[Terez]

TNC's argument has always been that the particulars have to follow the conviction that reparations are necessary and moral. In other words, he thinks we shouldn't use the practical questions as an excuse to deny the need for reparations; we have to embrace the principle before we even begin to work out the details.

[Andorion]

Terez, on 26 January 2016 - 09:39 AM, said:

TNC's argument has always been that the particulars have to follow the conviction that reparations are necessary and moral. In other words, he thinks we shouldn't use the practical questions as an excuse to deny the need for reparations; we have to embrace the principle before we even begin to work out the details.

I understand the importance of an admission of even the principle of reparation, but to me the practicalities are inherent in the principle. IIRC a significant portion of the original US back population where brought over as slaves in English ships by English merchants who purchased them from African brokers. So, right at the beginning, you have three different groups who must commit to reparations to make the admission of the principle a reality.

[Terez]

We can't really do anything about whatever debt the UK might owe. I suggest reading TNC's original article on this subject; we could go back and forth on this for a while as you ask questions that he's already answered.

http://www.theatlant...rations/361631/

[Terez]

Now TNC has offered up a criticism of Hillary, perhaps in the spirit of fairness.

http://www.theatlant...ruction/427095/

[Andorion]

I read the first essay on reparations.

Very very interesting. The first part about agricultural debt slavery reminded me very strongly of my own country when in the 18th and 19th centuries predatory landlord-moneylenders and British colonial rulers defrauded, robbed and made landless millions of poor peasants. A significant part of India's present poverty can be traced back to that phenomenon.

I agree with the author's analysis of the history of racism. My own readings of American history are superficial compared to him, but what little I have read agrees with what he says

Its just that I would really really like more details on the practicalities, especially this Bill he mentioned.

I think the best form reparations could take would be a socio-economic reconstruction program with a strong socio-cultural aspect aimed at education and awareness with the long term aim of reducing social prejudice

I also think the author is wrong to dispute poor white inclusion in this program. Such a stand would only sharpen already fraught race relations and make the larger program impossible.

[Gorefest]

Why does the conservative party even consider Trump as a candidate? Surely it would be an utter disaster for the party as a whole if Trump becomes their candidate? Why don't they simply go: "Look mate, by all means, run as an independent, but you're not going to speak for our party with your loony toon non-issues"? What determines whether someone runs on behalf of a party or as an independent anyway? Is it just a requirement of membership? Are there no political views or guidelines that a party candidate needs to adhere to?

[Silencer]

Gorefest, on 26 January 2016 - 09:34 PM, said:

Why does the conservative party even consider Trump as a candidate? Surely it would be an utter disaster for the party as a whole if Trump becomes their candidate? Why don't they simply go: "Look mate, by all means, run as an independent, but you're not going to speak for our party with your loony toon non-issues"? What determines whether someone runs on behalf of a party or as an independent anyway? Is it just a requirement of membership? Are there no political views or guidelines that a party candidate needs to adhere to?

... You seem to think Trump's views aren't mostly in line with the rest of the GOP. XD

[Gorefest]

I refuse to believe that anyone with half a brain would dare to let Trump within ten miles of a nuclear launch button. The man is an archetypal high school bully, a hater of everything that is not white male, an alleged rapist, an antifeminist, anti-muslim, anti-everything phoney who claims to stand for the people he actually despises the most: those who were left behind by the American Dream. I'm sure there is a vocal section of society that rallies behind such bullies, but it usually isn't the section that actually cares to turn up to vote.

[worry]

Again...

Silencer, on 26 January 2016 - 10:36 PM, said:

... You seem to think Trump's views aren't mostly in line with the rest of the GOP. XD

That's the party line.

[HoosierDaddy]

Studlock, on 26 January 2016 - 08:17 AM, said:

Has anyone been following the Ta-Nehisi Coates articles on Sanders on the Atlantic?

The first:

http://www.theatlant...rations/424602/

The second:

http://www.theatlant...ination/425022/

Also, a response also from the Atlantic:

http://www.theatlant...rations/426720/

I essentially agree with Coates--Sanders is resting in the similar position as white liberals (in the American sense--being moderately left-wing) when its comes to some of the original, and long-lasting problems within the USA (as in slavery, colonialism, and the long-lasting repercussion of those histories). I'm wondering what you guys think about him? Overall I think he's an old-school socialists (probably not someone I'd agree with when it comes to socialist thought) that occasionally leans on populist sentiments in his rhetoric but beyond that is pretty much a run-of-a-mill white liberal politician in American and that being so I wounder why there is such a surge around him as a counter to Hillary.

He's saying he'll get rid of student debt and bring down wall street. #1 brings in Millenials even though it won't happen. #2 brings in others who, rightfully, blame Wall St. for the great depression.

Secondly, he's telling people what they want to hear. No way either of these actually take place. It's taking advantage of low information voters and dreamers, much like Obama 2008 but without the Socialist tag and 8 years of Bush hangover.

He has no chance in the general and shouldn't in the primary despite how much I WISH some of his proposals would take hold. His presidency would be worthless without a Democratic tsunami in Congress, and that tsunami isn't coming because he won't bring any downticket candidates with him like Obama did.

Edit: Also, I could go without another Coates article in my lifetime. If I wanted to be preached at I'd go to church.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 27 January 2016 - 02:50 AM

[amphibian]

A person who casually dismisses TNC like above should be scrutinized.

TNC is critical of Sanders from a position even further "left" of Sanders. That is an important thing to remember when looking at what he says.

[worry]

I'm not sure what distinguishes Coates's editorials from any others as "preaching", especially as he is one of the most cynical, least churchy voices in the national dialogue. But tastes are what they are, I suppose.

Re: Bernie, I won't suggest he isn't aiming for the impossible when he talks about that kind of stuff, but on the other hand, he's not pretending that it is possible if DC doesn't change radically. Aiming for the sky rhetorically during the campaign is roughly 0% unique to Sanders. I don't think Hillary is a step back, necessarily, but she's definitely not a step forward and Bernie arguably is at least one step. But whatever, they're both preferable to the alternative. I just don't get where you think Bernie has no shot against Trump. Both candidates do. Like big time near-certainties, either one of them.

This post has been edited by worry: 27 January 2016 - 03:52 AM

[Andorion]

A bit off topic, but I just saw this

http://news3lv.com/n...others-arrested


It seems somebody died after shots were fired. What would be the repurcussions of this?

[worry]

I don't think it's off topic. I'm not sure much of anything will come of it. The kind of people who support the Bundys aren't gonna get the revolution they want, since most people (of all mainstream political stripes) recognize them for the joke they are. I'm not saying it's a non-event, but I think it's the outcome everybody expected as inevitable.

[Andorion]

worry, on 27 January 2016 - 04:46 AM, said:

I don't think it's off topic. I'm not sure much of anything will come of it. The kind of people who support the Bundys aren't gonna get the revolution they want, since most people (of all mainstream political stripes) recognize them for the joke they are. I'm not saying it's a non-event, but I think it's the outcome everybody expected as inevitable.

What I was wondering about was if it would get equated to Waco - the incident that many say provoked the Oklahoma bombing and would the far right try to make martyrs of these people and then demand a Senate probe into the FBI?

This post has been edited by Andorion: 27 January 2016 - 04:57 AM

[worry]

This is a hunch, I suppose, but I think it won't become a Waco situation at all unless some very egregious info comes out. The popular sentiment is that these guys were "itching for a fight" and got one, and that's gonna prevail over anything but a major detail. Even for opportunists I really don't think there's even political capital for a Benghazi-style grandstand.

[Gnaw]

Andorion, on 27 January 2016 - 04:55 AM, said:

worry, on 27 January 2016 - 04:46 AM, said:

I don't think it's off topic. I'm not sure much of anything will come of it. The kind of people who support the Bundys aren't gonna get the revolution they want, since most people (of all mainstream political stripes) recognize them for the joke they are. I'm not saying it's a non-event, but I think it's the outcome everybody expected as inevitable.

What I was wondering about was if it would get equated to Waco - the incident that many say provoked the Oklahoma bombing and would the far right try to make martyrs of these people and then demand a Senate probe into the FBI?

This should be okay. Apparently the people arrested had left the federal refuge and were arrested off-site.

[amphibian]

Andorion, on 27 January 2016 - 04:55 AM, said:

What I was wondering about was if it would get equated to Waco - the incident that many say provoked the Oklahoma bombing and would the far right try to make martyrs of these people and then demand a Senate probe into the FBI?

Ruby Ridge and Waco were different in that there were family units on their own land and some level of brainwashing/cult implementation going on with women and children involved.

This Y'allqaeda thing is composed of similar kinds of white men, but there's no family units and they aren't on their own land.

The USA has had a problem with white terrorists since the country began and this is the latest development of armed yabbos trying to enact self-governance. I'd say this type of thing happens on a scale that captures national attention at least once every ten years and has done so since Shay's Rebellion.

[Andorion]

amphibian, on 27 January 2016 - 05:33 PM, said:

Andorion, on 27 January 2016 - 04:55 AM, said:

What I was wondering about was if it would get equated to Waco - the incident that many say provoked the Oklahoma bombing and would the far right try to make martyrs of these people and then demand a Senate probe into the FBI?

Ruby Ridge and Waco were different in that there were family units on their own land and some level of brainwashing/cult implementation going on with women and children involved.

This Y'allqaeda thing is composed of similar kinds of white men, but there's no family units and they aren't on their own land.

The USA has had a problem with white terrorists since the country began and this is the latest development of armed yabbos trying to enact self-governance. I'd say this type of thing happens on a scale that captures national attention at least once every ten years and has done so since Shay's Rebellion.

What I find interesting is the culture of wilful ignorance some individuals and groups wilfully cultivate. They shut themselves off from information and seem to distrust intelligence. I remember when Obama was getting elected somebody wrote that he was too smart and not somebody you could have a beer with in a bar. I wondered how that was considered a qualification for office.

Is this a widespread trend or have I been reading about fringe cases?

[Gnaw]

Andorion, on 28 January 2016 - 02:13 AM, said:

amphibian, on 27 January 2016 - 05:33 PM, said:

Andorion, on 27 January 2016 - 04:55 AM, said:

What I was wondering about was if it would get equated to Waco - the incident that many say provoked the Oklahoma bombing and would the far right try to make martyrs of these people and then demand a Senate probe into the FBI?

Ruby Ridge and Waco were different in that there were family units on their own land and some level of brainwashing/cult implementation going on with women and children involved.

This Y'allqaeda thing is composed of similar kinds of white men, but there's no family units and they aren't on their own land.

The USA has had a problem with white terrorists since the country began and this is the latest development of armed yabbos trying to enact self-governance. I'd say this type of thing happens on a scale that captures national attention at least once every ten years and has done so since Shay's Rebellion.

What I find interesting is the culture of wilful ignorance some individuals and groups wilfully cultivate. They shut themselves off from information and seem to distrust intelligence. I remember when Obama was getting elected somebody wrote that he was too smart and not somebody you could have a beer with in a bar. I wondered how that was considered a qualification for office.

Is this a widespread trend or have I been reading about fringe cases?

Republican party.


All conservative movements are afraid of intelligentsia. It's part and parcel of "standing in front of history and yelling stop".