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

[cots]

"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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

"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]

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.

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]

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.



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.

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]

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]

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 manner 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 and eventually they will be pressured 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. I'm not sure if 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.

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]

You need to define socialism because you are

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.



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

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]

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.

"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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

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.