And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[amw]

I personally think all of the candidates (including Bernard Sanders) are absolute garbage, both as politicians and as human beings, none of whom actually matter because regardless of who is elected (most likely it'll be Trump, anyway—incumbent presidents tend to win reelection) none of them have any way to dismantle the american empire and the military-industrial-civil service complex that actually rules the country. That said, it is fun to watch them fight each other.

I learned recently that Senator Sanders was gifted an actual sword by Ross Perot. Hoping he actually uses it in combat against some of the other candidates. An onstage fencing match between him and Mayor Pete, with the winner being awarded the majority of delegates in Iowa or something, would be fun

[drogulus]

I personally think all of the candidates (including Bernard Sanders) are absolute garbage, both as politicians and as human beings

     Yeah, what I said. Only an ideological death grip can cause a person to completely abandon sense like this. If the choice is between the ideology of human garbage or a perfect nailed human I'm moving to Paraguay, or Montana.

     

[amw]

You don't need Jesus; it's not hard for a major party in a western country to run a candidate with non-awful politics. The British Labour Party does it. La France Insoumise (or whatever its name is now) does it. Podemos does it. The conditions simply aren't right in the USA, so candidates with good politics (e.g. Jesse Jackson) will always fail until the USA's political system is different. Arguably, the fact that Sanders has succeeded to the extent that he has is by itself a condemnation of him, since if he were genuinely radical, Vermont would have replaced him a long time ago.

[drogulus]

You don't need Jesus; it's not hard for a major party in a western country to run a candidate with non-awful politics. The British Labour Party does it. La France Insoumise (or whatever its name is now) does it. Podemos does it. The conditions simply aren't right in the USA, so candidates with good politics (e.g. Jesse Jackson) will always fail until the USA's political system is different. Arguably, the fact that Sanders has succeeded to the extent that he has is by itself a condemnation of him, since if he were genuinely radical, Vermont would have replaced him a long time ago.

     That pretty much sums up what I take to be the perennial radical viewpoint, that to be a true radical you have to be useless to anyone interested in real change. It parallels aesthetic radicalism in positing that popular acceptance is self annihilating. If people come to accept a radical measure it's no good any more. If its adopted it's got normal cooties on it.

[amw]

While true, I think that position only applies to countries like the USA and Canada where the majority is made up of genocidal settlers and their descendants and therefore yes, anything they accept and value is a priori "bad", because it doesn't conflict with their core values of land theft and white supremacy. ("Good" political actions such as the abolition of slavery were invariably extremely unpopular at the time they occurred.) In the case of Sanders it is more clear if you look at his political positions—he has voted for the bombing of Yugoslavia, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Libya, and sanctions against dozens of countries. He is a committed Zionist, despite being politically out of step with the Zionist entity's current leadership. He supports the line that any official enemy of the United States is an evil dictator who needs to be taken down, with extremely tepid opposition to the use of military action to do so. All of these positions reflect a desire to perpetuate American imperial power and spread death and suffering on a broad scale, which is why I think they are bad. You can obviously disagree.

[drogulus]

All of these positions reflect a desire to perpetuate American imperial power and spread death and suffering on a broad scale, which is why I think they are bad.

     Yes, I get that. The only moral way to be a genocidal settler is to be a radical about it. Send the so-called Native Americans back to Siberia and the Huns back to the steppes. Then they can be liquidated by the so-called original inhabitants who really should be liquidated by their predecessors. It's all an eternal blood feud. The only way to buy innocence is to be so radical you want to deport yourself to the Neanderthal homeland. We are all guilty guilty guilty of everything our ancestors did to other super guilty people.

[Karl Henning]

Who can disagree that spreading death and suffering on a broad scale is bad?

[drogulus]

Who can disagree that spreading death and suffering on a broad scale is bad?

    Then it isn't an issue, and it doesn't justify blood libels and kulak hunts.

[greg]

While true, I think that position only applies to countries like the USA and Canada where the majority is made up of genocidal settlers and their descendants and therefore yes, anything they accept and value is a priori "bad", because it doesn't conflict with their core values of land theft and white supremacy.

Why is this brought up in any context, whatsoever? (Other than a history lesson).
Literally all of humanity are desendants of people who killed, stole land, and raped. And that's why we are here.

So other than the agenda of White guilt, patriarchy, etc. there's no need to mention this as "look, America bad."

Is it that it was only a couple hundred years ago? Or does time not apply and we should shame other cultures as well...?

[drogulus]

Why is this brought up in any context, whatsoever? (Other than a history lesson).
Literally all of humanity are desendants of people who killed, stole land, and raped. And that's why we are here.

So other than the agenda of White guilt, patriarchy, etc. there's no need to mention this as "look, America bad."

Is it that it was only a couple hundred years ago? Or does time not apply and we should shame other cultures as well...?

     There can be present victims of past crimes, and even if it can be difficult to seek justice it's something worth doing, as we did for the Japanese victims of the wartime internment policy.

[Muzio]

     There can be present victims of past crimes, and even if it can be difficult to seek justice it's something worth doing, as we did for the Japanese victims of the wartime internment policy.

Are descendants of American slaves present victims of past crimes?

[Karl Henning]

Are descendants of American slaves present victims of past crimes?

You need a hobby.

[greg]

Are descendants of American slaves present victims of past crimes?

Nope. They are the lucky ones. So many Africans are jealous that their ancestors weren't brought here.

Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, please. But regarding the whole Native American thing. I've heard there were tribes that would publicly rape and humiliate women and children from conquered tribes. That was acceptable in their culture. Now tell me that modern American culture is a downgrade and that that should have continued. 😲

[71 dB]

     The best is the one that will do what I want. That is none of them, so I'll settle for the one that will do more of what I want than any other. When I find out who that is, I'll let the world know.

     We are (heh!) different. I think you have to have an ideology, but it's dangerous if you let it boss you around.

What do you want to be done? To my eyes what should be done is pretty clear: End oligarchy, drug wars and wars oversees against countries that have not attacked the US. Remove the influence of money in the politics to have real democracy Transform the US into the leading social democracy in the World with single-payer-healthcare and tuition free education and much more so EVERYONE has the chance in life despite of family background. . Fix the "D+" infrastructure and have clean safe tap water for all citizens. Have humane immigration policy. Things like this are just screaming to be fixed and the person to fix them is Bernie Sanders. This is clear as day.

[71 dB]

Are descendants of American slaves present victims of past crimes?

The descendants of American slaves lack cumulated wealth. The mean of black household wealth is $138,200—for whites, that number is $933,700. So, the rationale is the blacks of today would have inherited much more wealth had their ancestors not been slaves but regular people like the whites.

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2019/04/06/the-black-white-wealth-gap-is-unchanged-after-half-a-century

[71 dB]

Bernie Welcomes Their Hatred With 'Anti-Endorsement' List:

https://www.youtube.com/v/PHaK9tIgRsI

[Muzio]

More like education... 

Exactly, sir.  Every man is my master in that I may learn from him.

[SimonNZ]

Are descendants of American slaves present victims of past crimes?

If they're still experiencing the same racism from a group of people who want to return to the Good Old Days - then yes.

Especially if that group are in positions of power.

[amw]

     Yes, I get that. The only moral way to be a genocidal settler is to be a radical about it. Send the so-called Native Americans back to Siberia and the Huns back to the steppes. Then they can be liquidated by the so-called original inhabitants who really should be liquidated by their predecessors. It's all an eternal blood feud. The only way to buy innocence is to be so radical you want to deport yourself to the Neanderthal homeland. We are all guilty guilty guilty of everything our ancestors did to other super guilty people.

This is a deeply amoral perspective & unfortunately a common one: "oh the Romans, Greeks, Mongols, Egyptians and Huns all benefited from their genocide and slavery, so we should also get to benefit from our genocide and slavery." As though those things are simply relative evils that can be outweighed by some people now being able to own a car and an iPhone. The historical cycle does have to stop somewhere & my view is that it should stop now; nothing to do with "atoning for the past". Genocide and slavery are ongoing realities in the USA—first nations peoples despite making up only about 2% of the population of USA & Canada still have their children taken away by the state, their land seized to build oil pipelines, and experience the highest rate of police brutality. Black and Latino americans make up about 12% and 15% of the population respectively but a sizeable majority of the prison slave labour force subsisting on $1 or less per day, and an equally large proportion in the workforce but still not making a living wage. These are all things we can stop doing at any time, and make redress for (but that's impossible in the current political climate).

The other part of this is the constant looting of the labour and resources of the Third World (heavy metals from China and the Congo, textile workers from Vietnam, produce from Costa Rica, aluminum from Jamaica, etc) for much less than their true value, due to the US military-backed devaluation of labour in countries around the world (i.e. when a country elects a leader who promises to raise wages and enact workers' protections, the US tends to engineer military coups to overthrow that leader and install a new, more capitalist-friendly one, as in e.g. Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Venezuela, Iran, Egypt, Burkina Faso, Haiti, Brazil, Chile, Yemen, etc). Again, we could stop doing that at any time, by scaling back the US military and intelligence apparatus significantly, but it would mean higher prices for oil and beef and underwear and MacBook Airs so there's no political will to do so.

This ties directly into my criticism of Mr. Sanders which none of his supporters here have addressed (but I'm not sure if I should expect them to).

[drogulus]

This is a deeply amoral perspective & unfortunately a common one: "oh the Romans, Greeks, Mongols, Egyptians and Huns all benefited from their genocide and slavery, so we should also get to benefit from our genocide and slavery."

     Well, mostly yes, I don't see a practical proposal for trying Julius Caesar for his Gallic war, nor do I want to punish his descendants. But, I don't think you really do either. To be a radical is not to let anyone off the hook by arranging for a practical debt repayment. As they say, you want the issue. My guilt is your innocence, see. Being a radical is sorta kinda not being the descendant of the racist genocidalists you otherwise are. Which is OK by me, I don't do the born guilty thing myself on account of my deeply amoral perspective.

     It's a different matter where the descendants of victims suffer from continued oppression. I say if you can figure out how to pay them, do it.