment in remove anyone black who also had an apartment in the block. Remember that Trump led a campaign to have 5 black boys executed for committing rape a crime they were later all found to have been wrongly accused of funnily enough he has never demanded white rapists be executed. Lets not forget that here in Scotland at the golf course Trump owns here he demanded that the golf course did not give jobs to anyone black that was until he got into a shit load of trouble from the Scottish government for trying that. Plus there are so many more instances of blatant racism alot of which is covered in this list.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/588067/


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 6, 2019)

cots said:


> I guess you should educate yourself on what the Liberal party leaders stand for and their end goal. No amount of text you could type could change my mind on their agenda. Especially since it's now out in the open.
> 
> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=liberals+want+socialism


*What is this?! No quoted evidence of democratic leadership?* Just a duckduckgo search of rightwing propaganda meant to dissuade against an expansion of social programs while ignoring the largest con, the elephant in the room (any expansion costs money!). Awe you poor thing. Go ahead, believe in the boogeyman child.


----------



## cots (Dec 6, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> *What is this?! No quoted evidence of democratic leadership?* Just a duckduckgo search of rightwing propaganda meant to dissuade against an expansion of social programs while ignoring the largest con, the elephant in the room (any expansion costs money!). Awe you poor thing. Go ahead, believe in the boogeyman child.



I gave you a starting point to read and learn. I could have easily brought up Hillary Clinton's college theses or the other countless things you'll find out about "the leadership" in your quest for knowledge. I've spent years reading about it so I don't need to debate. I gave you the results of a simple query put into a search engine. I'm not in control of the results. What you see is what you get. There's plenty of Liberal sites that talk about the advantages of socialism or how we should adopt it. Those few hundreds results that simple search term produced will lead you to thousands of other articles. If you rather not spend time looking into it then possibly you already know I'm right and just want to try to somehow claim pushing socialism on the USA is not the Liberal agenda? I dunno ... go read and learn or don't. From your posts you seem to agree with a lot of what the Liberals are doing so either you're one of the most uniformed people regarding their push for socialism or you're not a very good liar. Either way if those 3 simple words resulted in a search engine producing "right wing bias" then maybe you should take that issue up with the search engine. Just a heads up though - most center or right leaning sites are going to have bias against the Liberal push for socialism because most of them don't want anything to do with it. That just makes sense.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 6, 2019)

cots said:


> I gave you a starting point to read and learn. I could have easily brought up Hillary Clinton's college theses or the other countless things you'll find out about "the leadership" in your quest for knowledge. I've spent years reading about it so I don't need to debate. I gave you the results of a simple query put into a search engine. I'm not in control of the results. What you see is what you get. There's plenty of Liberal sites that talk about the advantages of socialism or how we should adopt it. Those few hundreds results that simple search term produced will lead you to thousands of other articles. If you rather not spend time looking into it then possibly you already know I'm right and just want to try to somehow claim pushing socialism on the USA is not the Liberal agenda? I dunno ... go read and learn or don't. From your posts you seem to agree with a lot of what the Liberals are doing so either you're one of the most uniformed people regarding their push for socialism or you're not a very good liar. Either way if those 3 simple words resulted in a search engine producing "right wing bias" then maybe you should take that issue up with the search engine. Just a heads up though - most center or right leaning sites are going to have bias against the Liberal push for socialism because most of them don't want anything to do with it. That just makes sense.


Burden of proof is still on the accuser. Or are you a hypocrite about that as well? This is still not an answer, give me *actual substantive quotes* that say what you asserted. You provided nothing factual that supports your position. If you say Hillary Clinton then prove it. Although, I warn you, a college thesis is pretty weak considering the decades that have passed. Maybe something more current and with our current leadership? I'm not going to be too picky but you have a terrible time sourcing your assertions. I'll wait.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Just a reminder @cots, your feelings isn't a legit source. That is what you just gave me. You can do better! : D


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 6, 2019)

Most of the issues you present could be easily cleared up through researching the historical process, what terms mean, how they differ in their application, how they're applied, and how actions differ from what's asserted.

Some words, like racism, can be nuanced and have a great deal of knowledge required to understand the weight and extent of its use. For instance, you have to have a solid understanding of a systems approach vs an individual approach, of genetics and scientific classifications, of the variation of usage over time, how different populations can mean different things by it, etc. etc. It's less a statement and more of a deep conversation to have. And it's difficult to have because everyone who uses the word probably has a bit of a different appreciation for the intent and usage of the word.

So trying to summarize all of that into one or two sentences? Not going to happen. But since you have to, you have some choices when coming up with definitions of such words. You can chose to summarize the most common colloquially used definition, which gives a good starting point, but can be wrong and incomplete if most folks use it wrong (dictionaries take this approach). You can use the commonly used scientific definition...but the social sciences use this word differently than biological sciences, so this can be misleading. You can go for the close-enough usage, which glosses over a lot of the nuance but hopefully at least doesn't mislead. This has the problem of being so vague folks aren't any closer to understanding the word than before. The one I prefer is a definition which touches on the most misunderstood or poorly understand aspects of a word, highlighting positive usages. This has the problem of being too specific in some cases and not touching on everything...but whatcha gonna do. There are other ways to come up with short definitions, but these are probably the most common.  You also have the problem of the history of a word, especially if it changes quickly, or at different rates through different populations, as this word does.

So, basically, if you want to argue against the usage of a word, you have to argue against how it's being meant by the person making the statement. You can correct their word usage, but you have to argue what they're trying to get at, not at what you'd rather argue against. Otherwise you just talk past each other and nothing happens.


----------



## cots (Dec 6, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> Most of the issues you present could be easily cleared up through researching the historical process, what terms mean, how they differ in their application, how they're applied, and how actions differ from what's asserted.
> 
> Some words, like racism, can be nuanced and have a great deal of knowledge required to understand the weight and extent of its use. For instance, you have to have a solid understanding of a systems approach vs an individual approach, of genetics and scientific classifications, of the variation of usage over time, how different populations can mean different things by it, etc. etc. It's less a statement and more of a deep conversation to have. And it's difficult to have because everyone who uses the word probably has a bit of a different appreciation for the intent and usage of the word.
> 
> ...



Well, which is why I tried to relay the two different usages of racism / racist in this case. The majority of the world who uses the term and especially the Conservatives, Republicans, Independents and Moderate Democrats in the USA are using it per the agreed upon definition I gave, which was sourced out a credible dictionary that's used around the world. This is also the definition I learned in school and was taught for decades (though, I'm not sure what they're teaching the kids these days). It sums down to being discriminating against someone based on their race / skin color. The second usage stems from the definition created by Marxist supporters for the sole purpose of implementing and maintaining socialism, which basically states that it's not racist to attack people in power based on their race or skin color.

So there's probably more definitions of "racism" around the world. As per this post I'm only referring to the two I just mentioned.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Burden of proof is still on the accuser. Or are you a hypocrite about that as well? This is still not an answer, give me *actual substantive quotes* that say what you asserted. You provided nothing factual that supports your position. If you say Hillary Clinton then prove it. Although, I warn you, a college thesis is pretty weak considering the decades that have passed. Maybe something more current and with our current leadership? I'm not going to be too picky but you have a terrible time sourcing your assertions. I'll wait.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> Just a reminder @cots, your feelings isn't a legit source. That is what you just gave me. You can do better! : D



I gave you all the proof you're going to get from me. Spend some time reading the results. I mean, it's not like a random pick from the 2nd page of results didn't turn out an article full of names. Demanding I give you things and then calling me a hypocrite because you don't like what I gave you isn't going to motivate me to give you anything else.


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 6, 2019)

cots said:


> Well, which is why I tried to relay the two different usages of racism / racist in this case. The majority of the world who uses the term and especially the Conservatives, Republicans, Independents and Moderate Democrats in the USA are using it per the agreed upon definition I gave, which was sourced out a credible dictionary that's used around the world. This is also the definition I learned in school and was taught for decades (though, I'm not sure what they're teaching the kids these days). It sums down to being discriminating against someone based on their race / skin color. The second usage stems from the definition created by Marxist supporters for the sole purpose of implementing and maintaining socialism, which basically states that it's not racist to attack people in power based on their race or skin color.
> 
> So there's probably more definitions of "racism" around the world. As per this post I'm only referring to the two I just mentioned.
> 
> ...


Which is fine when you're making the argument and limiting the argument to the scope of that definition (rather than using the definition to make an argument that is the entire scope). But you're talking about someone else's definition. Which definition are they using? And what word would you use in its place which has the same meaning/implication that they're trying to convey?


----------



## cots (Dec 6, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> And yet the current POTUS is one of the most racist people alive with an extensive history of making racist remarks. Lets not forget this is the guy who  in his younger years demanded the owners of the apartment block that Trump had an apartment in remove anyone black who also had an apartment in the block. Remember that Trump led a campaign to have 5 black boys executed for committing rape a crime they were later all found to have been wrongly accused of funnily enough he has never demanded white rapists be executed. Lets not forget that here in Scotland at the golf course Trump owns here he demanded that the golf course did not give jobs to anyone black that was until he got into a shit load of trouble from the Scottish government for trying that. Plus there are so many more instances of blatant racism alot of which is covered in this list.
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/588067/



Thanks for bringing these to my attention. Trump recently became a Republican. Most of his adult life he was a Democrat. If he's truly embracing the Republican way of life he's probably learned that what he's done in the past was wrong. As for his Presidency. I've yet to see any of the acts of racism he's been accused of being actually racist (per the non-Marxist definition). Though, this post isn't about the fact that there are racist Republicans. The Republican party was founded around freeing the black slaves and much hasn't changed. Policies that encourage people to get off of welfare or things that would stop illegal immigration are not racist. Sure, minorities may be effected by them, but the policies aren't rooted or motivated by ones race. There's a lot of white people on welfare that have been kicked off due to recent policy changes and it's pretty racist to think that anyone trying to sneak into the country is going to be a certain race or that protecting our borders and citizens has anything to do with ones skin color. If Canada was a shit hole and tens of thousands of its citizens were trying to illegally cross the border only a monthly basis with a lot of them bringing drugs, children sex slaves or were coming over with no intention on helping our county and only wanted free handouts do you think we'd care if the majority of Canadian citizens are white (most of their country are white natives, English, French, Scottish, etc...). I bring these two issues up because the Liberal Democrats benefit from keeping people on welfare and populating sanctuary cities. This provides them votes while at the same time cheap labor (and if you read any Liberal message boards on a daily basis like I do you'll see how they really value and brag about said labor).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



osaka35 said:


> Which is fine when you're making the argument and limiting the argument to the scope of that definition (rather than using the definition to make an argument that is the entire scope). But you're talking about someone else's definition. Which definition are they using? And what word would you use which has the same meaning/implication that they're trying to convey?



When it comes to the Liberal Democrats in the USA most are using the Marxist definition. When it comes to the Tweets in this post or the left leaning main stream media they are using the Marxist definition. The thing is they aren't being honest about using the Maxrist definition. They're trying to imply that people are actually racist per the agreed upon definition, which like you pointed out leads to confusion. Normal citizens taught the normal definition of school hear the word "racism" and think it's based on ones race or skin color and then feel negative emotional impact when being accused of it. If they realized it was the Marxist definition then they'd just be like "oh, so I'm not actually hurting anyone and I'm not actually racist, I just don't support socialism". I suppose if you wanted to nail down "the Liberal Marxist definition of racism used to establish socialism" into a single word I've have to create one and use that as its definition. libopression ? LOL. I dunno. I'm not qualified to make up words, though I'm sure it would be easy enough to go create a Wikipedia page if I were to create a new word to back myself up : )


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 6, 2019)

cots said:


> I gave you all the proof you're going to get from me. Spend some time reading the results. I mean, it's not like a random pick from the 2nd page of results didn't turn out an article full of names. Demanding I give you things and then calling me a hypocrite because you don't like what I gave you isn't going to motivate me to give you anything else.



So now you present an article, Freedomoutpost.com yea ok If you weren't already so far off I'd jest at you about your source, but given how rare it is for you to provide one I'll read it and see if we can find anything worthwhile *(Although still no quotes from democratic leadership like I requested, its almost like you don't know what you are talking about and can't back up your claim?!). *

Well Norman Mattoon Thomas wasn't even directly named. This author is a moron who forces people to have to go look up information to follow along in his assertion. Also keep in mind this is a strategic partisan hit piece on Hillary Clinton as it was written a year before the election and she is the constant example presented. Thankfully he linked this as his source:
https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/organizations/democratic-party-dp/

So now we are looking at George Soros and shadow party... ... ... sigh, you are one of those boogeyman people to the core.

https://www.mediamatters.org/david-horowitz/guide-david-horowitzs-discoverthenetworks

Yea a metric ton of assertions with no proof. Great we have a conspiracy site that is being used as a source for an author who is supposed to inform me the Liberal's secret plan. 

Anyways, I've heard Norman Thomas's quote before but the context matters, he was a six-time candidate of the Socialist Party of America who lost every time. I guess its like a Libertarian thinking by joining the Republican party they now own it. How'd that Libertarian movement work out again? Oh right. It didn't. Sorry @cots this is just not sufficient. I'll continue but a 75 yr quote doesn't cut the mustard. I've done enough, if you are so lazy to not even provide a single quote of a current democratic leadership as requested then I'll take that as an admission of the bolded text I wrote above. 

------------------

@cots Since I've given ample opportunities for you to present your argument better, I decided I'll bring a source to help clear up a potential conflation. See you use socialism and I presume you believe democratic socialism as the same thing. Except, it is not.

Since you yourself so eloquently stated:



cots said:


> Implementing a few select programs that are funded by the people for the people doesn't mean we're a country based on socialism.



https://time.com/5422714/what-is-democratic-socialism/

---
How is democratic socialism different from socialism and communism in the former Soviet Union and other countries abroad?
The simple answer is that democratic socialists believe in a democracy, while communist forms of government are not democracies.

“Democratic socialists believe in elections, the First Amendment — [they] want ordinary people to have more power in a more democratic system,” Kazin says. “In communist countries, the state controls everything and a small group of people control the state, a tyrannical system.”
---

It would be disingenuous to conflate the two yet here we are. I'm going to keep quoting you to remind you of reality when it comes to democrats and republicans regarding social programs or the proposed expansion of these pre-existing programs.



cots said:


> Implementing a few select programs that are funded by the people for the people doesn't mean we're a country based on socialism.



*Thanks @cots that summed it up exactly! Right on target!*

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



cots said:


> When it comes to the Liberal Democrats in the USA most are using the Marxist definition. *When it comes to the Tweets in this post or the left leaning main stream media they are using the Marxist definition. The thing is they aren't being honest about using the Maxrist definition.* They're trying to imply that people are actually racist per the agreed upon definition, which like you pointed out leads to confusion. Normal citizens taught the normal definition of school hear the word "racism" and think it's based on ones race or skin color and then feel negative emotional impact when being accused of it. If they realized it was the Marxist definition then they'd just be like "oh, so I'm not actually hurting anyone and I'm not actually racist, I just don't support socialism". I suppose if you wanted to nail down "the Liberal Marxist definition of racism used to establish socialism" into a single word I've have to create one and use that as its definition. libopression ? LOL. I dunno. I'm not qualified to make up words, though I'm sure it would be easy enough to go create a Wikipedia page if I were to create a new word to back myself up : )



So you are probably wrong, but no one can be sure as we aren't able to have a discussion with them. Hence why you misrepresenting liberals by using a few cherry picked tweets (that for all we know are people who worked on Kamela's campaign) is a problem. It might fit a forced narrative of yours, but it isn't rooted in reality.

These aren't the democratic leaders, these aren't statistical polls, these are a few people on the street who happened to tweet something. Again if you want to go that route we could find tweets from everyday republicans who say incorrect or misleading statements and try to assert that as an entire agenda behind the party. Doing such would be stupid and illogical.


----------



## J-Machine (Dec 6, 2019)

those are some conspiracy level connections you are making bud. stretch it any more and you might hurt yourself


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 6, 2019)

cots said:


> When it comes to the Liberal Democrats in the USA most are using the Marxist definition.


What does marxism have to do with current definitions of racism? beyond that...from your first post, about defining racism as a system of power. It should be noted that if you move into a different system of power, then the label can be applied differently. For example, if there was a country of one particular group of non-white individuals in power supporting the system and whites were in the historical minority and still systematically ignored/oppressed, then whites wouldn't be "racist" under that definition, not in the  way they are in the states. So it's less a "anti-white" oriented definition and more of a "anti-oppression" oriented definition. It just happens that much of the world happens to have been oppressed by Britian, France, Russia, and the rest of Europe .

The usage you have issue with reserves the use of "racism" to only mean at a systems level. Or basically it boils down to: "Does this action or event positively, negatively, or neutrally effect the current uneven power dynamic?". It's a very useful definition when you're trying to address issues with such a large system with many moving parts. It's a goal and result oriented definition, aimed at changes at a systems level. If your goal is to create a fair system which doesn't oppress people, it's a brilliant definition. It tends to be more helpful to describe particular actions as racist when using this definition, rather than individuals. Thing is, being completely immune to being racist because you are being oppressed is a bit of an odd sentiment. You can easily be a part of the problem. Say a white senator is pushing amazingly brilliant anti-racist legislation, but someone from an oppressed class which will benefit from the legislation argues against it for whatever reason. Is that not racism by this definition? I'm still fuzzy on this, so would love for someone to clarify this for me (if you've the time/knowledge to help).

If you want a word which applies from a person to another person, rather than to a system, then a better word might be "bigot" or "reprehensible" or "hateful" or whatever word you'd like. This is where you deal with things like intent, desire, perception, and the like. Problem is, even if absolutely everyone was no longer a bigot, if we still used the same systems we currently use, there would still be oppression. So we've got to work at it at both the personal level AND the systems level. Crossover is going to happen, especially when folks aren't 100% clear on the difference.


----------



## cots (Dec 6, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> https://time.com/5422714/what-is-democratic-socialism/
> 
> ---
> How is democratic socialism different from socialism and communism in the former Soviet Union and other countries abroad?
> ...



This would almost be acceptable if the end goal wasn't to replace the current system with socialism and discard democracy. We saw how well that turned out for Venezuela. So you "tore apart" some random page I linked to that I didn't even read. I picked 1 out of 100 or so results (though I noticed you didn't touch Hillary). At least I got you to read one of the results. Maybe I should just copy and paste the entire list if that would "help" you out. I already told you - I gave you a list of stuff to read. You don't like it that's fine. You want to make it look like "oh there's no Liberal agenda to push socialism on the country and I can prove it because @cots doesn't want to go dig up quotes of stuff he's been reading for years". I guess the majority of the Conservative media have it all wrong. Must be some big conspiracy. Hell, even the Liberal sites promoting socialism or the Liberals that comment on a daily basis on various forums that claim socialism is the only way we're going to survive must be "in on it".


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 6, 2019)

cots said:


> *This would almost be acceptable if the end goal wasn't to replace the current system with socialism and discard democracy. *We saw how well that turned out for Venezuela. So you "tore apart" some random page I linked to that I didn't even read. I picked 1 out of 100 or so results (though I noticed you didn't touch Hillary). At least I got you to read one of the results. Maybe I should just copy and paste the entire list if that would "help" you out. I already told you - I gave you a list of stuff to read. You don't like it that's fine. You want to make it look like "oh there's no Liberal agenda to push socialism on the country and I can prove it because @cots doesn't want to go dig up quotes of stuff he's been reading for years". I guess the majority of the Conservative media have it all wrong. Must be some big conspiracy. Hell, even the Liberal sites promoting socialism or the Liberals that comment on a daily basis on various forums that claim socialism is the only way we're going to survive must be "in on it".


I can keep asking for sources, you provided one. I'm not surprised you 'didn't even read it' as you never read any sources others provide so I don't expect you to do the due diligence to read your own. I mean if anything @cots you are consistent in that regard.

'I'm lazy and I don't want to go through the trouble of having to defend what I assert with actual proof' @cots 2019. Maybe put that as a disclaimer any shit post you put on this forum? Provide quotes from democratic leadership or this is a bust. Hillary Clinton was no socialist. She didn't want to even expand social programs. She just wanted to be the first woman president and had an extreme lackluster senate career, I can't recall a single bill she authored during her term in the senate. I'm no fan of this individual but if you call her a socialist because a few people she knew in life said something or she wrote something in college decades ago but never had any op-eds or modern statements that reinforced that position then you are a fool. I associate with people of all types of beliefs throughout my life.

Burden of proof is on the accuser and you've done a piss poor job. Thank goodness you don't author political articles for a living.


----------



## cots (Dec 6, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> What does marxism have to do with current definitions of racism?



I'll answer this then I'm going to try to sleep and will address the rest of your comments tomorrow. The "Marxist" definition of racism is the definition of racism that's being used to justify the implementation of socialism (Karl Marx is the father of modern socialism, hence the name). An overview of it is covered under *Colloquial Definition Two: “Racism = Prejudice + Power”* on this site. As far as I know it was created by a group of sociologists who supported Marx for the sole purpose of pushing socialism on countries. If you have some time read the Communist Manifesto, which outlines a generic model on how to subvert a system and implement socialism as a way of Government. If you're familiar with the way things have been going recently in the USA you can see some clear links between what's been happening and the methods in the manifesto. Once you realize why the Marxist definition was created and how it's being used you'll understand why people that don't support socialism dislike it. By the way - the last Democratic Presidential Candidate who ran in 2016 in the USA and lost was obsessed with Marx and the manifesto.


----------



## cracker (Dec 6, 2019)

Identity politics are bullshit. Most of the candidates — no matter what their race — are in it for themselves and their rich friends. Good riddance to another corporate Dem (though not as bad as others in the race).


----------



## chrisrlink (Dec 6, 2019)

any country besides canada  willing to take asylum from the US if shit goes south i'm seriously done with the corrupt usa government any (non terrorist) country is better at this point

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

i've been thinking the Philipines at least it's christan run and english is used too


----------



## cots (Dec 6, 2019)

cracker said:


> Identity politics are bullshit. Most of the candidates — no matter what their race — are in it for themselves and their rich friends. Good riddance to another corporate Dem (though not as bad as others in the race).



Identity politics are a tool used by the Liberal Left to push socialism on the country (see the pro-socialism site http://socialismtoday.org). Not only is this not good, but there's also inherit problems with identity politics not related to socialism (see https://www.barcelonas.com/what-is-wrong-with-identity-politics.html). So I do agree with you. All the Democrats want to do is become our lords and under socialism - once we spend all of the rich peoples money we'll be all left fighting over scraps.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



chrisrlink said:


> any country besides canada  willing to take asylum from the US if shit goes south i'm seriously done with the corrupt usa government any (non terrorist) country is better at this point
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> i've been thinking the Philipines at least it's christan run and english is used too



Canada criticizes the USA's immigration crisis yet doesn't want to help by allowing people South of their border to immigrate very easily and doesn't permit illegal immigration either.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 6, 2019)

cots said:


> I'll answer this then I'm going to try to sleep and will address the rest of your comments tomorrow. The "Marxist" definition of racism is the definition of racism that's being used to justify the implementation of socialism (Karl Marx is the father of modern socialism, hence the name). An overview of it is covered under *Colloquial Definition Two: “Racism = Prejudice + Power”* on this site. As far as I know it was created by a group of sociologists who supported Marx for the sole purpose of pushing socialism on countries. If you have some time read the Communist Manifesto, which outlines a generic model on how to subvert a system and implement socialism as a way of Government. If you're familiar with the way things have been going recently in the USA you can see some clear links between what's been happening and the methods in the manifesto. Once you realize why the Marxist definition was created and how it's being used you'll understand why people that don't support socialism dislike it.


But who? who in the democratic leadership has supported anything of this nonsense? and how have they done so? When did they do it? You assert this is the goal of the liberals but can't identify the specific leadership members pushing this? And you expect us to just believe you?

Who, what, when, why, how? @cots Anything substantive? Or is this one of your 'feelings' again that you validated by going to more conspiracy sites to confirm a bias?

This linked article also appears to me to be a botched understanding of institutionalized (systemic) racism, or if I'm being generous, an analysis of what it can be interpreted as what is observed when claims of institutional racism are used by bad actors to push an agenda. My position on those who distort was already discussed on one of my first few posts on this thread so I'll just quote myself.



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> There are people who argue that whites cannot be victims of institutional racism in America. There is merit to the argument and is not illogical when given the importance of generational wealth.
> 
> However, white people can be victims of individual racism. Anyone who thinks or says otherwise is dishonest or a fool.
> 
> If you find anyone on either side that distort and/or conflate the two they are likely doing so for a specific purpose to push a narrative if they aren't just flat out ignorant of the difference. Given how you listed definitions of both, yet persisted in the assertions which conflated the two to suit your narrative against socialism, that narrative is rooted in a falsehood. You are one of those people by your own assertions listed above. You, @cots, are just as guilty of this as the liberals you hate.



Now, lets actually examine Marxist racism from something more substantive than a shit web article shall we.

To just explain why i call it a shit article - it is essentially a blog that lists no sources in how he derives his conclusions. Furthermore while he is actually talking about two different types of racism he isn't understanding that they are specifically two different types and have specific names. Now other people conflate the two and that is a problem. But he's just as much as complicit because he isn't providing the clarity when he presents this information to his readers. Let's look at one of the comments from his readers to highlight this further:

----
"So many arguments on the topic boil down to semantic confusion: people not realizing they’re using the same word to talk about two distinct things as if they’re the same thing. They both identify distinct things that exist, so it’s not a matter of one definition being right or real and the other wrong or fake; that’s a false dilemma. The structural group power dynamic exists, but so does individual bias regardless of that dynamic.

Thus, when someone operating with R(1) hears, “Reverse racism isn’t a thing” or “Black people can’t be racist”, they may misinterpret that to mean, “Blacks are incapable of racial bias,” which is absurd, *rather than what was meant in the R(2) sense, “People of color have hardships imposed on them due to skin color in a pervasive, systemic way that white people are exempt from by default.*”

One sees the forest; the other only sees the trees — each because that’s how they primarily experience it in their own lives."
----

The R(1) is racism (individual racism) and R(2) is supposed to be an explanation of institutional (systemic) racism. This comment I quoted above essentially nails what I've been saying all along! Conflation of the two by not keeping them separate breeds confusion and some people, like @cots, use that conflation to assert absurdities.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/800145?seq=1

CAN MARXISM EXPLAIN AMERICA's RACISM *1980 *

This isn't the full journal article but it is a sufficient preview to gain enough context of what Marxism racism is rooted in when people attempt to refer or define it:

-------
"The Marxist interpretation of the black experience in America has always had difficulty explaining various non-economic aspects of racism and the presence of racism within the working class. With the development of post-World War II capitalism, Marxism seems unable to concede and intellectually incorporate an economics of uselessness in which large numbers of blacks are permanently unemployed. Many blacks who are also highly critical of capitalism have come to reject a class analysis which blames capitalists for the racism within the white working class. Yet, by understanding more fully the labor process within capitalism, it is possible to incorporate an explanation of working-class racism within another type of class analysis"

Marx's central contention is that social relations flow out of the economic forms of production (i.e. how people relate to one another is a function of how material goods are produced.)

The United States - to restate a Marxist line of argument familiar but crucial - is a capitalist society because labor prevails as a market commodity subject to the vicissitudes of property interest bent upon the extraction of surplus value from human labor. 

Such treatment of labor is a form of economic exploitation because any value in excess of production costs accrues to business owners rather than to the workers. Upon this fundamental economic principle, a specific form of class system emerges with divergent and incompatible economic imperatives: the upper (or ruling capitalist) class focuses upon production to extract profits from labor; the working (or proletariat) class necessarily copes with working conditions and the scale of pay in the form of wages.

Capitalism is responsible, various types of Marxist scholars generally maintain, for the fate of black people in this country. "Racism," writes Perlo, "is a specific product of capitalism and a universal feature of capitalism. According to Aptheker, racism ".... is a distinctly modern phenomenon and comes into being as capitalism develops and moves toward the subjugation and colonization of the darker peoples of the world". Capitalists need racial inferiority to cheapen the cost of labor. "White employers,"
Nearing asserted *in 1929*, "are taking advantage of the Negroes - using them to force down wages, to break strikes". Racism emerged and flourishes for capitalists, themselves white in color, because of its economic utility. Blacks receive wages lower than white workers to enhance profit making for capitalists. The differential pay scale along racial lines means white employees cannot demand wages much in excess of the prevailing rate capitalists establish for black laborers. By this racial tactic all laboring people suffer from suppressed wages; capitalists gain since lower wages reduce production costs, and, consequently, expand surplus value. White workers can be readily intimidated by their employers should they resort to strikes in an effort to force concessions from capitalists because black workers can be recruited to replace the striking white employee. In short, racism is primarily an effective strategy for capitalists to restrain economic demands from a recalcitrant labor force. As Reich succinctly states the case:

"Wages of white labor are lessened by racism because the fact of a cheaper and underemployed Black labor supply in the area is invoked by employers when labor presents its wage demands. Racial antagonisms on the shop floor deflect attention from labor grievances related to working conditions."
-------

I conveniently retyped this whole excerpt so that if anyone desires to quote from it to discuss further they have the ability to do so.

My understanding of Marxism racism *is a specific subset of institutional racism that focuses on the labor power and economic standing of one race over another in a given location*. It is important that we all agree on this definition or explanation as this will allow further discussion. I have seen people in democratic leadership discuss the conflicts in our nation regarding racism and institutional racism. 

TLDR:
But I've never seen any leadership on either political spectrum use what I bolded above (Marxism Racism) to push to replace our democratic republic with Socialism. I've repeatedly requested the OP @cots to present evidence of such as he asserted this is true but he has been unwilling to provide anything of substance.

This is likely due to his lazy or deceptive nature of not properly sourcing his assertions when entering discourse with others as he has habitually refused to do so during the past few weeks of interaction on this forum.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 6, 2019)

cots said:


> By the way - the last Democratic Presidential Candidate who ran in 2016 in the USA and lost was obsessed with Marx and the manifesto.



You'd think if that was true you'd find modern evidence of that instead of resorting to associates from when she was in college and her college papers from decades and decades ago.

You are such a hypocrite. Trump was a democrat and he was for abortion and everything else 'liberals' want until about the late 2000's. Modern evidence shows he switched to republican thought on many issues and is absolved from his past thinking to any normal, rational individual. Clinton fought against sanders in the democratic primary over expansion of social programs yet she is your evidence of a candidate pushing socialism? She is a fucking capitalist through and through.

Look through her senate record or modern quotes and show me her pushing socialism otherwise take your conspiracy boogeyman shit elsewhere. You may not realize this but you are just embarrassing yourself by spouting crackpot theories.

Here is a quote from clinton from 2019, (although I guarantee you if you looked anywhere from 2015-2017 you would find much harsher words for social program expansion.) My evidence I present is still more than sufficient, even during the height of grassroot movement w/ candidates like Warren or Sanders - this is Clinton:
---
Capitalism, said Clinton, has been growing more "predatory" and "free of any kind of check and balance" since the 1960s and 1970s. But, she continued, a "*well-regulated capitalist system is good in the long run.* I'd like to see us move away from the shareholder mania...and see it accelerate to a stakeholder capitalism."

The discussion, she said, needs to happen, because *"I think capitalism is the greatest generator of jobs and opportunities, and we need to figure out how it doesn't consume itself or our democracy."*
---

And I actually agree with her statement. Regulation of things like banks/real-estate were needed because of the 2009 crash. Nothing she is saying is pushing socialism or calling to replace our democratic republic with socialism. Just trying to get capitalism to help the worker class as well. Oh the terror, oh the inhumanity!

But seriously, how we move forward to achieve such a goal is debatable. Everyone may have their own approach and it is up to us Americans to find what is the best. This comes back to the 'Adults left in the room' will have to figure out how to move forward, people like @cots can either continue believing in the boogeyman conspiracies used for cheap scare-tactic fundraising or join us and find solutions that work for our nation.


----------



## cots (Dec 6, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> You'd think if that was true you'd find modern evidence of that instead of resorting to associates from when she was in college and her college papers from decades and decades ago.
> 
> You are such a hypocrite. Trump was a democrat and he was for abortion and everything else 'liberals' want until about the late 2000's. Modern evidence shows he switched to republican thought on many issues and is absolved from his past thinking to any normal, rational individual. Clinton fought against sanders in the democratic primary over expansion of social programs yet she is your evidence of a candidate pushing socialism? She is a fucking capitalist through and through.
> 
> ...



The majority of the time the main stream media posts stuff or the Democrats or Liberal Democrats claim someone is being racist is based on the Marxist definition (your supposed specific subset of institutional racism). It's not based on the dictionary definition. It would be nice if they would inform the public that's what they're doing as it does indeed cause confusion, especially among the people that don't know about socialism or don't want anything to do with it. If someone called you a racist and they were using the Marxist definition then it would have basically no impact compared to you actually being called racist because of someones skin color/race (as the majority of the population learned just the dictionary definition during their education). Being called a racist because you're being discriminate to someone based on someones actual race is cause for alarm. So being called a racist by a Liberal is nothing to even get concerned about. So you see why I needed to bring up there's a definitive difference when Liberals call you racist compared to actually being racist.

Hillary's and the current 2020 Democratic candidates behaviors - such as the policies they want to implement is what I was referring to when I was saying they openly admit to wanting to push socialism on the country. You tried to justify it claiming "oh, its only a socialist democracy they're after". Just like Bernie tries to defend identifying as a "Democratic Socialist" while downplaying the word "Socialist". The thing is the plan is to implement one policy at a time and chip away at the Constitution until nothing is left. Just like gun control laws - "We'll pass this restriction and that'll be it - the problem will be solved, we promise!". Well, it never ends like that, because what comes out of these peoples mouth can never be trusted. Soon they're be another fake emergency (a simple situation blown out of proportion by the liberal media) come up to require more laws and more restrictions. You demanded quotes when I was referring to how their actions speak for themselves. I gave you a search term that provided tons of information related to how their actions and their platforms are based on pushing socialism on the country (in one form or another). I gave you what you asked for. Just in case you wanted another search query term here's one https://duckduckgo.com/?q=democratic+2020+candidates+socialism . Simply put - actions speak louder than words. You got your proof.

You can try to confuse me with the intention to make me look stupid to discredit what I'm saying, but even if you are successful in nitpicking specifics there's the other hundreds of millions of Conservatives, Independents, Moderate Republicans/Democrats you're going to have to play mind games with, because what I'm basically doing is relating what they've been discussing (and they've been discussing it for many years now). This is why I gave you the terms I knew would bring up results backing up the general consensus. There's really no way to hide behind the fact that the Liberal Democrats want socialism in the USA. I've convinced you know this and would possibly just like to make the readers think it's not the case because you're attacking me from multiple angles on every single sentence I type in some futile attempt to discredit something that's not even a theory (as it's just what the Liberals want and are after) or you're just enjoying trying to give me a hard time. Regardless of your motivations all the reader would have to do is use the search terms I gave them as a starting point to see that you're wrong and I'm right. Those terms bring up hundreds of results and a lot are results that are from Liberal leaning sites. There should really be no argument about this issue so I'm done with it.

As per that I'll be ignoring your replies from now on. I'm humored you and your attacks long enough.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 6, 2019)

cots said:


> The majority of the time the main stream media posts stuff or the Democrats or Liberal Democrats claim someone is being racist is based on the Marxist definition (your supposed specific subset of institutional racism). It's not based on the dictionary definition. It would be nice if they would inform the public that's what they're doing as it does indeed cause confusion, especially among the people that don't know about socialism or don't want anything to do with it. If someone called you a racist and they were using the Marxist definition then it would have basically no impact compared to you actually being called racist because of someones skin color/race (as the majority of the population learned just the dictionary definition during their education). Being called a racist because you're being discriminate to someone based on someones actual race is cause for alarm. So being called a racist by a Liberal is nothing to even get concerned about. So you see why I needed to bring up there's a definitive difference when Liberals call you racist compared to actually being racist.



There are indeed bad actors on both sides, people who don't use terminology appropriately, either out of ignorance or to push an agenda. Again you are one of them by evidence of your own posts. That's the problem with your 'independent' but only support far-right republican narratives (I guess you must be 'independent' because too many moderate republicans aren't going far enough to the right for you?). You think that main stream media (fox included) misuse and conflate racism vs institutional racism? Yes, they do it for VIEWS and MONEY. It is also everyday joes who tweet, evidence by your own starting thread post, but they aren't the majority of the party. And I'm not aware of people using it to push socialism, ie replacing our democratic republic with socialism. *They certainly aren't the leaders of a political party.* Or at least I haven't seen any evidence and you certainly haven't provided any beyond a conspiracy site and a search engine query, but you expect people to take you seriously?



cots said:


> The majority of the time the main stream media posts stuff or the Democrats or Liberal Democrats claim someone is being racist is based on the Marxist definition (your supposed specific subset of institutional racism). It's not based on the dictionary definition. It would be nice if they would inform the public that's what they're doing as it does indeed cause confusion, especially among the people that don't know about socialism or don't want anything to do with it. If someone called you a racist and they were using the Marxist definition then it would have basically no impact compared to you actually being called racist because of someones skin color/race (as the majority of the population learned just the dictionary definition during their education). Being called a racist because you're being discriminate to someone based on someones actual race is cause for alarm. So being called a racist by a Liberal is nothing to even get concerned about. So you see why I needed to bring up there's a definitive difference when Liberals call you racist compared to actually being racist.
> 
> Hillary's and the current 2020 Democratic candidates behaviors - such as the policies they want to implement is what I was referring to when I was saying they openly admit to wanting to push socialism on the country. You tried to justify it claiming "oh, its only a socialist democracy they're after". Just like Bernie tries to defend identifying as a "Democratic Socialist" while downplaying the word "Socialist". The thing is the plan is to implement one policy at a time and chip away at the Constitution until nothing is left. Just like gun control laws - "We'll pass this restriction and that'll be it - the problem will be solved, we promise!". Well, it never ends like that, because what comes out of these peoples mouth can never be trusted. Soon they're be another fake emergency (a simple situation blown out of proportion by the liberal media) come up to require more laws and more restrictions. You demanded quotes when I was referring to how their actions speak for themselves. I gave you a search term that provided tons of information related to how their actions and their platforms are based on pushing socialism on the country (in one form or another). I gave you what you asked for. Just in case you wanted another search query term here's one https://duckduckgo.com/?q=democratic+2020+candidates+socialism . Simply put - actions speak louder than words. You got your proof.
> 
> ...



I'm dismantling your rationale because it is flawed and predicated on a bias against liberals. I'm pointing out logical fallicies that you are presenting as reality to others. You aren't supporting your argument sufficiently with evidence to convince me and likely anyone else who didn't already share your bias. You can't even provide something as simple as this modern democrat leader specifically stated X. I'm not saying it doesn't exist because I can't prove a negative. But the burden of proof falls on you and you are only showing me duckduckgo searches. I followed the information you provided but nothing supports your claim you made here.



cots said:


> Fine. *The "bad actors" are the leaders on top trying to push socialism in whole on the country.* The Liberal "elite" following them are also a problem, but *their leaders are the cause of the problem.* Implementing a few select programs that are funded by the people for the people doesn't mean we're a country based on socialism. The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and has some polices that are similar to ones used in socialism. What people fail to realize that polices used in socialism are also used in other forms of Government. Implementing a few policies doesn't mean we're headed there. *However, if you look at the Liberal end goal - to rip up the Constitution and implement Socialism as a whole so they can have ultimate control over everything* - that is what I'm against. *They used to hide the fact this is what they want to do - now their leaders and a lot of their members openly admit to it.*
> 
> If you're a Liberal that doesn't believe this is the end goal then maybe *you should start paying attention to what your leadership is actually after* (that however would require to start to think for yourself and ask questions you're not allowed to ask). This is why being an independent is great. I don't have to say what everyone else is saying and believe what everyone else tells me to and fear rejection if I don't go along with the herd. Sure, I might be wrong now and then and that's fine - at least I'm not hell bent of destroying our way of life for some gamble on something that's been proven to fail time and time again. The Democrats have really lost of lot of support from the Independents over what the Liberal Left has been doing these last three years - that's for sure. Seeings as most of the 2020 front runners are focused too much on far-left Liberal fantasies this has also cost them even more support from the Independent voters and even some support from the actual level headed moderate Democrats.



I'll continue asking, to anyone. Where is the evidence of the bolded statements you asserted? After all its their leaders that are *pushing socialism and end goal of ripping up the constitution and implement socialism, its out in the open*. It should be easy to find. I haven't been made aware of it and I'm someone who feels I am more attentive to politics then the average voter, much less the average citizen. You @cots made this assertion and I'm asking for proof. After all you went through all this trouble of making a thread stating such I figured you would be the best person on this forum to ask for proof. You have demonstrated thus far that you don't have any by your lack provision of a quote or specific policy proposal. It's out in the open so why would you have any trouble providing such  from a leader of the democrat party?

I've expected this to turn into a bash on the Warren and Sanders policy proposals for expansion of pre-existing social programs. Sanders does call himself a democratic socialist but that is markedly separate from socialism as anyone who is familiar with the terms. I've already outlined that difference in an earlier post on this thread. I also discussed that there is much looming debate on how best to handle such a proposal of expansion when the time comes. But why should I continue explaining, when in fact, you said it best:



cots said:


> Implementing a few select programs that are funded by the people for the people doesn't mean we're a country based on socialism. The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and has some polices that are similar to ones used in socialism. What people fail to realize that polices used in socialism are also used in other forms of Government.



What I didn't expect was you to use Hillary Clinton as your shinning example and then couldn't provide anything that wasn't decades old. I pointed out the logical fallacies in using that as your main source of evidence. *Note* you never even quoted anything she directly stated either, just posted an article written by an author who sourced a conspiracy theory site and made outlandish claims with no supporting evidence as well. I even went further to point out modern quotes where she specifically discussed her preference for capitalism. But sure, @cots don't have to respond due to my admonishment and sarcasm as you have no obligation to do so.

I've made my point that without the evidence like I requested, this assertion is just as ridiculous as someone saying: 'The boogeyman exists, please believe me. Look my duck duck go query leads to sites that say so.'


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 6, 2019)

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/this-is-why-millennials-favor-socialism_b_58ed0feae4b0145a227cb8d3

This is the article you linked in your last post. Did you read it or just the headline? I'm asking geniuinely because if you did the only thing that was said:
---
Yet, a full 25% of the youthful vote went to Bernie Sanders, who captured more of the millennial vote than both Trump and Clinton.
---

It then goes to say because of that they support socialism and desire socialism from other countries like 'free education'. Except, what is currently provided in our nation is a government funded public education which is paid by taxes. Sanders proposed to expand that social program of public education to include more than k-12. That isn't the same as embracing socialism. This article is yet another example of people misusing terms, whether knowingly or not, to push a narrative. It would be appropriate for the author to know the difference and instead correctly label it an expansion of a a pre-existing social program. Medicare for all is another example of that.

I can't tell if I'm getting off topic but this article didn't even have a single quote from Sanders. I'm not surprised this is the case either. I'll cease and desist. There's little point in continuing when you have no desire to provide evidence as I requested.


----------



## notimp (Dec 7, 2019)

You maybe could make an argument against institutionalized racism (as in 'still part of the societal backdrop at large') - but then the main flaw of the argument at hand is pitching imagined fractions against each other. And apparently seeing so clearly, that this is the root of all evil.

So you proclaim - all needed to understand whats wrong with society - is an understanding of

Liberals x Conservatives
Black x White
Capitalism x Socialism

Then you crosssection those proclamations, and end up at "white democrats racism culture will ensure socialism war damaged buldings and people hungry in the streets, while preventing democracy" and add ' of course they fear loosing the next election now. Because we godloving non racist republican capitalists are the backbone of our society and.. Vote cots ©2019

And then you should realize, that none of this is how it works - except if you are cots.

And yes this is trolling.

Because if you artificially intersect three of the most divisive zero or one social opposites in history. That are all btw. straight up made up as political concepts. As in its all attribution, and none of them is actually real. (Except if you'd want to harken back to race science days.) And then start to attribute - all the now socially attributed as 'bad' parts to one fraction - which still is an entirely made up political construct - well, this only leaves open two possible conclusions.

A.: You are a troll
B.: You are socially inapt not very bright person

Even in theory. You wont get a discussion on the intricacy of any of those concepts started if you group them like that and then proclaim, this is the issue of most of whats wrong in society.


Now we get into the public disclaimer part.


If someone told you that (as in tought you, to think along those lines) - simply - run. They are playing with you. They are playing with social constructs. They are playing with emotionality. They are playing with irrationality. And they are playing with all the issues that come from simplifying theoretical concepts. They are playing with the concept of 'historic guilt'. And inherited guilt.

They are the lowest of the low. They are so far removed from post enlightenment concepts ('everything can be bettered with logic'), it hurts. And they themselves are still not stupid enough to believe in any of that - if they've constructed that argument. Meaning, they are devious as well.
-

Short pointers.

Democrats often rightly get blamed for selling out their ideals, when in power. Here is how that works.
You have two factions. Bigger societal changes are only possible if both of them agree. So there is always a pattern that all meaningful change that goes against values on the democrats side was actually enacted, while democrats were in power. And vice versa. Because 'not acting' on one of those issues would have benefited them more, if they were in opposition to the ruling fraction at the time. Meaning they would have been less likely to politically agree in principal. And therefore it would have been less likely for those big changes too happen in that 'configuration'.

I'm not saying that this is where 'racism laws in the south' started. I'm no american, I'm no historian. I don't want to whitewash. But whenever someone is selling you - that "the other fraction" is historically evil, because they say something, and do something thats opposite to their value corset - this is where this gambit originates from.

Neglecting all - seen as needed - at the time - drive for change, and pitching it against a larger historical backdrop, of 'this is what your values should have been' - according to your own fractions morality.

In the end this is populism, or childs play as well.


----------



## cots (Dec 8, 2019)

notimp said:


> You maybe could make an argument against institutionalized racism (as in 'still part of the societal backdrop at large') - but then the main flaw of the argument at hand is pitching imagined fractions against each other. And apparently seeing so clearly, that this is the root of all evil.
> 
> So you proclaim - all needed to understand whats wrong with society - is an understanding of
> 
> ...



Nah, you got the first two all wrong;

American Liberals vs Normal People
Racists vs The Rest of the World
Capitalism x Socialism - You got this one correct.

1 out of 3 isn't too bad

After kicking Liberalism (that I had no choice in adopting - the schools indoctrinated me) I went to Conservatism. Well, they're like the opposite side of the coin. While American Liberals embrace most of what's wrong with society (and is considered sinful or evil) the Conservatives (while embracing mostly honesty and valuing hard work) still didn't see eye to eye with me. If I had to chose between the two I'd pick Conservatives, but luckily I can tell both parties "to go get fucked". I don't see the world like Liberals do (that it's People of Color vs Whites) as that's actual racism. I see evil vs good and it's not limited to anyone's race. Sorry, but I'm not going to hate a person because they are old, white or happen to be a man.

So to explain the first two points on the list.

(1) It's the sinful evil American Liberal minority party against the rest of society.
(2) It's racists, like the American Liberal minority against people that could care less about your skin color.

I hope that sums it up for you.


----------



## J-Machine (Dec 9, 2019)

not being aware that you are dealing with identity politics when ousting an entire side... hoo boi. Everybody has a "us vs them" mentality. let's not think politics are special or even an exception. the right has it as well. What is interesting though is that people seem to believe things like free healthcare, education and livable wages are evil. When more than 60% of a countries population is living in a  "one slip up and you're done" scenario, they don't tend to do well. When every decision they make feels like they are the atlus of thier own world... They shoulder a burden that affects every aspect of thier life and it starts in elementary school. they don't eat right growing up and are pressured to know what they want to do as an adult before middle school. They are doomed to failure from the start. Either side is messed up and It is disengenuous to somehow believe that despite most of the developed world having these fancy "socialist" programs in place are ranked higher than america in many aspects of quality of life and they don't have ridiculous amounts of debt for it.


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 9, 2019)

J-Machine said:


> What is interesting though is that people seem to believe things like free healthcare, education and livable wages are evil.


 It blows my mind when Americans think those things are evil. Here in Scotland we have totally free health care. We have totally free education and we are paid the living wage. Scotland is also one of the most tolerant countries in the world to the LGBT community. We have very little racism ect ect. Yep having all those things for free has totally made Scotland and the Scottish people evil.


----------



## skullskullskull (Dec 14, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> It blows my mind when Americans think those things are evil. Here in Scotland we have totally free health care. We have totally free education and we are paid the living wage. Scotland is also one of the most tolerant countries in the world to the LGBT community. We have very little racism ect ect. Yep having all those things for free has totally made Scotland and the Scottish people evil.



It isn't _totally_ free though: you are paying for it though taxes. There are no free lunches. 

A Conservative view would be that taxes are theft, your government is stealing your pounds and your choice of how that money is spent. Should your taxes fund life saving surgeries (probably yes) as well as vanity surgeries like boob jobs (imo no)? If you didn't have to pay taxes for health care and education, you would be able to use that money as you saw fit (maybe you want to send your kids to a  catholic school for example). On the other hand, you could get more spending power when socializing services like that so I don't really have an opinion on "free healthcare" other than it isn't free.


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 14, 2019)

skullskullskull said:


> It isn't _totally_ free though: you are paying for it though taxes. There are no free lunches.
> 
> A Conservative view would be that taxes are theft, your government is stealing your pounds and your choice of how that money is spent. Should your taxes fund life saving surgeries (probably yes) as well as vanity surgeries like boob jobs (imo no)? If you didn't have to pay taxes for health care and education, you would be able to use that money as you saw fit (maybe you want to send your kids to a  catholic school for example). On the other hand, you could get more spending power when socializing services like that so I don't really have an opinion on "free healthcare" other than it isn't free.


But you can actually pick what type of school you kids go to here we have either Catholic or protestant or mixed religion schools.


----------



## notimp (Dec 15, 2019)

No one is trying to get cosmetic surgery (as not reconstructive as in after an accident) on a free healthcare plan.

Thats the problem with dumb people discussing hypotheticals. First you have to make it simple for them. Then they take it literal. Then they complain, that 'this be so stupid'. Then they vote to prevent something that never has been real. Then they convince friends.

Welcome to the intelligence of the masses. Have a free balloon. What - balloons are now free?

Then someone says there is such a thing as mixed religions schools.

What?

Education means the opposite of religion (basic believe system). Yes there are some religious fractions running education facilities es well.

What - less than one percent?

How on earth did you end up labeling schools by religious affiliation?

(Mixed, mixed, mixed, mixed, mixed, mixed, mixed, mixed, mixed, ... (77 mixed later...) protestant, mixed, mixed, mixed, mixed, ...)

You know why - btw? Because back in the 17th century something happened called 'separation of state and church' John Locke. Look it up. Someday - news will even reach america.

edit:

Ups. Forgot how america works. 20% of your schools have religious affiliation. Around 8% of PK-12 students visit religious schools. So its more than less than one percent.


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 15, 2019)

notimp said:


> No one is trying to get cosmetic surgery (as not reconstructive as in after an accident) on a free healthcare plan.
> 
> Thats the problem with dumb people discussing hypotheticals. First you have to make it simple for them. Then they take it literal. Then they complain, that 'this be so stupid'. Then they vote to prevent something that never has been real. Then they convince friends.
> 
> ...


Sorry but here in Scotland we do have catholic and protestant and mixed religion schools in every town and city.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news...sh-schools-is-there-this-kind-of-segregation/

Or simply Google Catholic and protestant schools in Scotland to find out even more.


----------



## PZT (Dec 15, 2019)

Why is cots calling himself a lurker when he spends every waking hour here posting about political bullshit
"Thoughts??? Liberals???? Hello?? Yooohooooo!!!"


----------



## skullskullskull (Dec 15, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> But you can actually pick what type of school you kids go to here we have either Catholic or protestant or mixed religion schools.



Guess that was a bad example then. The idea was that you're losing control of where your money goes by paying taxes for it, instead of  buying it directly yourself.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Dec 15, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I'm conflicted to respond to But I just want to highlight Kamela had alot of issues in her campaign staffing, grassroot funding, and policy proposals.


Eh, didnt she keep people in jail for years while habing evidence they were innocent?

Bernie 2020


----------



## chrisrlink (Dec 15, 2019)

cots need a good old kick in the digital teeth his entire view of democrats are delusional (unless he's the 1% but i doubt it) he doesn't even know (or rather denies outright) any evidence of the rights wrongdoings (especially trump) and that the left is trying to uphold our nations constitution if the oposite was true and a democrat was being impeached *cough* bill clinton *cough* they wouldn't try to even obstruct justice like how this admin is doing, personally we need a nuclear option in case half the congress is compromised or corrupt (which they obviously are) and i'm not even talking totally on congress i read an article today that KY's governor just pardoned many pedophiles,rapist and murderers on his last day in office before a democrat enters the pardon powers of both the president and even lower offices of power should have a check system itself and should be over ridden if the pardoned subjects pose a real danger to society, what could stop trump before being removed to issue a sweeping pardon on all ISIS militants captured and imprisoned freeing them from captivity.....nothing as of now


----------



## raystriker (Dec 15, 2019)

Are we gonna talk about how a Democrat senator just jumped ship to the Republican side?


----------



## notimp (Dec 15, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> Sorry but here in Scotland we do have catholic and protestant and mixed religion schools in every town and city.
> https://www.heraldscotland.com/news...sh-schools-is-there-this-kind-of-segregation/
> 
> Or simply Google Catholic and protestant schools in Scotland to find out even more.


Will do. 

Point of contention was "mixed religion schools" as if 'religion' was a classifier for schools.


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 15, 2019)

notimp said:


> Will do.
> 
> Point of contention was "mixed religion schools" as if 'religion' was a classifier for schools.


Thats the point I was making though catholics go to Catholic schools here same way protestants go to protestant school. All other religions (and sometimes Catholics/Protestants should they wish) go to mixed religion schools.

Religion is a big thing here and its not uncommon for Catholics not to speak to protestants and vice versa simply because of their chosen religion.


----------



## notimp (Dec 15, 2019)

And protestants and catholics are grouped shortly after birth? At the point of their baptism? (So basically inherited?)



I'm not trying to make this an argument - I was just urked by a figure of speech. I'll end it here..


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 15, 2019)

notimp said:


> And protestants and catholics are grouped shortly after birth? At the point of their baptism? (So basically inherited?)
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to make this an argument - I was just urked by a figure of speech. I'll end it here..



I get your point being an outsider to things happening here in Scotland but they are actually called mixed religion schools here so for me its not a figure of speach its what they are called lol. Quite simply here you do pick your school by your religion. As daft as that may sound to a non Scottish person.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 15, 2019)

raystriker said:


> Are we gonna talk about how a Democrat senator just jumped ship to the Republican side?


Are you referring to Jeff Van Drew? He's not a senator. He's in the house. He's also not much of an established democrat, as he just came into office this year. He comes from a purple district that Trump had support in 2016. I'm not familiar with his voting record. It could be possible that he ran under a democratic ticket to ride a blue wave and now that he's elected intended to jump ship to policies he aligns with and is just using the impeachment process as an excuse.

Or its possible his narrative that he presents is honest. I haven't followed him enough to really comment further.


----------



## notimp (Dec 15, 2019)

Oh, btw - this thread should be closed - or at least renamed, because of propaganda naming practices.

Its plainly misleading, fake objective sounding, because of tropes used - and openly propagates a lie everytime someone ups it again.

If that thread title actually manages to be on this forum up until the election - right wing trolls will laugh their asses off. And to any moderater thinking, that reading a lie - that sounds like something that could be true, hundrends of times - when opening this forum - does nothing to people, think again. And if no action is taken, at least it now is confronted in here. Because yes, people are that easily manipulated.



Now - on to my thread Trump twitterbombs his sons posting asking their hardcores to celebrate doxing/harras democratic members of senate, together with publishing their phonenumbers.

Because that just happened.

Would get you banned - anywhere on the internet. But the president of the United States is engaging in spreading that thing. Wonderful.


----------



## Jayro (Mar 10, 2020)

Relax, President Sanders is gonna win this.


----------



## notimp (Mar 10, 2020)

Swing states:





src: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html

Current Polls.

Trump vs Sanders also has Trump walking out of the whitehouse currently. Btw. But its still too early to tell.

Sanders is a dead man running (about 24 hours too early to tell for sure (have people caught the manipulation of the presidental race and reacted non favorably is the only question left open)).

Relax, then six word sentence with no logic or content is not something that helps me, or anyone in here in any way - btw.


----------

