Wait, Comrade Claudius. Why either or. Why not both?

Are reparations not owed to the African American people?

flobaba wrote:

Wait, Comrade Claudius. Why either or. Why not both?

Are reparations not owed to the African American people?

I think addressing systemic issues creates more long term value. It also shows understanding of inequity in the system by good people on all sides.  

Reparations without change will not yield long term effects on incarceration or graduation rates. They’ll also lead to even more distress amongst working class whites who will probably feel more value has been extracted from them than blacks will feel they’ve gained value. This is in line with other trends we are seeing. 

I don’t disagree, but there are short term needs that need to be addressed in terms of the abject conditions many African Americans find themselves in today as a direct consequence of slavery and disenfranchisement of the past. I’m firmly for the long term solutions, but in the here and now, those must be addressed also. What form it takes is a separate, but equally important discussion. For instance, the historically black colleges are woefully underfunded, and need a huge financial boost. There needs to be increased access to scholarships and grants for those interested in higher education, and not these predatory student loans that saddle folks with incredible debt. Better access to mental health support and medical institutions, increased social support for struggling families etc. Many of them live in a vastly different world than you and I do, and not by choice.

It’s a shame that the issue has never really been elevated to the level of serious conversation and comprehensive political discourse, and in my opinion, until it is, little will change, either in the short or long term.

It’s also a shame that we have to consider white people’s anger when we are talking about doing the right thing. Of course there will be widespread disapproval and opposition but that shouldn’t deter. Money is needed to build and repair infrastructure in black communities, to boost the local economy until it is viable, purchasing equipment for industry. Land that was forcibly taken away from share croppers of the time has to be returned. These are not radical ideas by any means. Return what you stole. Why is it controversial?

Yokay, so you’ve broadened the definition of reparations to include some of the structural changes I would impose vis a vis education access, etc. those types of gaps have to be funded.

The feelings of white people have to be considered because last I checked, black people are an eighth of the population (and descendants of slaves significantly fewer) and white people are half the population. You need to bring them along on the journey or lose them and elections.

flobaba wrote:

Land that was forcibly taken away from share croppers of the time has to be returned. These are not radical ideas by any means. Return what you stole. Why is it controversial?

How do you feel about land that used to belong to Native American tribes? (Not trying to shit post or make false equivalents, I'm genuinely curious.)

Klaus, I’ve not thought about it much, admittedly, but I feel you have to make an attempt to redress injustice in any way possible. It may be a tad more complicated though for a few reasons off the top of my head: First, unfortunately for the Native American communities, out of sight is out of mind, and since the government was successfully able to hide them away in the seclusion of reservations, there is little to no visibility to their plight. Secondly, because of the vast swathes of land we are talking about in the Native American case, and the annihilation of most of the population (if I recall correctly they constitute about 2% of the population of the USA, about 6 million people), land return is a more difficult argument to try to trace or make. Additionally, their lack of numbers do not permit them to be a strong political force.

I feel like the government needs to enter into good faith agreements with the leftover communities though, and seek to reestablish or support them in viable locations and economies, and most importantly, enforce policies that grants them the freedom to live their lives and retain their traditions and cultures in peace and without discrimination. In short, “reservations” and casinos in deserts definitely ain’t it. Access to free basic education and health care if they want it, has to be guaranteed. I might be being naive, but that’s just how I see things. There is more than ample land and resources in this country if there is a real conscience and thirst for justice. The political power and will is what is lacking.

Big biden win projected in south carolina. Bernie had closed in the last month, but the gap blew out again after the nevada debate

y va marquer wrote:

You don't see the insults you hand out but you see insult in my reaction to it.
I didn't mean to insult but I definitely meant to criticize.

Fair play. Got nothing against you Y, nothing at all. I've spent years talking on this forum and you've spent a lot of time articulating your differences from me and from others, and more lately, that you don't want to post because you feel you'll be ridiculed or patronised.

I'm sorry about my part in generating that feeling, but not about the differences, because that would be dumb.

As for the feeling of insult, it's not as if it's the worst I've experienced in my life. I'll get over it.

Coombs wrote:

jones wrote:

I find it interesting how the centre or focus of debate here has shifted since 2016. Back then I was considered crass for calling Hillary Obama Holder etc out as the crooked rats they are now Warren is (rightfully) slammed for being a hawk in a dove costume. Not trying to toot my own horn I just wonder if there's been a shift in OMIT stances overall or whether it's mostly different people discussing stuff here.

I mean, I still don't agree with some of the ways you are characterizing people. The truth was never "somewhere in the middle" like people like to say, but it also wasn't in blanket condemnation.

If Warren were the nominee I'd vote for her, and I couldn't care one iota about the democratic party. I also don't think that voting for someone, or even supporting them in any way, is a wholesale commitment to insisting that their shit doesn't stink.

You gotta take it as it comes, nobody ever changed the world by being right about everything. Give it a rest.

I'm not sure what you're criticising here, it was a genuine question about a change I thought I've seen here. I'm curious what you think was "blanket condemnation" on my behalf though, I'm well aware that I go overboard with a lot of statements I make (consciously so I hope you realise) but in terms of politics I'd like to hear where I've done someone wrong when I shouldn't have.

Anyway I appreciate that you think I'm right about everything.

Qwiss! wrote:

Coombs wrote:

I mean, I still don't agree with some of the ways you are characterizing people. The truth was never "somewhere in the middle" like people like to say, but it also wasn't in blanket condemnation.

If Warren were the nominee I'd vote for her, and I couldn't care one iota about the democratic party. I also don't think that voting for someone, or even supporting them in any way, is a wholesale commitment to insisting that their shit doesn't stink.

You gotta take it as it comes, nobody ever changed the world by being right about everything. Give it a rest.

If I was a yank and Warren ran I'd vote for her, I wouldn't be happy about it but I'd do it. I wouldn't leave my house to vote for Bloomberg, Biden, Buttigieg, etc though and I wouldn't have voted for Hillary. Warren is a snake, I wouldn't trust her but at least shes making some motions towards positive change, even if its very small incrementalist stuff.

On Jones point I was in agreement with him then and am now. Whats interesting is that 4 years ago Warren was considered too radical and left wing by the DNC. Now they'd give anything to have her instead of Bernie. I think generally there is a shift in politics. The left is growing. Corbyn may have lost the election but he's realigned the British left, Sanders has re-aligned the American left, we've just had the best election ever for the left here in Ireland and I think we'll see a trend continue across Europe over the coming years.

I genuinely hope you're right, was pretty stoked to hear about Sinn Fein's result although I haven't been paying as much attention as a couple years ago. Do they look like a genuine alternative to the Varadkar's neoliberal course?

In Germany it sure as shit doesn't look like there's anything resembling a trend to the left.

flobaba wrote:

Klaus, I’ve not thought about it much, admittedly, but I feel you have to make an attempt to redress injustice in any way possible. It may be a tad more complicated though for a few reasons off the top of my head: First, unfortunately for the Native American communities, out of sight is out of mind, and since the government was successfully able to hide them away in the seclusion of reservations, there is little to no visibility to their plight. Secondly, because of the vast swathes of land we are talking about in the Native American case, and the annihilation of most of the population (if I recall correctly they constitute about 2% of the population of the USA, about 6 million people), land return is a more difficult argument to try to trace or make. Additionally, their lack of numbers do not permit them to be a strong political force.

I feel like the government needs to enter into good faith agreements with the leftover communities though, and seek to reestablish or support them in viable locations and economies, and most importantly, enforce policies that grants them the freedom to live their lives and retain their traditions and cultures in peace and without discrimination. In short, “reservations” and casinos in deserts definitely ain’t it. Access to free basic education and health care if they want it, has to be guaranteed. I might be being naive, but that’s just how I see things. There is more than ample land and resources in this country if there is a real conscience and thirst for justice. The political power and will is what is lacking.

A social democratic welfare state that's not intent on locking people away would to a great extent take care of all of these things (access to housing, productive lands, healthcare, education, freedom from arbitrary discrimination, etc.). Additionally, it would do so without the need for "benign" bureaucratic racism where groups of people get special deals based on their identities as determined by a third party.

I do agree that agreements with communities are necessary, that building trust matters, and that symbolism is essential to nation-building, but I think equal universal coverage within a stipulated period of time ought to be the end goal. 

I am replying both to posts regarding native american and african-american issues here. While the historic treatment of some populations has definitely been worse than the treatment of others, the truth is that if you go back a few hundred years virtually all of us have ancestors who were exploited, abused, or brutalised (for me personally you only have to go back a few decades).

Rather than "redress injustice" with focalised action, it appears to me that trying to imagine a society where individuals are provided with the facilities to live a dignified life and the tools to develop their full human potential would generate conditions of justice much more elegantly. 

Targeting universal well-being also let's you skip the endless ethical considerations that would plague attempts to redress specific injustices. Rather than wasting time debating and trying to figure out whether someone whose ancestors were wronged but grew up in a loving middle-class family requires more help than someone whose ancestors were generally privileged but whose immediate progenitors were abusive mentally ill drug-addicts, it is far more parsimonious to construct a social system that universally adapts to the needs of individuals.

No easy task, of course, and there would be lots of overlap with many of the policies required to address racial injustice in countries like the USA... but this approach is what makes most sense to me at this stage.

jones wrote:

I'm not sure what you're criticising here, it was a genuine question about a change I thought I've seen here. I'm curious what you think was "blanket condemnation" on my behalf though, I'm well aware that I go overboard with a lot of statements I make (consciously so I hope you realise) but in terms of politics I'd like to hear where I've done someone wrong when I shouldn't have.

Anyway I appreciate that you think I'm right about everything.

I mean, you're right more than you're wrong, but the vitriolic characterizations of people, whether politicians or their supporters, is distancing and makes for a frustrating, Facebook-like conversation. No matter how much I might agree, I feel compelled to challenge it.

I think the conversation has changed, in part, for those more "social" reasons, and less because people have shifted ideologically.

RE: Warren, she has adapted her politics for a presidential run, thinking she could get both progressives and the DNC on board, and thinking she was very clever for her approach. She has always adjusted for the current situation, the current campaign. She'd rationalize it as being an adaptable politician to best serve her constituency, just like Hilary did. I think it's deeply cynical, weak, and borderline corrupt, but I also understand the fundamental challenges we face under capitalism extend to politicians as well as constituents, and it's not easy to find your way through the mire of misdirection and manipulation.

Some are better, some are worse, and some are evil, but nobody is very good at it, or ever has been. Much easier to write a manifesto against it all than implement a program.

There's little long term value to be found in national-level entertainment politics in a capitalist dystopia anyway.

buttigieg out. the field will thin to bernie vs biden after super tuesday. hard to say where most of those votes will go, but it does open a possibility of biden reaching the 15% threshold in more states on ST

Who gets Buttigieg's Iowa delegates now he's bowed out?

Seems like something that should already be explained.

It varies from state to state apparently, but several - among them Iowa and Nevada; not sure about New Hampshire  - dictate that pledged delegates aren't allowed to change their vote on the first ballot, so they'd still have to vote for Pete or see their votes rendered invalid. That's how I read it at least:

Seems like they're free to vote for whoever they want alongside the superdelegates on the second ballot (i.e. a brokered convention) though.

Gazza M wrote:

buttigieg out. the field will thin to bernie vs biden after super tuesday. hard to say where most of those votes will go, but it does open a possibility of biden reaching the 15% threshold in more states on ST

I think this is the main reason Pete dropped out too. In some surveys Biden was polling below 15 percent in California along with everyone else, and the prospect of Bernie getting all 400 delegates there probably gave the DNC a heart attack.

california and texas are obviously key. if biden is viable in california, wins texas, and win the rest of the south as predicted, things tighten up considerably. most of the numbers classed the above scenario as 'unlikely' a week ago, but the combination of sweeping SC and buttigieg dropping out has changed the complexion of things

Coombs wrote:

jones wrote:

I'm not sure what you're criticising here, it was a genuine question about a change I thought I've seen here. I'm curious what you think was "blanket condemnation" on my behalf though, I'm well aware that I go overboard with a lot of statements I make (consciously so I hope you realise) but in terms of politics I'd like to hear where I've done someone wrong when I shouldn't have.

Anyway I appreciate that you think I'm right about everything.

I mean, you're right more than you're wrong, but the vitriolic characterizations of people, whether politicians or their supporters, is distancing and makes for a frustrating, Facebook-like conversation. No matter how much I might agree, I feel compelled to challenge it.

That's partially the point, you're supposed to challenge it. I'll be honest I used to put in more effort couple years back but when a well thought out and elaborate half page post results in a flippant two liner you do wonder whats the point. For me there's no point in writing amicable middle of the aisle stuff either because usually it nips any discussion in the bud which is the whole point of a forum exchange. So again, that's the reason there's maybe an edge to some of those posts.

As for the vitriol.. That assessment seems to largely depend on who the target is. I'm yet to see anyone jump to the defence of an obvious piece of shit like Trump for someone slamming him for his actions or making fun of how he drinks water. But when I do it for other war criminals like Obama Hillary or Macron some feel offended because aside from contributing to the demise of entire nations and killing and displacing millions they like them or their policies.

I had family in Libya and in Syria. If anyone has different priorities like however shallow commitments to sexual minorities, a unified European Union regardless of its stated goals or even just the upkeep of civil behaviour or statesmanship within the Western hemisphere they can feel free to defend their heroes even if it means that to me it reads like Facebook-like conversation too. I just don't share those priorities.

Pete's going to have job offers out the wazoo from all sorts of awful places.

jones wrote:

I genuinely hope you're right, was pretty stoked to hear about Sinn Fein's result although I haven't been paying as much attention as a couple years ago. Do they look like a genuine alternative to the Varadkar's neoliberal course?

They almost certainly wont get into government this time round. Varadkars Fine Gael went from the biggest party to 3rd though so he's not going to be Taoiseach again. Fine Fail (very similar to FG but with a little more public spending) will probably lead government with FG and the Greens propping them up. The big shift is that for the entire history of the state its been either FF or FG in government with the other in opposition. They're 2 very similar parties who are differentiated mainly through their history during the civil war. It wasn't just SF either though, the 2 big right wing parties have got a smaller share all round. Labour who are pretty much fake left are being replaced by the Social Democrats and Greens and even the Trots here have done ok out transfers from the SF surge. The hope is that after another year or 2 of FF & FG the left grows stronger and SF can form a coalition out of the other leftie parties. Oh and we had far right parties running for pretty much the first time and they all got obliterated, which was a relief.

arsedoc md wrote:

... And Warren staying in.

I think the big difference is that in the forecasts I had seen, Warren is just above 15% in some states or just below 15%. She was always going to get some delegates and with Pete going out, she should pick up a few more delegates on Super Tuesday. 

Pete on the other hand had no forecasts showing him hitting 15% in any states for Super Tuesday. That Iowa/New Hampshire momentum had completely dissipated. So it made sense for him to bow out. He can paint it as making room for Biden in hope that they take care of him this year with a post or in future by anointing him 

I think arsedoc's point was that Warren's campaign is exclusively about making things difficult for Bernie now. They even admitted as much themselves. She has zero chance at getting the nomination. So much for progressive politics.

I don't know if she sees it that way though. People could equally say that Bloomberg and Klobuchar's campaigns are making things difficult for Biden and they should just step aside. I do think that for a lot of these guys there's ego. They have a little bit of belief in themselves and will push as long as humanly possible. Warren possibly believes that she should be the compromise candidate in the event that neither Biden nor Sanders is appealing. It also goes back to what makes her undesirable to some. That she has positioned herself as not as far left as Sanders. It's partly because she was taking all the early heat for their health policies (and he faced none until the last 2 debates), but also because in the event of a contested convention she might put her hand up and say "choose me!"

Which is going to go down well with Bernie's supporters I'm sure!

The biggest mistake in the history of the Democratic party would be to let the party elite elect a person who didn't get the most votes from the people (let alone has finished 4th or 5th in every state) as the candidate.

Warren might well believe she can become the nominee at a brokered convention.

Under it all, though, is a hardline ideological opposition to ending neoliberal policy, and ending capital-led, market "solutions" to public policy problems.

Buttigieg articulated this extreme distaste for what Sanders represents well with his lines about "burning our Party down" and "the revolutionary politics of the sixties" … with all the unsustainable bad logic partisan opposition to historical achievements like those of the civil rights movement entails.

I predict that Warren and Klobuchar drop out Wednesday morning.

But as much as I like Bernie's policies, he can really behave like a bull in a china shop.
[Twitter]

Again, he's an independent leveraging the Democratic Party. And then he acts irate that everything doesn't mould around him. If he can't learn to work with the party, how is going to learn to work with the Senate, which need massaging even if you have a Democratic majority?

I don't really see that he's said much wrong there to be honest, and wasn't ranting and raving as he sometimes tend to do.

He literally works "with" the Senate every day, don't know how much he needs to learn. You don't make deals with devils, you denounce them, and you don't look over your shoulder.

The difference is as president, you have a policy agenda you need to see through. He doesn’t even have support of ‘moderate’ democrats on his policies. They’ll just support him knowing that he won’t be able to get things past Philly Buster and the three fifths majority. He will be the least successful president. Hopefully, he can push some orders through

I dunno. I think all party leaders need to learn to acknowledge the full spectrum of mainstream views within the party. Not because you'll have to work it the corporate element within the party, but because there's a large number of DEM voters who'll identify more with the likes of Pete and Biden and neo-liberalism. When you denounce them you alienate the guys on the ground while preaching to the choir. It's not about changing substance, just tone and rhetoric.

Claudius wrote:

It's partly because she was taking all the early heat for their health policies (and he faced none until the last 2 debates), but also because in the event of a contested convention she might put her hand up and say "choose me!"

She wasn't taking the heat so much as people were trying to nail down her position. Everyone knows where Bernie stands but she's been far less committed to M4A.

Claudius wrote:

Again, he's an independent leveraging the Democratic Party. And then he acts irate that everything doesn't mould around him. If he can't learn to work with the party, how is going to learn to work with the Senate, which need massaging even if you have a Democratic majority?

From the bottom up, the same way he's running this campaign. You get people pushing their Senator in Bernies direction and if they wont come along you get someone else and you try to primary them.

Qwiss! wrote:

Claudius wrote:

It's partly because she was taking all the early heat for their health policies (and he faced none until the last 2 debates), but also because in the event of a contested convention she might put her hand up and say "choose me!"

She wasn't taking the heat so much as people were trying to nail down her position. Everyone knows where Bernie stands but she's been far less committed to M4A.

Yeah, with Warren you'd just get another Obamacare solution, something that doesn't trod too much on the toes of the insurance industry. She lacks conviction and integrity to drive something like M4A through. It's why she constantly tears into Sanders's plan and is sowing skepticism about how he'll possibly pull it off. Americans pretend it's a great mystery how this stuff gets funded, but the rest of the industrialised world are already doing it. There is a literal ocean of tried and tested models to adopt; the rest is just semantics. If she were serious she'd get fully behind the message and aim her attacks at people like Buttigieg and Biden instead who clearly have no intention of reforming the healthcare system. Yet another example of punching left and leaning right.

Claudius wrote:

The difference is as president, you have a policy agenda you need to see through. He doesn’t even have support of ‘moderate’ democrats on his policies. They’ll just support him knowing that he won’t be able to get things past Philly Buster and the three fifths majority. He will be the least successful president. Hopefully, he can push some orders through

I dunno, the idea that a president should be focused on policy to the extent that the rest of their role is subverted by "getting things done" seems deeply problematic to me.

I agree Coombs. There's also the fact that the democrats in the house and the senate aren't voted in for life. Those people are up for election too, and if they don't fall in line with the administration they will get pushed out by more progressive candidates eventually. That's one of the best things about a grassroots movement: it draws its power from the masses, not from powerful minorities. If Sanders gets elected the movement won't suddenly stop. It'll keep gaining traction at an unprecedented rate. Just a couple of years ago someone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would have been impossible to elect to congress, especially when challenging an old prick like Joe Crowley who was in deep with the democratic establishment. Now she's the role model for an entire generation of new politicians.

Klaus wrote:

I agree Coombs. There's also the fact that the democrats in the house and the senate aren't voted in for life. Those people are up for election too, and if they don't fall in line with the administration they will get pushed out by more progressive candidates eventually.

Isn't it funny how it's always an issue for left leaning politicians that they won't manage to sway "moderate" elements, both in House and bipartisan, but never the other way round?

It might well be - even be likely - that Sanders would fail as a president. Even if he didn't I still see him as a flawed politician anyway. But this garbage strategy of watering down your policies to cater to the opposition whereas they punch a hole into yours full force every single time needs to stop. It never worked and will never work, other than to further diminish your own position by shifting towards the right election by election.