Candace Owens: Election Time - The Media is Trying To Start A Race War - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Videos about news and current events.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15098744
noemon wrote:Mainly quelling peaceful protests not riots. There is a first amendment right to protest which is being violated.

You just brought up jaywalking. Walking down the middle of the street is an infraction. If you do not have a permit to do it, walking down the middle of the street is unlawful. You can peacefully assemble at city hall. You can peaceably assemble in a city park. Blocking traffic is not a right under the constitution, as it violates the rights of others to travel upon the roads, and is therefore subject to a permit process.

noemon wrote:Your president is threatening to use the army against the American people

So what? If he were doing it in an unlawful manner, that would be an issue. Putting down insurrections and rebellions is within the lawful authority of the POTUS and of state governors.

noemon wrote:Police brutality is part and parcel of your American culture, it it not specific to either Democrats or Republicans but what is specific to them is the political responses that every administration makes and for these political responses I criticise them both consistently.

It's specific to the urban Democratic party political machine for the most part--especially of what's being protested right now, the police treatment of black citizens.

noemon wrote:You are the one refusing to criticise the current administration for its political actions in both word & deed.

I support President Trump's First Step Act, addressing the inequitable prison sentencing of minorities. I support President Trump's efforts to reduce unemployment among minorities in the US. I support the president's efforts to protect jobs from unfair competition from the communist dictatorship of China. I also support the president's civil rights investigation into the Minneapolis Police department. I do think the president needs to focus more criticism on the urban Democratic party machine. He's a little too soft on the murderous Democrats.

noemon wrote:When did he do that? After which day of the protests?

The announcement was coordinated with the Minnesota state prosecutors announcing the charges against Chauvin.

noemon wrote::lol: :lol: :lol: If you want to contradict my official source of prison statistics you have to post a source that does that.

I can post the primary source of your cited secondary source of prison statistics. There is virtually no mention in the primary source statistics of anyone being sentenced to prison for jaywalking, because jaywalking is an infraction and not a misdemeanor.

noemon wrote:Your word is worthless as are your desperate strawman arguments.

Your words show that you know nothing about US law, and are willing to sign up to the historionics of a leftwing US know nothing if you think it furthers your cause. People cannot be sentenced to prison for jaywalking in the United States. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying to you to manipulate you or is unwittingly repeating malicious lies told to them.

Tainari88 wrote: So, you think she's a grifter too?

I think most media personalities are shills. Media personalities are often asked why they don't run for office. The answer is simple--it's a pay cut for them. Do you think, for example, Sean Hannity wants to go from making millions of dollars a year to making $185k? Absolutely not.

Tainari88 wrote:@noemon is saying all that racism is about both parties. Because it is. But you keep trying to shift the blame to the Democrats.

The overwhelming majority of cases of police violence against black people happens in places run almost exclusively by the Democratic party. It is statistically significant. If you have a p-value of .005 or something, that would be kind of a weak case but supportable. When it comes to police violence against blacks, the instances of it happening under Democrat administrations versus Republican administrations is so skewed toward the Democrats it beggars the imagination that anyone would argue otherwise.

Tainari88 wrote:The Media is a complicit partner in being a for-profit business trying to make some money pushing the establishment point of view. Many know this already.

You mean like I don't understand that? I've been saying for a very long time that most of what gets pushed in the media is paid. They aren't journalists. They are shills.
#15098754
@blackjack21 wrote:
I think most media personalities are shills. Media personalities are often asked why they don't run for office. The answer is simple--it's a pay cut for them. Do you think, for example, Sean Hannity wants to go from making millions of dollars a year to making $185k? Absolutely not.


The overwhelming majority of cases of police violence against black people happens in places run almost exclusively by the Democratic party. It is statistically significant. If you have a p-value of .005 or something, that would be kind of a weak case but supportable. When it comes to police violence against blacks, the instances of it happening under Democrat administrations versus Republican administrations is so skewed toward the Democrats it beggars the imagination that anyone would argue otherwise.


You mean like I don't understand that? I've been saying for a very long time that most of what gets pushed in the media is paid. They aren't journalists. They are shills.


So we both agree Candace Owens is a shill and she is a successful one for your style of ideology. If she runs for office would you vote for her Relampaguito? A young, conservative black woman who loves the USA. She is patriotic.

Oh, it is useless, I break down laughing mightily when I picture you defending Candace Owens as the new frontrunner disruptor for the Republican Party... I can't stop laughing at the thought of you defending her as much as you do Trump. So you can be fair and balanced and hit those White Liberals hard with the shill.

I know those Hannity types are making millions. They won't be making that measly 185k.

Lol. Most of the politicians are millionaires and multi-millionaires outside of their civil servant salaries. That for the average worker? It is a whole lot of money.

Oh, Relampaguito. I can't do your arguments if you can call them that? Justice. I just find you incredibly funny. Today with this topic.

The wave of tokenism is too much for me.

I need to go to bed. Wake up refreshed and not with this absolutely fun hard laughing you have done to me today BJ.

Me siento aqui pensando en la falta de entendimiento tuyo? De la historia estadounidense de la gente que le sigues achacando la culpa...los del partido democrata y eres de pensamiento bien escueto...demasiado.

Have you heard of Milton Nascimiento and Chico Buarque Blackjack? Because for some reason your thoughts here have made me think of a song I used to play a lot when I was young. In Old San Juan during my work hours...it is called "Que sera, que sera...A gorgeous Brazilian song....I thnk I will go to bed playing that...and try to stop laughing singing that thinking about you in Walnut Creek, California trying to deal with jaywalking and codes and then the grifter Owens.... :lol: :lol:

Buenas noches Relampaguito



I am singing this song in Portuguese laughing...It is hard to concentrate....at your funny comments. ;)
#15098758
Tainari88 wrote:So we both agree Candace Owens is a shill and she is a successful one for your style of ideology. If she runs for office would you vote for her Relampaguito? A young, conservative black woman who loves the USA. She is patriotic.

What office, and what is her platform/policy position? I'm guessing I wouldn't get a chance to vote for her. She pretty much turned on the progressives when Trump got elected, so it would be interesting to see what she would lay out as a platform to run on. However, I don't get the feeling that she's running for anything at this point.

Tainari88 wrote:Oh, it is useless, I break down laughing mightily when I picture you defending Candace Owens as the new frontrunner disruptor for the Republican Party....i can't stop laughing at the thought of you defending her as much as you do Trump. So you can be fair and balanced and hit those White Liberals hard with the shill.

Why do you find it so amusing? If she supports policy positions I agree, I would consider supporting her. However, she lives on the East Coast, so I don't think I'd have the opportunity to vote for her.

Tainari88 wrote:The wave of tokenism is too much for me.

By token, you mean like the Minneapolis chief of police?
#15098922
blackjack21 wrote:What office, and what is her platform/policy position? I'm guessing I wouldn't get a chance to vote for her. She pretty much turned on the progressives when Trump got elected, so it would be interesting to see what she would lay out as a platform to run on. However, I don't get the feeling that she's running for anything at this point.


Why do you find it so amusing? If she supports policy positions I agree, I would consider supporting her. However, she lives on the East Coast, so I don't think I'd have the opportunity to vote for her.


By token, you mean like the Minneapolis chief of police?



Relampaguito you would consider a shill? I hate shills for any political platform. if you have to pay somebody to get them to be dedicated to a political point of view? Why believe they won't abandon the political philosophy at the first sign of trouble or loss of money or prestige? I am afraid I have very high standards for political adherence and fidelity. I have never been inconsistent with my politics.

Trump vacillated between Democrats, Republicans, etc and he is not consistent.

I have been very consistent not due to winning elections BJ but because I studied for many years all kinds of political thoughts and philosophical points of view and human history fascinates me. I find value in many political philosophies but one has to choose what one thinks is best.

I have often said to my political opponents? Explain to me why I should abandon my political philosophy and it what you say rings true to me? I will do so.

I won't ever be defending politicians that I find are self serving shills that only are in it for selfish reasons because they are tools who I think are useful in destroying the political party who betrayed their principles by not being true patriots and nationalists like I wanted. I am describing your stance BJ.

For me rotten people will never make for a better society if they seize a position of power. they will eventually make it even harder to clean up the political, economic and social messes they often leave behind for others to cope with.

Now this latest fiasco of Trump's white House stating that the G7 is gonna take place and when Angela Merkel is saying "No, Thank You" to his invitations? He starts covering his ass with lies Blackjack.

My mother taught me such valuable lessons after she was dead and buried. I had no idea about her influences. Sh never boasted or gossiped about either her own accomplishments or the people she was helping all the time. I had to find out over time. It made it clear to me that being on a political 'team' should not be about winning and cutting off heads. It should be about staying on course and being true to a level of political and social responsibility that is about dedication to justice, and being truthful about why and how and the reasons why one is part of that political philosophy.

People often don't think deeply about politics. It is often just something to quickly review and then vote and forget about.

Candace Owens is a product of her environment. American emphasis on individual achievement, making a profit off of any available weakness, forming alliances with people in a power position and see if you can manipulate the situation to your own advantage. Never go against the ones in power. See how one can integrate oneself to their power positions? You are only valuable according to the numbers in your back account and hopefully get to the 7 figure income or above. Personal relationships are valuable only if they serve to enhance your ego and feed it with consistency.

Candace is about as American as they come. With her love of the worst of American conservative thoughts. I find it repulsive. But? It might make her a great candidate for the ones with superficial values who want to sock-to-them to the White liberals suffering from white fragility as self described by Dr. Robin DiAngelo in this video.....all the white liberals are like that BJ. DiAngelo is aware she is one of them too. I am not. Never have been. So maybe I am looking at your antics against the racist White Liberals in the Democratic party with more objectivity Blackjack?

You can disagree. But that is what a forum is for eh? Banging out the differences.
#15098924
Tainari I highly doubt you will get Blackjack to discuss with you in good faith. Straw-manning, changing the topic and obfuscation is the name of the game.

These are the 2 main points in our conversation that Trump acolytes will never come to terms with:

a) Protests are not riots or insurrections. Trump failing to respond to police brutality to calm down people & his response to putting down peaceful protesters and threatening to use the army against American citizens exercising their 1st amendment rights is quite pathetic and the reason why he is rightfully being criticised.

Do these peaceful protesters deserve to be kettled and why would they not criticise the administration responsible for violating their constitutional right.



b) Black people are targeted by the authorities for the most minor of reasons and end up in jail for things that white people don't.

In the US:
46% of the Federal prison population is inside for drug-related offences.
1/3 of that is for possession only.
25% of the prison population is inside for misdemeanours such as jay-walking.

Yes you heard that right, jaywalking.


Federal Bureau of Prisons

https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/st ... fenses.jsp

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html

Image


Prison Policy report wrote:

Misdemeanors: Minor offenses with major consequences
The “massive misdemeanor system” in the U.S. is another important but overlooked contributor to overcriminalization and mass incarceration. For behaviors as benign as jaywalking or sitting on a sidewalk, an estimated 13 million misdemeanor charges sweep droves of Americans into the criminal justice system each year (and that’s excluding civil violations and speeding). These low-level offenses account for over 25% of the daily jail population nationally, and much more in some states and counties.

Misdemeanor charges may sound like small potatoes, but they carry serious financial, personal, and social costs, especially for defendants but also for broader society, which finances the processing of these court cases and all of the unnecessary incarceration that comes with them. And then there are the moral costs: People charged with misdemeanors are often not appointed counsel and are pressured to plead guilty and accept a probation sentence to avoid jail time. This means that innocent people routinely plead guilty, and are then burdened with the many collateral consequences that come with a criminal record, as well as the heightened risk of future incarceration for probation violations. A misdemeanor system that pressures innocent defendants to plead guilty seriously undermines American principles of justice.

“Low-level fugitives” live in fear of incarceration for missed court dates and unpaid fines
Defendants can end up in jail even if their offense is not punishable with jail time. Why? Because if a defendant fails to appear in court or to pay fines and fees, the judge can issue a “bench warrant” for their arrest, directing law enforcement to jail them in order to bring them to court. While there is currently no national estimate of the number of active bench warrants, their use is widespread and in some places, incredibly common. In Monroe County, N.Y., for example, over 3,000 people have an active bench warrant at any time, more than 3 times the number of people in the county jails.
#15098933
Tainari88 wrote:Relampaguito you would consider a shill? I hate shills for any political platform.

Politicians are basically shills. The question is for whom do they shill?

Tainari88 wrote:I hate shills for any political platform. if you have to pay somebody to get them to be dedicated to a political point of view? Why believe they won't abandon the political philosophy at the first sign of trouble or loss of money or prestige? I am afraid I have very high standards for political adherence and fidelity. I have never been inconsistent with my politics.

Well, that's actually a +1 for Trump, since Trump isn't a shill. He's speaking his own mind, and he's "unpredictable" because he's not an ideologue and he's not paid to do what he's doing.

Tainari88 wrote:Trump vacillated between Democrats, Republicans, etc and he is not consistent.

It's his desire to get along with the establishment that gets him in trouble. His instincts are generally in line with voters, whether you agree with the voters or not. Basically, the political divide in America is no longer management vs. labor, it's the establishment in Washington vs the people they aim to govern.

Tainari88 wrote:Candace is about as American as they come. With her love of the worst of American conservative thoughts.

Candace does not strike me as a movement conservative. Rather, she strikes me--as the neoconservatives used to put it--as someone who was "mugged by reality." She was on their side, deviated a bit and was thoroughly trashed by them. Heck, I took climate change at face value until I found a few points where I disagreed. It was not oil companies, right wingers, Wall Street, Christian fundamentalists, etc. who got me doubting AGW theory, it was the conduct of the people who attacked me when I deviated from their orthodoxy. Owens strikes you as a candidate. I think she's still struggling to find her voice, but I think she found a solid place to land after deviating from leftist orthodoxy and she's still in learning mode.

Tainari88 wrote:It might make her a great candidate for the ones with superficial values who want to sock-to-them to the White liberals suffering from white fragility as self described by Dr. Robin DiAngelo in this video

Sometimes people flip for sheer advantage. I think others get "mugged by reality", and I think that's the case for Candace Owens. That doesn't necessarily make them great leaders, but it gives them a very strong insight into their new political adversaries.

For someone who was always a conservative--Hindite for example--the modern leftist is basically crazy. Someone like Owens comes from that background, worked with them and for them, advanced their causes, and when she deviated and was trashed, she saw a different side of their character.

noemon wrote:Tainari I highly doubt you will get Blackjack to discuss with you in good faith. Straw-manning, changing the topic and obfuscation is the name of the game.

Race as a subject is always a big deal before elections in order to scare black people into line. That has been the case my entire life. There is nothing new under the sun here.

noemon wrote:a) Protests are not riots or insurrections.

According to some on the left, they aren't protests, but a rebellion.

Mother Jones, for example, is not a right wing outlet: The Reliably Racist Cherry-Picking of the Word “Riot”

A few years ago, on the 50th anniversary of the Detroit rebellion—set off by a brutal police raid on an after-hours drinking spot and the shooting death of Black men as the city burned for nearly a week—I wrote a Splinter piece arguing against defaulting to “riot” and for naming certain clashes what they are—uprising or rebellion:

“Riot” is a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd, and “rebellion” [is] resistance to authority or control, with some conditions: If no peace was in place to begin with, the disturbance-of-peace requirement for riot isn’t met and the action may be a rebellion instead—if it’s aimed at demanding rights. “Riot” tells you next to nothing about cause, context, or goals. “Rebellion” hints at each: A rebellion is against something, for something, with emphasis on both subject and object.


Arrest in fatal shooting of beloved retired St. Louis police captain during protests
So tell us, @noemon, in your infinite wisdom, does this man:

Image

...killing this retired police captain:

Image

... indicative of a peaceful protest? Do the eyewitness and video accounts of the killer trying to loot a business, and then killing David Dorn for trying to protect the business suggest a peaceful protest? Over 700 police officers have been injured. There have been many deaths too.

Riots spurred by death of George Floyd take heavy toll on black lives, communities
Democrats kill black people, and if black people get upset, Democrats burn black neighborhoods to the ground and blame it on Republicans. We're more than used to this routine.

noemon wrote:b) Black people are targeted by the authorities for the most minor of reasons and end up in jail for things that white people don't.

In the US:
46% of the Federal prison population is inside for drug-related offences.
1/3 of that is for possession only.
25% of the prison population is inside for misdemeanours such as jay-walking.

Yes you heard that right, jaywalking.

Federal Bureau of Prisons

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. There isn't a single state in the US that punishes jaywalking as a misdemeanor.

For edification folks, read @noemon's links. There isn't a single instance of a person sentenced to prison for jaywalking, because it is not punished as a misdemeanor anywhere in the United States. You may be arrested and arraigned for jaywalking if you refuse to promise to appear, but nobody is sent to prison for jaywalking. @noemon noemon then tries a little bit of idiotic posturing providing a bureau of prisons link, which not only doesn't show a single instance of people incarcerated for jaywalking, but it's a federal prison link. In the United States, rules of the road in the several states are enforced by state government, not the federal government. Hence, the bureau of prisons statistics would be largely irrelevant for an assertion of something as stupid as the idea that people are sent to prison for jaywalking. Also, see the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution. :roll:

You can, however, be punished with imprisonment for repeated loitering--something that @noemon doesn't want to discuss, having staked his position on the ridiculous assertion of imprisonment for jaywalking, and probably not wanting to defend urban drug couriers.
#15098947
blackjack21 wrote:According to some on the left, they aren't protests, but a rebellion.


You are in the bad habit of living in artificial reality and only caring about talking points rather than actual reality.

Trump putting people down for peacefully protesting deserves all the criticism he is getting.

So tell us, @noemon, in your infinite wisdom, does this man:
...killing this retired police captain:
... indicative of a peaceful protest? Do the eyewitness and video accounts of the killer trying to loot a business, and then killing David Dorn for trying to protect the business suggest a peaceful protest? Over 700 police officers have been injured. There have been many deaths too.


Do tell us bj, how many million Americans have been out on the streets peacefully protesting, and how many of those have been "rioting" or murdering police? Get a grip with reality rather than living in your video-game reality. Trying to paint the largest protest in US history as a "violent riot" by virtue of a couple of agent provocateurs and useful idiots like the cited criminal merely gives you away as a troll.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. There isn't a single state in the US that punishes jaywalking as a misdemeanor.


Indeed, especially when your word is worthless.

For edification folks, read @noemon's links.


You should read the links indeed, this is the most comprehensive prison report in the US. :up:
#15099042
blackjack21 wrote:Politicians are basically shills. The question is for whom do they shill?


Well, that's actually a +1 for Trump, since Trump isn't a shill. He's speaking his own mind, and he's "unpredictable" because he's not an ideologue and he's not paid to do what he's doing.


It's his desire to get along with the establishment that gets him in trouble. His instincts are generally in line with voters, whether you agree with the voters or not. Basically, the political divide in America is no longer management vs. labor, it's the establishment in Washington vs the people they aim to govern.


Candace does not strike me as a movement conservative. Rather, she strikes me--as the neoconservatives used to put it--as someone who was "mugged by reality." She was on their side, deviated a bit and was thoroughly trashed by them. Heck, I took climate change at face value until I found a few points where I disagreed. It was not oil companies, right wingers, Wall Street, Christian fundamentalists, etc. who got me doubting AGW theory, it was the conduct of the people who attacked me when I deviated from their orthodoxy. Owens strikes you as a candidate. I think she's still struggling to find her voice, but I think she found a solid place to land after deviating from leftist orthodoxy and she's still in learning mode.


Sometimes people flip for sheer advantage. I think others get "mugged by reality", and I think that's the case for Candace Owens. That doesn't necessarily make them great leaders, but it gives them a very strong insight into their new political adversaries.

For someone who was always a conservative--Hindite for example--the modern leftist is basically crazy. Someone like Owens comes from that background, worked with them and for them, advanced their causes, and when she deviated and was trashed, she saw a different side of their character.


Race as a subject is always a big deal before elections in order to scare black people into line. That has been the case my entire life. There is nothing new under the sun here.


I will respond one by one here. What does a shill have to offer in terms of fidelity to an ideology that is about value systems BJ? Nothing. You are talking about someone who thinks? I am part of this movement or action and organization as long as it is convenient. I never went for that in my entire political life. Not once. Why? Because it is self-serving. It is about personal advantage seeking and leads easily to corrupt values. If I wanted to play the game of corrupt politics I would have done it by now. It is very easy to enrich oneself if one is good at oration, speech-making and speech doing (which I am), but I won't do that BJ. Because it is not about that. Why fight for something better if it is not about something beyond yourself and that is valuable as a step forward for others to be able to have something in their societies that serves a greater good? Why bother with politics if it is not about that BJ? I don't believe in the independence of Puerto Rico because it is the winning team or because it is a party that will make me wealthy? No. It is the party that will blacklist my ass, get me thrown in jail, chased by the FBI, and generally never get any power. Why the hell continue? Because it is the only real answer to the problem. That is why. It is the truth for me. If you stand for the truth that you know is the answer? Why bother with taking a position at all and why even bother with political struggles if it is all about conveniences and easy shit? I have made a lot of decisions in this world based on what is right. Not what is easy.

Blackjack21, your +1 argument about Trump? Do you really think he is not being paid to do what he does? I know he says he doesn't collect his salary. Does he donate it? Lol. BJ, Trump is Trump. I notice behavior of a person and a person's record and a person's character in many situations. Trump is in his 70s--he is not a young man at all. How has he dealt with his life up until now? Is he ethical? Is he faithful? Is he trustworthy? Lol. That man is shady in the most deeply possible way. He is in that position to gain personally from it. Out of ego. Out of narcissistic needs. Out of wanting to prove, he has total authority and at the same time takes no responsibility. Small details reveal tremendous amounts about a person's character. He goes up the stairs of an airplane, and he needs to close an umbrella. He doesn't do that small gesture of planning ahead and being orderly. Why not? Someone else will do it for him. He does dozens of small acts of irresponsibility all the damn time. Why? His character is about not taking responsibility. You can't do that dealing with running a government as large and complicated as the USA's government is. Yet he is there. Benefiting from his position and make no mistake that Trump is a person who will be selling his position to those who want to have access to privileged information. He has no true loyalties BJ. A person without true loyalties is a danger in so many myriad ways. But? He is your tool.

Your third paragraph Senor Blackjack21? It is a classic Marxist reality. With time and the wages remaining flat and globalization of capitalist expansion and the internal need to squeeze the working class even as production improved? It caused class fission and it widened. It is not Washington DC vs the People of the USA. And hoping that a corrupt tool like Trump will make it better? It is a seriously dangerous road to be on Relampaguito. It leads to authoritarian rules and total fracture of civil liberties.


Did you read @skinster 's link on Candace Owens Relampaguito? I did. I always read links. In it? It says that she sued for discrimination by some white boys against her and won a $37,500 dollars for it. She used a legal statute that was put in place by liberals. Why? Because the society has evolved enough for her to play what cards she has in her hand and she keeps dealing. The thing with Candace Owens is that how long is she going to be mugged by reality with the conservatives in her party? Do they truly believe in her equality as a Black woman in the USA? Do they think she can lead? The reality is Blackjack? She is living in a nation that is accepting that a powerful Black person can lead a bunch of white people who deep in their heads think that Blacks don't have the 'superiority' to do so. You scratch most Right-wingers and they are like you Blackjack. They use arguments that are about keeping things from changing too much. Not sharing power with Black people. You are assimilationist in many ways. You don't accept any kind of variation from your own culturally dominant paradigm. The white liberals and the white conservatives are two sides of the same coin. Taking turns at the troth of the bounty that the globalist international capitalists produce for you...you invest in the stock market and live the American Dream...for what purpose? To lose it to Blacks who want the same for their own lives? And you will share all with them? Really? You believe that your actions reflect that BJ? I don't.

No, the only reality they are mugged by are the subtle racism that most African Americans have to endure in this world from white liberalism and white conservatism. Neither of them address the lack or real change in circumstances that is required BJ. It stays unaddressed and it festers with puss. Until humanity as a whole deals with the mechanisms of its own species oppressive denials and oppressive lack of change internally to end limiting human potential in all of the species this 'drama' continues. I am not mugged by reality like Candace is by some naive shit that Americans believe in. I am into some real world solutions to lack of rights and lack of justice that is keeping us severely limited as humans. I am taking the road out of it. Candace can stay in small egotistical needs for power and wealth....riding the coattails of people who never did enough self reflection in involved.

As for Hiney, he doesn't know the difference between a woman like me and some white liberal like Nancy Pelosi or Kamala Harris. He doesn't understand it because he is incapable of it due to his age, his life experiences and his severely limited education. A person who thinks racism is not crazy? Is the one living in severe denial about how insane it truly is to believe that one can have a child with a black woman as a white man and that child is fertile and can keep going into the human race's future and that is not a dead end genetically because everyone is one species.But to keep denying scientific evidence that we are all one? With crazy theories of inferiority and oppression that is done to profit and objectify human beings Senor Blackjack? Is true loco behavior and thought.

Here is a video of Toni Morrison discussing the crazy of being a racist. Does it make sense to have separate bathrooms, and separate movie theaters, and restaurant counters, and deny people who are in love marriage? And make life impossible by denying people votes, and denying people histories and work, and denying everything to the point of insanity? What for? What for? What is all that shit for BJ? You tell me? Is it humane? No. What is it then?

It is fucking crazy IMHO.



Owning labor and that constant in the world...coupling it with racism (it comes later) cue it up at minute 1:41.

The early setting....Bacon's rebellion. You should always see it as a perk. She discusses that fallout. How the working class in the USA or the peons, etc all dividing in order to conquer. Divide and conquer to protect the landed gentry. Divide and conquer.

The Democratic party does it and the Republican party does it. Because what they won't ever want Blackjack is all of the working people to be one. United. And laser-focused on rights and improvement and real change in circumstances. Racist reality is not something natural BJ. It is something constructed. Anything constructed can be torn down and another construction can be replacing it. It just takes political will Relampaguito. But the people in your political column WILL NEVER AGREE TO THAT. That is why you will never be making things better.

You fight against what is inevitable.



"A Mercy"
#15099220
Tainari88 wrote:What does a shill have to offer in terms of fidelity to an ideology that is about value systems BJ? Nothing.

You have to be ideological, because you are about revolutionizing pretty much everything. I can afford to be more pragmatic. What concerns me are pretenders/traitors. Bush/Clinton is my problem. Every current politician is your problem.

Tainari88 wrote:I never went for that in my entire political life. Not once. Why? Because it is self-serving.

Politics is largely finding common ground among self-serving people.

Tainari88 wrote:Why fight for something better if it is not about something beyond yourself and that is valuable as a step forward for others to be able to have something in their societies that serves a greater good?

Why not both? Why do you think it has to be mutually exclusive?

Tainari88 wrote:Do you really think he is not being paid to do what he does? I know he says he doesn't collect his salary. Does he donate it? Lol.

So far, Trump has lost money. In a post presidency, he may do very well. Right now though, his businesses are hurting.

Tainari88 wrote:That man is shady in the most deeply possible way. He is in that position to gain personally from it. Out of ego. Out of narcissistic needs.

Now you are arguing against your prior position that Trump is completely unpredictable. How is he more shady than Joe Biden, Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush? Bill Clinton? Barack Obama? Barack Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize when he was elected to the presidency, when he never so much as negotiated any sort of peace deal anywhere. Then, he went on to overthrow the governments of Libya and Egypt--we can assume Tunisia was spontaneous--and tried to overthrow the government of Syria leading to the largest human refugee crisis since WWII. Is that the type of person who deserves a Nobel Peace Prize? Or does the establishment award itself accolades to fool the masses? Trump is a self-serving guy. No doubt about it. How is he shadier than John Bolton? Seriously?

Tainari88 wrote:Benefiting from his position and make no mistake that Trump is a person who will be selling his position to those who want to have access to privileged information. He has no true loyalties BJ. A person without true loyalties is a danger in so many myriad ways. But? He is your tool.

I left the Republican party in 2006, precisely because of the type of shit just pulled by Romney, Mattis, and Bush. See? Where was their party loyalty? It didn't exist. Never did. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Have I expressed shock or surprise that they did that? Not at all. It's expected. Does that mean I think Trump is right about everything? No. He's just not one of them. That's a big criteria for me. We've debated this presidential election for nearly a year now. Who was the only Democrat I opposed? Biden. Getting the picture?

Tainari88 wrote:It is a classic Marxist reality. With time and the wages remaining flat and globalization of capitalist expansion and the internal need to squeeze the working class even as production improved? It caused class fission and it widened. It is not Washington DC vs the People of the USA.

In the United States, politically speaking, that's exactly what it is. That's why tariffs scare the living shit out of the globalists.

Tainari88 wrote:And hoping that a corrupt tool like Trump will make it better?

He actually did make it better. However, as I said before, that's not my expectation as such. My goal right now is to prevent the neoconservatives/neoliberals from holding the White House.

Tainari88 wrote:It is a seriously dangerous road to be on Relampaguito. It leads to authoritarian rules and total fracture of civil liberties.

We've just experienced the single largest suspension of civil liberties in my lifetime. Who were the biggest proponents of it? Democrats. Who is largely opposed to it? Trump. Try all you want, but I am not scared of Trump. This year, I have to pay federal taxes again, and I got a late fee fine. After I pay, one thing I can expect with Trump in the White House? He will refund my fine. Obama wouldn't do that. Neither would Bush.

Tainari88 wrote:Did you read @skinster's link on Candace Owens Relampaguito? I did. I always read links. In it? It says that she sued for discrimination by some white boys against her and won a $37,500 dollars for it. She used a legal statute that was put in place by liberals. Why? Because the society has evolved enough for her to play what cards she has in her hand and she keeps dealing.

No. I didn't. However, it doesn't surprise me. As I said before, she was a dyed-in-the-wool liberal progressive. When those people turn on you, you are pretty much finished. However, she decided not to be the good little black girl and take her punishment. She turned on them too.

Tainari88 wrote:Do they truly believe in her equality as a Black woman in the USA?

Yes. We've already had Condoleeza Rice in high positions. The Republicans aren't about trashing black women. They are about trashing the welfare state.

Tainari88 wrote:Do they think she can lead?

Separate question. Does she even want to lead?

Tainari88 wrote:The reality is Blackjack? She is living in a nation that is accepting that a powerful Black person can lead a bunch of white people who deep in their heads think that Blacks don't have the 'superiority' to do so.

Keep believing that if it makes you feel better. There are some people who fit that description, but it is certainly not the bulk of the electorate. Did you ever hear me characterize Obama as dumb as a fence post? No. Inexperienced? Sure. Ideological? Sure. Self-serving? Sure.

Tainari88 wrote:You scratch most Right-wingers and they are like you Blackjack. They use arguments that are about keeping things from changing too much. Not sharing power with Black people.

The problem with being ideological is that you end up abandoning empiricism. You make blanket assumptions about what someone believes and how they behave. I was on Facebook the other night, and a black friend of mine posted a line from Les Brown. I responded that I had attended one of his seminars. https://lesbrown.com/ Les Brown is black. See, you will probably spit up your coffee, because you cannot believe something like that, because it does not fit your stereotype. Do you realize that every technique of bigotry against blacks--stereotyping, prejudging, false assumptions, etc.--is something you do to people who don't agree with you politically?

Tainari88 wrote:The white liberals and the white conservatives are two sides of the same coin.

No. They aren't. Neoliberals and neoconservatives, however, are two sides of the same coin. That's why I oppose Joe Biden.

Tainari88 wrote:No, the only reality they are mugged by are the subtle racism that most African Americans have to endure in this world from white liberalism and white conservatism.

Talk to a black conservative and let them tell you their experience, instead of insisting that your ideological extrapolations must be interpolated into their life experience. Let them tell you. Racism will always be there to some extent, but it's not just from white people. There are plenty of anti-white racists around these days, and they do not have to hide or apologize for their racism.

Tainari88 wrote:Neither of them address the lack or real change in circumstances that is required BJ.

For your ideology...

Tainari88 wrote:I am into some real world solutions to lack of rights and lack of justice that is keeping us severely limited as humans.

It's largely conceptual and ideological. It's not as "real world" as you think. If 7000 blacks were murdered last year, 10 of them by police officers, why do you really think "Black Lives Matter" is primarily concerned with police officers? 40 blacks were killed last week in Chicago. Nobody in the political system or the media cares. Not even a little bit. Yet, the politicians and media are throwing a weeks long hissy fit over Chauvin killing a black man. Black people get killed regularly, and none of these pols or talking heads cares at all unless it involves a white police officer. Do you know how many police officers are killed by black people? It's a multiple of how many blacks are killed by police officers. That's real world. Yet, you, the pols, and the media do not want to address all those scenarios, because it doesn't fit into your ideological narrative.

Tainari88 wrote:He doesn't understand it because he is incapable of it due to his age, his life experiences and his severely limited education.

Oh c'mon. He has an associates degree, which is more education than most people in the world get. He probably saw a bit of the world in the army. Heck, my buddy who lives in Dubai is as conservative as they get. Yet, he's married to a Japanese woman. You have a sort of caricature of what you think every white conservative believes, etc.

Tainari88 wrote:But to keep denying scientific evidence that we are all one?

Uh huh. And what really happened to the Neanderthals, the Denisovans? Nobody knows? Nobody is really sure? We just can't seem to figure this one out? Or, we just don't want to come to terms with the answer, because it reveals something about ourselves that we don't like?

Tainari88 wrote:What is all that shit for BJ? You tell me? Is it humane? No. What is it then?

Exploitation. Social order. Hierarchy. etc. It's not that people just go crazy. It's that there are elements to human nature that you don't want to admit, consider or address.

For example, have you ever heard me campaign for racial segregation? Denying minorities access to education? Presuming people guilty of a crime if they are minorities, but not if they are white? Never. You assume that's what I think. You cannot entertain any ideas outside of that rubric. It's a form of epistemic closure. You are blinded by ideology.

You want to discuss race with me, but never in a thread about race, and never getting deep into specifics. Do you have Netflix? Watch this series:

A Netflix Series Explores the Brave New World of Crispr]

It covers a black woman who had debilitating sickle cell anemia. Her stated wish was to be able to go running, like others can do. Yet, for her, just walking up the stairs could leave her in debilitating pain. Drug addicts claim that at emergency rooms pining for some opiates, and doctors would disregard her pleas as though she was looking for opium. She had gene modification therapy with CRISPR-cas9 to address the sickle cell anemia, and it worked. Did it change her hair color, eye color, skin color? No. It cured the sickle cell anemia, and she could run after the therapy.

What is it that makes you so uncomfortable talking about this type of thing?

Tainari88 wrote:Owning labor and that constant in the world...coupling it with racism (it comes later) cue it up at minute 1:41.

Ppppffffff... Ok. So why do chickens have a pecking order Tainari88? Is it because they just haven't come to read Karl Marx yet? Why are some bees drones and others queens? When you get beyond political ideology and look at things empirically, you're not going to come away with "The Queen bee has the same DNA as the drones, and so blah blah blah".

Take it out of a black/white context. Why did the blacks of Zanzibar commit genocide against their Arab oppressors during the Zanzibar revolution, instead of seeing the Arabs as their equals?

Take it out of the context of racism for a moment. Why is it that the #MeToo movement mostly consists of women passed their sexual prime complaining about the behavior of men decades ago when they were in their sexual prime? Evaluate humans as you would any other animal and you come to much different conclusions than if you examine everything through an ideological lens. A doe encourages bucks to fight over her. That's why male deer sport such elaborate antlers. Darwinian sexual selection plays a role.

Tainari88 wrote:Because what they won't ever want Blackjack is all of the working people to be one.

The working class will never unite. Even the Marxists have given up on that and turned to race, gender and gender identity issues. What the elite don't want is to have their profit margins crushed. The paid media criticizes who their owners want criticized. Jeff Bezos buys Whole Foods via Amazon, then cuts the health care benefits of Whole Foods workers to make things more "efficient" he says. That's not why he did it. He did it to make more money. People forget about it and don't criticize the-richest-man-in-the-world®, because he owns the Washington Post. Plus, being a Democrat means never having to say you're sorry.

Tainari88 wrote:Racist reality is not something natural BJ.

Sure it is.

Tainari88 wrote:It is something constructed. Anything constructed can be torn down and another construction can be replacing it.

A government, a system of exploitation, those are constructed and can be destroyed and replaced. Nature is a separate question.

Tainari88 wrote:But the people in your political column WILL NEVER AGREE TO THAT. That is why you will never be making things better.

I am no longer a friend of the current establishment. Getting rid of those people will make things better all by itself--not utopia, mind you, but better. Do you know that black Americans had better reading comprehension in the 1950s under segregated schools than they do today under desegregated schools? What is it about having black students educated by liberal white unionized Democrat school teachers that causes black reading comprehension scores fall off a cliff?

Tainari88 wrote:You fight against what is inevitable.

I don't, because I don't have to. It's not inevitable at all.
#15099295
blackjack21 wrote:You have to be ideological, because you are about revolutionizing pretty much everything. I can afford to be more pragmatic. What concerns me are pretenders/traitors. Bush/Clinton is my problem. Every current politician is your problem.

I am a reasonable person Blackjack21. I want what reasonable people want. Stability and jobs, a way of making sure children are educated properly, food for families, clean water, clean air, clean earth that produces food that is of high nutritional value. A true democracy that reflects the citizens that live in it. Respect for different paradigms and different systems. If another country chooses a different political path? Don't interfere with their ability to make it work but using power against them due to not falling into line. For me might is right is a recipe for injustice. You can afford to be pragmatic? Yet you are concerned with pretenders and traitors that are produced by capitalism Relampaguito. The neoliberals and neoconservatives and the ones there being sellouts are precisely traitors and pretenders because the evolution of the system requires it BJ. Period. The current crop of sellouts has bad values Blackjack21. You expect shilling and sellout values. You plan to think that they are there to be self-serving. That is a crisis of political values that are rotten. Change the values of the society and make sure the sellouts don't get power? You have an advancement in human civilization that is worth fighting for. Long term change. That is the prize, Senor. That and nothing else.


Politics is largely finding common ground among self-serving people.

No, Relampagazo, it is not. it is finding common ground between people with sound values that are trustworthy. Have you ever had to deal with selfish people who are into selfish shit all day and every day? Have you ever picked up some self-help manual BJ? About how to be a good manager, good this or that administrator? They all say the same thing. You need to be good at ethics and being a person of great consideration. Empathy is actually a very valuable thing to have in all great leaders. I don't just say it but the Army uses that as an essential quality to have in an officer. Empathy, and the ability to sacrifice and consider the needs of the men and women under your command. You earn that by knowing how to sacrifice for others. They don't want sociopaths in the upper ranks BJ. It makes for bad leaders who are not trustworthy under crisis management and can cost many their lives under combat conditions. Human beings under duress do much better with ethical, strong leaders who have tremendous empathy and a sense of self-responsibility and self-discipline too. It is not much different for politicians. You got low expectations Senor Blackjack21

Why not both? Why do you think it has to be mutually exclusive?

Mutually exclusive about what Blackjack? I need some clarification here?


So far, Trump has lost money. In a post-presidency, he may do very well. Right now though, his businesses are hurting.

I don't give one fuck about Trump's businesses Blackjack. He doesn't identify with the working-class people who are without any way of predicting if main street is going to make it BJ. I don't identify with his problems because he so far has bailed out people with enormous wealth and gives crumbs to the ones really hurting in this pandemic shutdown. He is bad at empathy, compassion, and being sensitive and at least playing at compassion. I don't like Clinton or Bush either Blackjack, but they followed protocol and presidential convention for a reason. That position is a role one plays. Like most jobs in life, you put on your stage make-up, and you put on your costume and you walk the boards like a thespian. And you go out there and you project the expected role. That is very much part of being a president. You should do it with clear vision of what your role is. You don't tweet at 3 am about Pelosi's dentures. Lol. You don't break character. But this 'tool' of yours is not good at acting either. Reagan was good at acting. Your Reagan. Lol. Ave Maria, Relampago, how can I make you understand?


Now you are arguing against your prior position that Trump is completely unpredictable. How is he more shady than Joe Biden, Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush? Bill Clinton? Barack Obama? Barack Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize when he was elected to the presidency, when he never so much as negotiated any sort of peace deal anywhere. Then, he went on to overthrow the governments of Libya and Egypt--we can assume Tunisia was spontaneous--and tried to overthrow the government of Syria leading to the largest human refugee crisis since WWII. Is that the type of person who deserves a Nobel Peace Prize? Or does the establishment award itself accolades to fool the masses? Trump is a self-serving guy. No doubt about it. How is he shadier than John Bolton? Seriously?

No, Blackjack21, the shady is everywhere with the two sides of the same coin establishment. I don't think of the purest is John Bolton or Obama. Obama was an establishment guy. No doubt about it. I think they gave him the peace prize because finally a person who descended from slaves--Michelle Obama and his daughters stepped foot in the White House that the former slaves of the USA built. And he did it by supposedly bringing White America and Black America together. He made the United States of America. Do you remember those slogans like words? It was that shining Black Hope. Do you remember the Great White Hope? Obama was for white liberals riddled with guilt? The Great Black Hope. The racism is so engrained in the US mentality of race categories that people vote for such superficial shit as he is Black. He is change. Is he? Is he your average white liberal or centrist right on war shit? How is he hope and change? The two sides of the same coin Dems and Repubs have a whole lot of work to do to get beyond that kind of symbolic unity that doesn't translate into real political and policy changes. It has a long way to go.


I left the Republican party in 2006, precisely because of the type of shit just pulled by Romney, Mattis, and Bush. See? Where was their party loyalty? It didn't exist. Never did. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Have I expressed shock or surprise that they did that? Not at all. It's expected. Does that mean I think Trump is right about everything? No. He's just not one of them. That's a big criteria for me. We've debated this presidential election for nearly a year now. Who was the only Democrat I opposed? Biden. Getting the picture?

Yes I do Relampaguito. But? You must see what these people's value systems are? And you are about self-serving political values. You said so yourself Relampaguito. You expect some shill and selfish shit. Probably because you think that other people are like you in the sense of the value system says you must be like x to get y and you have accepted that paradigm to be successful. In all societies, there are people who accept the status quo of values and there are those who pressure for a leap in a higher level of human ethics and values. If you keep pushing for what is self-centered, and detrimental to the group at large? You are part of a party that is about terrible values? You won't affect change Senor Relampagazo de Walnut Creek California.

In the United States, politically speaking, that's exactly what it is. That's why tariffs scare the living
shit out of the globalists.

Tariffs are only one aspect but the reality is that there are enormous interdependencies. And the future is about more of that and not less Relampagazo. Entiendelo


He actually did make it better. However, as I said before, that's not my expectation as such. My goal right now is to prevent the neoconservatives/neoliberals from holding the White House.

You should be about castigating the capitalist globalism that is depressing so many international workers' wages and rights. But? I don't know what you will do Blackjack21. For me you are still a Reagan Youth person. ;)


We've just experienced the single largest suspension of civil liberties in my lifetime. Who were the biggest proponents of it? Democrats. Who is largely opposed to it? Trump. Try all you want, but I am not scared of Trump. This year, I have to pay federal taxes again, and I got a late fee fine. After I pay, one thing I can expect with Trump in the White House? He will refund my fine. Obama wouldn't do that. Neither would Bush.

Spoken like a true Republican and conservative. I have zero identification with your dilemmas there Relampagazo. I almost always pay too many taxes because Colorado was a very high state tax state. Not as bad as being single with no dependents and with property in California. But it is not good for most people who work for a living and can never own a home. Too expensive.


No. I didn't. However, it doesn't surprise me. As I said before, she was a dyed-in-the-wool liberal progressive. When those people turn on you, you are pretty much finished. However, she decided not to be the good little black girl and take her punishment. She turned on them too.

If your politics are about petty revenge theories and being upset because you were not liked and you were punished for not falling into line with the party? Lol. No, I have had the worst fights internally BJ. Puerto Ricans fight among themselves terribly. All of them scared of what the mainland power brokers think if they allow the rebels like us? to run free and not be punished. You don't turn on your island and your people because of circumstances going against you. STAY THE COURSE. That is if you have true principles. Candace is not MLK, or Malcolm X or W.E.B DuBois or James Baldwin, or Langston Hughes or Frederick Douglass, or Sojourner Truth or Harriet Tubman or Thurgood Marshall, or Medger Evers, etc etc. She is not. She grew up in an all-white suburb and grew up in all-white schools. She became who she is and found out the White Liberals are virulent racists. But thinking the conservatives are better is where she is a true ignorant. Lol. My comment on that woman is summarized now.


Yes. We've already had Condoleeza Rice in high positions. The Republicans aren't about trashing black women. They are about trashing the welfare state.

Of course. But how are they going to cope with no welfare state and inadequate educations and AI replacing many low-end jobs? How are they going to stabilize many low-income neighborhoods and communities without the band-aid liberal war on poverty programs from the Roosevelt administration to now? Are they going to do like Trump did and say we will replace Obamacare with something better and more beautiful? The Republicans are mostly millionaires and are not needing SNAP/TANF/Medicare for all, Section 8, etc. They don't use mostly those services. So they don't see it as necessary. But they are if the jobs don't pay enough if the employers don't have health insurance. The rent is too high in a city that still pays $9 an hour. What are they going to replace it with? Nothing? Then they cry when there are violence and looting in the streets and people getting killed? Really? They don't see the violence they do to people who can't make ends meet and work a lot of hours and can't see an end to the struggling. Not for them or their children. Do I have to post videos again of people sleeping in vans in your home state of California and working full time? What are they going to do for them? Replace it with what?

Separate question. Does s
he even want to lead?

Who Biden? That man is a totally bad choice. But the liberal sellouts in the Dem party can't have change happen at all Blackjack21. They want privileges and bullshit. There will be consequences at a second loss at the polls. But Trump is not doing well Relampaguito.


Keep believing that if it makes you feel better. There are some people who fit that description, but it is certainly not the bulk of the electorate. Did you ever hear me characterize Obama as dumb as a fence post? No. Inexperienced? Sure. Ideological? Sure. Self-serving? Sure.

I am not into thinking Obama is the socialist of my dreams. He never was. Anyone dealing with his corporate liberal cash people who were not about change you can believe in BJ. That was clear as day. I never voted for Obama. Too establishment and not left enough in real principles for me. But? If he had been? Never would have gotten to the presidency Blackjack21. The establishment smells a real change candidate and ousts them before he final lap of the race.


The problem with being ideological is that you end up abandoning empiricism. You make blanket assumptions about what someone believes and how they behave. I was on Facebook the other night, and a black friend of mine posted a line from Les Brown. I responded that I had attended one of his seminars. https://lesbrown.com/ Les Brown is black. See, you will probably spit up your coffee, because you cannot believe something like that, because it does not fit your stereotype. Do you realize that every technique of bigotry against blacks--stereotyping, prejudging, false assumptions, etc.--is something you do to people who don't agree with you politically?

No Blackjack21, I read you right. But you are the one who stays in a political philosophy that is about all that and more. Nationalist Americans like you are? Are not about accepting equality. And until you do? You will be talking about black friends and how you are not this or that. When in fact, to this day you have not studied in depth African American history, you don't give a fuck about the liberation of Puerto Rico and never want to because for you being a patriot is not putting yourself in the positon of those fighting it out for basic freedoms and rights...it is about staying on top and dominant. For me? There is a lot of work you haven't done Blackjack. You won't be studying anything that is about another paradigm.

Who is Les Brown by the way? I never heard of him. I spend a lot of time in other languages blackjack and rarely sometimes I get names of people I never heard of before. Les Brown? He is a black guy who is a liberal? Hee hee. Is he?



No. They aren't. Neoliberals and neoconservatives, however, are two sides of the same coin. That's why I oppose Joe Biden.

I agree.


Talk to a black conservative and let them tell you their experience, instead of insisting that your ideological extrapolations must be interpolated into their life experience. Let them tell you. Racism will always be there to some extent, but it's not just from white people. There are plenty of anti-white racists around these days, and they do not have to hide or apologize for their racism.


For your ideology...


It's largely conceptual and ideological. It's not as "real world" as you think. If 7000 blacks were murdered last year, 10 of them by police officers, why do you really think "Black Lives Matter" is primarily concerned with police officers? 40 blacks were killed last week in Chicago. Nobody in the political system or the media cares. Not even a little bit. Yet, the politicians and media are throwing a weeks long hissy fit over Chauvin killing a black man. Black people get killed regularly, and none of these pols or talking heads cares at all unless it involves a white police officer. Do you know how many police officers are killed by black people? It's a multiple of how many blacks are killed by police officers. That's real world. Yet, you, the pols, and the media do not want to address all those scenarios, because it doesn't fit into your ideological narrative.


Oh c'mon. He has an associates degree, which is more education than most people in the world get. He probably saw a bit of the world in the army. Heck, my buddy who lives in Dubai is as conservative as they get. Yet, he's married to a Japanese woman. You have a sort of caricature of what you think every white conservative believes, etc.


Uh huh. And what really happened to the Neanderthals, the Denisovans? Nobody knows? Nobody is really sure? We just can't seem to figure this one out? Or, we just don't want to come to terms with the answer, because it reveals something about ourselves that we don't like?


Exploitation. Social order. Hierarchy. etc. It's not that people just go crazy. It's that there are elements to human nature that you don't want to admit, consider or address.

Like what BJ? What justifies oppression in human history to you? What justifies all that? There is order that must be maintained? Order has to be maintained on the backs of who? And why?

For example, have you ever heard me campaign for racial segregation? Denying minorities access to education? Presuming people guilty of a crime if they are minorities, but not if they are white? Never. You assume that's what I think. You cannot entertain any ideas outside of that rubric. It's a form of epistemic closure. You are blinded by ideology.

Which political side pressured the end of all that Blackjack? The Right? Where was the Right of the political spectrum during all those events Senor Relampago? You know the answer to that. You need to start giving credit where credit is due BJ. And stop apologizing for what is inherently wrong. One should fight injustice Blackjack because if you don't? None of this goes away. It never does.

You want to discuss race with me, but never in a thread about race, and never getting deep into specifics. Do you have Netflix? Watch this series:

A Netflix Series Explores the Brave New World of Crispr]

It covers a black woman who had debilitating sickle cell anemia. Her stated wish was to be able to go running, like others can do. Yet, for her, just walking up the stairs could leave her in debilitating pain. Drug addicts claim that at emergency rooms pining for some opiates, and doctors would disregard her pleas as though she was looking for opium. She had gene modification therapy with CRISPR-cas9 to address the sickle cell anemia, and it worked. Did it change her hair color, eye color, skin color? No. It cured the sickle cell anemia, and she could run after the therapy.

What is it that makes you so uncomfortable talking about this type of thing?

What type of thing BJ? That you think that race is something biological and it is so endemic to behavior that the future is what? Born to fail for some people? You don't listen to a damn thing I say. I have explained how neuroscientists see things. Remember the Heart guy there with iron in our hearts? We are made of the same stuff and the same elements that compose the stars and the world we inhabit. All of us have commonality. it doesn't take long for a Black person to become 'white' if the environment selects for favoring that characteristic BJ. Some thousands of years and the African are modified into showing up as modified. It means all of us are mutating and adapting. Even eating too many carrots and oranges make our skin color change. And that is the only diet. Imagine the strength of change in sunlight, location, and genetic interactions with the environment over thousands of years if the climate changes where people live in large numbers....the cold becomes tropical and the tropical becomes cold. It makes for a new instruction manual. You are stuck in thinking that variation is what? Something hard to discuss? Because it makes you realize that the African woman's sickle cell problem with time if you lived in that environment someday for a very long time in terms of the group? Will be also YOU. Not just her. What makes you run from that BJ? That you don't want to see yourself in others or do others make you uncomfortable? Big wink! ;)
Ppppffffff... Ok. So why do chickens have a pecking order Tainari88?

Is it because they just haven't come to read Karl Marx yet? Why are some bees drones and others queens? When you get beyond political ideology and look at things empirically, you're not going to come away with "The Queen bee has the same DNA as the drones, and so blah blah blah".

Take it out of a black/white context. Why did the blacks of Zanzibar commit genocide against their Arab oppressors during the Zanzibar revolution, instead of seeing the Arabs as their equals?

Take it out of the context of racism for a moment. Why is it that the #MeToo movement mostly consists of women passed their sexual prime complaining about the behavior of men decades ago when they were in their sexual prime? Evaluate humans as you would any other animal and you come to much different conclusions than if you examine everything through an ideological lens. A doe encourages bucks to fight over her. That's why male deer sport such elaborate antlers. Darwinian sexual selection plays a role.


The working class will never unite. Even the Marxists have given up on that and turned to race, gender and gender identity issues. What the elite don't want is to have their profit margins crushed. The paid media criticizes who their owners want criticized. Jeff Bezos buys Whole Foods via Amazon, then cuts the health care benefits of Whole Foods workers to make things more "efficient" he says. That's not why he did it. He did it to make more money. People forget about it and don't criticize the-richest-man-in-the-world®, because he owns the Washington Post. Plus, being a Democrat means never having to say you're sorry.


Sure it is.


A government, a system of exploitation, those are constructed and can be destroyed and replaced. Nature is a separate question.


I am no longer a friend of the current establishment. Getting rid of those people will make things better all by itself--not utopia, mind you, but better. Do you know that black Americans had better reading comprehension in the 1950s under segregated schools than they do today under desegregated schools? What is it about having black students educated by liberal white unionized Democrat school teachers that causes black reading comprehension scores fall off a cliff?


I don't, because I don't have to. It's not inevitable at all.



Relampaguito my car broke down today. I spent the day dealing with tow trucks and so on. I need to attend to some things. But I will be back to spank you properly with all these replies eh?

You are too Relampagazo quote gone crazy today. I have very empirical and logical answers. But first you must admit? You never studied African American history of tiny nations histories did you?

You needed to do so. You learn a lot from the group that you never study. You shall see tomorrow....manana... 8)
#15099355
Tainari88 wrote:A true democracy that reflects the citizens that live in it.

Reflects how? Skin color? Or viewpoints? And is that really what you want if you believe so many people are racist, sexist, homophobic and self-serving?

Tainari88 wrote:Yet you are concerned with pretenders and traitors that are produced by capitalism Relampaguito. The neoliberals and neoconservatives and the ones there being sellouts are precisely traitors and pretenders because the evolution of the system requires it BJ. Period.

The system does not require it. People who are trying to line their pockets using political power have identified methods of getting that done by purporting to support one thing, and then when they get into office doing something entirely different. Capitalism itself doesn't require or produce such people.

Tainari88 wrote:That is a crisis of political values that are rotten.

That is why I prefer destruction of the establishment. One of the things I learned about the Bush family, for example, is that they are for very large scale businesses, as are the neoliberals. Did you notice that the lockdowns have had the effect of crushing small businesses? It did not escape my notice.

Tainari88 wrote:Respect for different paradigms and different systems. If another country chooses a different political path? Don't interfere with their ability to make it work but using power against them due to not falling into line. ... Change the values of the society and make sure the sellouts don't get power? You have an advancement in human civilization that is worth fighting for. Long term change. That is the prize, Senor. That and nothing else.

Why does this seem like a massive contradiction? "Let's be respectful of different paradigms and different systems, but there is only one right way and that's my beautiful vision of Erich Fromm socialism."

Tainari88 wrote:it is finding common ground between people with sound values that are trustworthy.

The values are trustworthy or the people? What are the sound values?

Tainari88 wrote:You got low expectations Senor Blackjack21

I'm working with a choice between Trump and Biden. I'm resigned to the fact that those are my viable choices come November. I also won't be nearly as disappointed as you following election day.

Tainari88 wrote:Mutually exclusive about what Blackjack? I need some clarification here?

Watch "A Beautiful Mind" bar scene about John Nash, and what we call the Nash Equilibrium in game theory.



Tainari88 wrote:You should do it with clear vision of what your role is. You don't tweet at 3 am about Pelosi's dentures. Lol.

Most of the Republican party doesn't have the stomach for a fight. They just want to be left alone to rule. Democrats fight tooth and nail about everything. Trump has truly driven them crazy, because he fights back. It's a tactic that's part of a larger strategy. You don't see it, and you've fallen into the same trap of the #NeverTrump crowd--style over substance. Trump's style isn't high style. It's low style. The working class loves it, but he also drives his political adversaries bananas with it.

Tainari88 wrote:And he did it by supposedly bringing White America and Black America together.

He clearly had not intention of doing that, but he sure executed his fraud brilliantly. I'll give you that.

Tainari88 wrote:You must see what these people's value systems are? And you are about self-serving political values. You said so yourself Relampaguito.

Get back to the Nash Equilibrium, because it may be the only way for you to understand what I'm saying.

Tainari88 wrote:You expect some shill and selfish shit. Probably because you think that other people are like you in the sense of the value system says you must be like x to get y and you have accepted that paradigm to be successful.

I'm not saying the paradigm is ideal by a long shot. I'm saying that's the nature of politics. Why did the Democrats and Republicans bail out big businesses and screw over small ones? It was in their collective interests. Did the Democrats stick up for the poor people? No. That ship has sailed. People who vote for the Democrats thinking they care about the working class are fools.

Tainari88 wrote:In all societies, there are people who accept the status quo of values and there are those who pressure for a leap in a higher level of human ethics and values.

Oh come on. What do you think of Petraeus coming out for renaming military forts, because some of them are named after Confederates, and we ostensibly should not name our forts after people we fought against? I think it's pure bullshit. The military names its weapons after its most formidable adversaries. That's why we have Tomahawk missiles, Apache helicopters, Black hawk helicopters, Lakota utility helicopters, etc. Virtue signaling is pathetic.

Tainari88 wrote:Tariffs are only one aspect but the reality is that there are enormous interdependencies. And the future is about more of that and not less Relampagazo. Entiendelo

Part of that progressive mindset is that you believe your political goals are an inevitability, even when things are clearly going against you. If you want to delude yourself, go right ahead. I don't think the future is going to materialize that way. Take some time to watch this to see why:



Tainari88 wrote:You should be about castigating the capitalist globalism that is depressing so many international workers' wages and rights.

I guess you've never heard me argue for a $15 minimum wage in Mexico or China...

Tainari88 wrote:If your politics are about petty revenge theories and being upset because you were not liked and you were punished for not falling into line with the party? Lol.

That's not what her politics are about. It does explain why she got red-pilled. That's what you're missing. Yet, she's one more person who isn't inevitably falling into line with some sort of Erich Fromm-based socialist state of love and universal happiness.

Tainari88 wrote:Candace is not MLK, or Malcolm X or W.E.B DuBois or James Baldwin, or Langston Hughes or Frederick Douglass, or Sojourner Truth or Harriet Tubman or Thurgood Marshall, or Medger Evers, etc etc. She is not.

She's a different generation with a different life experience. Blacks do not have to vote as a bloc and do not owe any allegiance to the Democrat party. She's a generational personification of that realization.

Tainari88 wrote:The Republicans are mostly millionaires and are not needing SNAP/TANF/Medicare for all, Section 8, etc.

No. They aren't. You don't get 60M votes unless you got people who are not millionaires voting for you.

Tainari88 wrote:Who Biden? That man is a totally bad choice. But the liberal sellouts in the Dem party can't have change happen at all Blackjack21. They want privileges and bullshit. There will be consequences at a second loss at the polls. But Trump is not doing well Relampaguito.

Right now, from coronavirus to George Floyd riots, the Democrats represent tyranny and anarchy. I don't think people are going to vote for that in November. I may be wrong. We'll see in 4 and a half months.

Tainari88 wrote:The establishment smells a real change candidate and ousts them before he final lap of the race.

Yep. That's why Biden won even though his primary performances were abysmal.

Tainari88 wrote:Are not about accepting equality. And until you do? You will be talking about black friends and how you are not this or that.

I lay it out for you in discrete terms, and you still revert to stereotypes, because ideology prevents you from seeing the world in any other way. I realized that I am not an egalitarian, and that if I was rejecting that element of Marx I also had to reject that element of Jefferson too. Ultimately, I'm a libertarian.

Tainari88 wrote:Who is Les Brown by the way? I never heard of him.

Not important. He's a motivational speaker.

Tainari88 wrote:What justifies oppression in human history to you? What justifies all that?

I don't waste my time on justification in any moral sense.

Tainari88 wrote:Which political side pressured the end of all that Blackjack? The Right? Where was the Right of the political spectrum during all those events Senor Relampago? You know the answer to that. You need to start giving credit where credit is due BJ.

The Republican party had been pushing for a civil rights act for 100 years. In fact, it was Everett Dirksen's legislation that ended up getting passed. It was Southern Democrats who opposed it. Who used military troops to force integration at Little Rock Central High School? Eisenhower. Not exactly a leftist.

Tainari88 wrote:And stop apologizing for what is inherently wrong.

I'm not apologizing for anything. I'm saying the Democrats are always right there at the scene of the crime. Let's be honest about who's police forces are shooting black people. Let's be honest about what happened to black literacy after they were forced to integrate with white schools and white teachers.

Tainari88 wrote:That you think that race is something biological and it is so endemic to behavior that the future is what? Born to fail for some people?

:roll: People are different.

Tainari88 wrote:I have explained how neuroscientists see things. Remember the Heart guy there with iron in our hearts? We are made of the same stuff and the same elements that compose the stars and the world we inhabit. All of us have commonality.

We are also unique. That's why we can use fingerprints, retinal scans and DNA to positively identify people. That's why one person may get sickle cell anemia, and another person does not.
#15099459
blackjack21 wrote:Reflects how? Skin color? Or viewpoints? And is that really what you want if you believe so many people are racist, sexist, homophobic and self-serving?

Is this is how you argue BJ? The reality is a society has ills and it has thrills and it has virtues and it has flaws. How does one govern the human species so that the basic needs are met? That is my pragmatic point of view Senor. How does one deal with that? I don't think a government can force someone to stop being fearful of gays or lesbians. Can't stop people from thinking that women are somehow not as qualified for some jobs even though they are. Can't stop people from being racist in their own minds and self-serving. But you can give them consequences for being that way and taking action if they violate another person's rights to life, to a living, peace and tranquility, and etc. Make it a big problem and hard for them to practice that discrimination. I don't agree with conservative politics Senor because they never are the ones who protest injustice and lack of rights for people. They are the anti-change and the anti-equality folks. You keep arguing about how you think the pecking order of chickens and the hierarchy and the x and the y means that all human societies have to be a pecking order and it magically is? Europeans in North America are the owners of the land and the businesses and the apparatus. You got Black Wall Street in Oklahoma and it is burned and bombed and no consequences for the Black owners and the Black owned businesses by white rioting murderers. What does that prove? Who owns the system BJ? The Blacks or the Whites? They need to take responsibility for the lack of progress. They are the ones in charge. So? It is like Toni Morrison states Senor. They got a problem. They (meaning white racist people in the USA) got a problem. They can only feel good about themselves if someone or some group? In this case Black Americans are on their knees and never have true sharing of power and wealth. Never do they allow that. Take responsibility. The Left is the one driving the forces of change. The Right is stagnant about those issues because they are the ones who are content with the status quo. When I say 'they' BJ? I mean the white liberals and the white conservative neocons and neoliberals. The "Establishment" Encompsses them both. Time to give them the responsibilities of dealing with their inaction in eradicating the imbalances of power and representation. Do they want a race war? Do they want loss of control and people not giving a shit about their own societies because they feel totally not vested in any of it? Is that what you want BJ? Continuing with the chickens and the pecking orders of bullshit? Analyze why hierarchies emerge in human societies BJ? Analyze fluidity in hierarchies within human societies. Even primates have fluid social orders. It is not written in stone. Why not? Again, the nature of variation is survival due to changing conditions. You want options for survival. Always. Monocultures are bad for agriculture. Monocultures are bad for human societies in cultural aspects. Our survival as a species depends on our ability to go and mate with the opposite sex during a specific age range and during specified days of the month for the woman. And the male has to have certain criteria. It is not a fairly straight forward process. It is a bit of a dance BJ. And it relies on differences in order to new life to emerge. Variation. It relies on two different hormones complementing each other. For life to happen can't be the same. That is a natural law. So what does that tell you? That differences are made to be hierarchy? NO. Change is supposed to be an [b]interdependency[/b]. Think about the implications of that as human civilization advances Senor.


The system does not require it. People who are trying to line their pockets using political power have identified methods of getting that done by purporting to support one thing, and then when they get into office doing something entirely different. Capitalism itself doesn't require or produce such people.

Totally false. The yellow highlighted part BJ. It is false. Capitalism has laws saying 'turn a profit or shutter your business'. Make money or perish. Expand and dominate or perish. Use your capital for dominating of many markets, many laws, many rules, many banks, etc. It becomes a value system that these shilling people incorporate into a dominant value system. It is not the perfect system of even-handedness and Fairplay. It becomes the superstructure that the rest of the society is built on. It is endemic to everything and influences all other aspects of society. Especially its most powerful institutions BJ. Like its banks, its professions, its laws, its economics, and its political appointments. For you to sit here and write that it doesn't shape the grifters and the shills are mind-boggling to me. It is. Of course, it does BJ! Relampaguito? Are you serious? You said so yourself? I would not accept the 185k salary over what I make? Your financial status is tied to capitalism. You have stocks, bonds, and you trade in Wall Street. What is that? Non-capitalism? And having exclusive information doesn't play into the reason why these corrupt politicians want access to these government jobs? In DC politics? You don't see the connection? Lol. Come on Senor. No fingas, no mientas, no pongas las aguas turbias...por favor.

That is why I prefer destruction of the establishment. One of the things I learned about the Bush family, for example, is that they are for very large scale businesses, as are the neoliberals. Did you notice that the lockdowns have had the effect of crushing small businesses? It did not escape my notice.

Yes I did. It is part of capitalism BJ. BJ I am having a blackout here. I am going to post what I wrote and come back later. Yes I noticed it crushes small businesses. It should be very analyzed for what is the purpose of all that mega corporate favoritism? Lobbyists, and monopolization of markets. It is part of monopolies. An old story in capitalism. It has not gone away. Too big to fail in everything. It fails. Thus why the FDR New Deal stuff.


Why does this seem like a massive contradiction? "Let's be respectful of different paradigms and different systems, but there is only one right way and that's my beautiful vision of Erich Fromm socialism."

There is no contradiction. I know that people disagree in terms of systems they think best. Some are capitalism all the way. No safety net. Flat wages for workers. Squeeze and squeeze. Then you got the Swedish models, Denmark and Germany and the EU. You got Monarchies, like Thailand. You got all kinds of systems including theologies. The key to making all of it cooperate is to allow each system to deal with power pressures on their own without external foreign interferences BJ. Negotiation, talking, thinking, and offering assistance as truly partners and not about dominating and controlling from afar. TRUST. And respect. Like good marriages BJ. The foundation is no lying, trust and respect. And working on mutually beneficial dealings. Not controlling and destroying from afar. No bad nation building failed projects. I never said there is only one right way--that is you putting words in my mouth. Lol. I actually like several models. And flexibility is the key. But not on core principles Blackjack. My beautiful socialism based on Erich Fromm's knowledge of social psychology and analysis of socialist economic cooperative models are something really functional and adaptable and good. But? If someone has something that works great and it is not that model? It is even better. I am open minded. But I won't accept things that are old and tried and devolve into exploitation. It won't function.

I propose solutions BJ. A friend of mine once said (he is deceased), "I am not looking for someone who espouses the ideology or the political point of view? I am looking for what is the quality of that person's point of view. He values that person's character, internal value system above the political philosophy they spout. Why? A person with high quality values if they hit a political philosophy will be tremendously effective in it. A person with bad character and lousy values will bring it down Relampaguito. If you want people to want to be a part of something with dedication? Do what Gandhi proposed we do--Be the change you want to see in the world. YOU. You be the one who is honest, loving, kind, good, caring, giving and loyal. You value those qualities? You be it. Be that change you want to see. You look internally and say to yourself Blackjack? I value kindness and trustworthiness in others? Do I model that myself? If nationalism is my political view? How does a good nationalist act? Does it mean hating other nationalities? Or does it mean making America the place for small businesses to thrive? For people to be committed to American manufacturing? To being volunteers in English as a Second Language classes to immigrants? What does it look like to you? I am an international socialist. So I need to speak more than one language, I need to be loyal to the working class in all nations, and I need to contribute and be productive and pay taxes to the nations I live in. I need to be faithful to my politics. Period.
I am strong in a defined political vision. One must be when discussing politics. I don't enjoy flim-flam, weak knees political thoughts. Do you enjoy those type of posters to debate with? I don't I enjoy people with solid ideas and good arguments. Or at least thoughtful ones.



The values are trustworthy or the people? What are the sound values?

There is an ethnic component in each of them. I hope you understand what I am saying. What do you think are sound values for a human society Blackjack? Shilling? Grifting? Nepotism? Favoritism? Snobbery? Racism and people who are into status symbols and show? Being idle and loafing and never working? Lying nonstop? Fraudsters and hucksterism? Coldness and lack of compassion? Disrespectful behavior? You would be surprised how much consensus there is in human societies from all over the world that are in agreement with what are good and sound human and humane value systems all over the world. From many human cultures. I see such a consensus. In many ways. What do people value highly? Many things. The way they value it differs though. Mexican value certain things differently than a Japanese person would. But Japanese or Mexican is just a small thing when you start getting to know individual members of those societies. Because they vary. The high-quality individual is beloved in both societies. And the great qualities of each of those outstanding people enhance the
ethnic component of each of them.

I'm working with a choice between Trump and Biden. I'm resigned to the fact that those are my viable choices come November. I also won't be nearly as disappointed as you following election day.

Oh Blackjack21, I have voted since I was 18 years old in Puerto Rico. My first election in 1984. I voted for the PIP then. I voted here always with my conscience since then. Never voted Republican. Never voted Democrat if there was a socialist on the ballot competing. I was interviewed once exiting a poll in Denver in the late 1980'a and they were expecting me to say Republican or Democrat. I said, "I voted Socialist worker's party if they are not on the ballot I go with Ralph Nader of the Green party." What is your ethnic composition...Caucasian? I said no. It is Puerto Rican. Latin American. First language Spanish. Socialism forever. The reporter said they would run it. They did. The governor of Colorado at the time was Roy Romer, he was surprised. His liberal wishy washy statement was, "Well I guess we have all kinds of voters in this state. "Some socialist communist Puerto Rican women. We got almost everything." Looking a bit confused. That made me laugh my ass off. Lol. I don't care. To thine own self be true. One of my jobs was a community organizer and that included confronting Republicans and Democrats in the Colorado legislature who were not doing their political promise-keeping and making life uncomfortable for them. One senator told me, "You are a real pain in the neck. Insistent and consistent and also tons of information and confrontation. I should hire you for my campaign. What is your affiliation?" I told him and he said, "I hope those socialists never get a Puerto Rican woman in congress. You will meltdown that place with that style of yours." I smile because they did get one of us. AOC. Lol. And Fox News was never the same. Hee hee hee.



Watch "A Beautiful Mind" bar scene about John Nash, and what we call the Nash Equilibrium in game theory.



Blackjack, I watched that movie and quite liked it and watched it twice when it first came out. I found his mental illness very human and I felt he suffered. I liked how he coped with that challenge. He was a very intelligent man. But I think he is wrong about socialism. After all? Einstein was a socialist. We have a lot of great scientists in our political column Blackjack. John Nash's story is interesting. Did you see Hidden Figures? About the Black women scientists and mathematicians in NASA's space program? Like Katherine Johnson? NASA has a lot of Puerto Ricans in there. Like Lissette. The Rocket Scientist. Lol. From Puerto Rico.

Most of the Republican party doesn't have the stomach for a fight. They just want to be left alone to rule. Democrats fight tooth and nail about everything. Trump has truly driven them crazy, because he fights back. It's a tactic that's part of a larger strategy. You don't see it, and you've fallen into the same trap of the #NeverTrump crowd--style over substance. Trump's style isn't high style. It's low style. The working class loves it, but he also drives his political adversaries bananas with it.

No Blackjack. He got that fight back and punch back harder style from Roy Cohn. He modeled himself in his early career after that slimeball prosecutor. I don't agree. I am not about style BJ. I am about value systems. His are bad values and rotten values, nepotism, cronyism, superficiality, lack of ethics, pathological lying, and everything else. I don't see value in politicians as tools as you do. For me? Life is too short to waste it on sellouts and frauds and conmen and liars and selfish self-serving shit BJ. For you, he is a success? For me, he is a failed businessman with a bad character that should not be in charge of anything at all. He is awful. And won't save your Republic from slipping in position in the world. But that is the choice of people who think politics is about slime and lies, and shilling. See where it gets them? Nowhere.


He clearly had not intention of doing that, but he sure executed his fraud brilliantly. I'll give you that.

A society that so easily succumbs to fraud is in deep, deep trouble BJ. No crees?

Get back to the Nash Equilibrium, because it may be the only way for you to understand what I'm saying.

There are a lot of math formulas out there. You should ask @Potemkin what those are. Lol. Because there are those that go with Marxism quite well. Lol.


I'm not saying the paradigm is ideal by a long shot. I'm saying that's the nature of politics. Why did the Democrats and Republicans bail out big businesses and screw over small ones? It was in their collective interests. Did the Democrats stick up for the poor people? No. That ship has sailed. People who vote for the Democrats thinking they care about the working class are fools.

I do agree with this paragraph a lot.


Oh come on. What do you think of Petraeus coming out for renaming military forts, because some of them are named after Confederates, and we ostensibly should not name our forts after people we fought against? I think it's pure bullshit. The military names its weapons after its most formidable adversaries. That's why we have Tomahawk missiles, Apache helicopters, Black hawk helicopters, Lakota utility helicopters, etc. Virtue signaling is pathetic.

More pathetic is not emphasizing good humane values in political life and only rewarding ego and drama and lack of respect for the life experiences of all people within a nation that work and contribute and have a lot of history behind them and have a lot to give. Thinking that only one group is the right one? If for pathetic fools.


Part of that progressive mindset is that you believe your political goals are an inevitability, even when things are clearly going against you. If you want to delude yourself, go right ahead. I don't think the future is going to materialize that way. Take some time to watch this to see why:

It is inevitable because if humans don't start respecting each other and being worthy of trust and being better humans with better values besides shilling and sellout and profit or bust shitty values? You won't have a nation in powerful positions at all. They all go down the tubes BJ. Due to elitist abuses of power. Do you think those fools in positions of power don't abuse their privileges at the expense of the people? They sure do. If you continue to not hold them accountable and change that rotten value system that underlies everything in its path? The Republic is going down.




I guess you've never heard me argue for a $15 minimum wage in Mexico or China...

You can argue all you want to, but the powers that be aren't responding. Each nation has to pressure from the inside. It is the only way. Many as one. Otherwise, it is ineffective. The ones putting up big fights about raising minimum wages nationally are the Republicans BJ. The Democrata are bad too but the Repukes take the cake.


That's not what her politics are about. It does explain why she got red-pilled. That's what you're missing. Yet, she's one more person who isn't inevitably falling into line with some sort of Erich Fromm-based socialist state of love and universal happiness.

You never read Erich Fromm BJ. He is German and Jewish too and logical. He taught in Mexico and is about psychology. Very influential in that field. You don't read him but judge. A bad thing to do.


She's a different generation with a different life experience. Blacks do not have to vote as a bloc and do not owe any allegiance to the Democrat party. She's a generational personification of that realization.

You are avoiding the question. Is the Republican party going to be led by a Black woman nationalist and will the white Republicans feel comfortable with that? If it is not Candace it could be someone else? Yes or no? If the answer is no? Then you got your answer on why the Democrats are going to capture the majority of their votes. Even though they SUCK.


No. They aren't. You don't get 60M votes unless you got people who are not millionaires voting for you.

Yes, a lot of American voters are gonna wind up like the Mexicans who got sick of the two-party lock on the power that never did shit for them. You might think that an impossibility. But everything has its moment in history.


Right now, from coronavirus to George Floyd riots, the Democrats represent tyranny and anarchy. I don't think people are going to vote for that in November. I may be wrong. We'll see in 4 and a half months.

Who knows which two pathetic two-party group wins? It won't change you can believe in for sure. Until people learn from their political mistakes by bad experiences they will continue on with the merry-go-round of lack of intelligent analysis politics.


Yep. That's why Biden won even though his primary performances were abysmal.

I agree.


I lay it out for you in discrete terms, and you still revert to stereotypes, because ideology prevents you from seeing the world in any other way. I realized that I am not an egalitarian, and that if I was rejecting that element of Marx I also had to reject that element of Jefferson too. Ultimately, I'm a libertarian.

For me libertarians are just another form of individualism Republicanism and not a great change from the status quo Blackjack21.


Not important. He's a motivational speaker.

Why mention him if it is not important?


I don't waste my time on justification in any moral sense.

I noticed and I don't like your cynical ways a lot of times I don't like it. Cynical views are usually ineffective in my 'value' system. It keeps people from their potential.


The Republican party had been pushing for a civil rights act for 100 years. In fact, it was Everett Dirksen's legislation that ended up getting passed. It was Southern Democrats who opposed it. Who used military troops to force integration at Little Rock Central High School? Eisenhower. Not exactly a leftist.

That is completely false BJ. Neither the Democrats or the Republicans push the Civil Rights Act through because of the goodness of their hearts BJ. It doesn't work like that with establishment shit politics. Johnson was in the White House during freedom summer in 1962 when they had the testimony of a Southern Black woman describing how she was prevented from voting in Mississippi and why the victims of the police forces in that county did them in. All that change was about televised protests and constant political pressure from MLK, and everyone else keeping their eyes on the prize. The tolerance for that bullshit was at an end BJ. People had enough of that crap. And they had to pressure mightily. Eventually a lot of heads' were blown off in the sixties. Because you know change comes in human history if it is preceded by blood in large quantities. I studied enough history to know that the system is like a wild animal that is cornered by the pressure being exerted to change and it doesn't want change and so it strikes out or lashes out. And the blood runs. So in that era, you had heads rolling. MLK, Malcolm X, Kennedys, Medger Evers, and the list of the blown away if you study that era? Is fairly long. That is how you know? Change is coming. I am not saying all the assassinations were government-sponsored? But a lot was helped along. That is the nature of change with governments Blackjack21.


I'm not apologizing for anything. I'm saying the Democrats are always right there at the scene of the crime. Let's be honest about who's police forces are shooting black people. Let's be honest about what happened to black literacy after they were forced to integrate with white schools and white teachers.

Blackjack how did Blacks get to the USA? You know the answer. Were they afforded great educations by the system? The case of Brown vs The Board of Education was a landmark case of the SCOTUS. What were the arguments? The Tulsa Massacre of 1921 proved that Blacks could become prosperous. What was the response? So what is the message about separate but equal? You are not equal. Not under the law. You are less than. It becomes a problem. Do you want to go back to only white students in white schools? Asian students in Asian schools? Latinos in Latino schools? Black students in Black schools only? Separate and with equal opportunities and equal budgets and everything even-handed and so on. The Blacks in Oklahoma became successful despite the bad situations they faced after the American Civil War and lynchings. They succeeded. So? Why bomb them and burn their businesses down? Because they are supposed to follow the script BJ. Not excel and outperform the whites. They are supposed to be inferior. Is that the script you want to write for them? It is not? Then what is the solution? You tell me?


:roll: People are different.

I say that because difference seems to be a very troublesome reality for you to accept Blackjack. The difference does not mean hierarchy is written in stone, Chicken pecking orders, and so on. It doesn't mean that. It means that all variations of differences are there to complement life. To support life and respond to life's demands. Life demands adaptation to changing conditions. So the seed of change is that BJ. Humans vary to compliment the ability of a human being to adapt in time and survive. Period. Nature wants us to survive and it gives us the tools to do so. So the difference is not to be feared or negated at all. It is about accepting it and using it for all of us to make it into the future. That is my point Senor Relampaguito.


We are also unique. That's why we can use fingerprints, retinal scans and DNA to positively identify people. That's why one person may get sickle cell anemia, and another person does not.


No Blackjack. Sickle cell is about Africans having to adapt to malaria on the African continent that used to be a deadly thing. In order for many Africans to survive the rainy seasons that would bring out the malaria producing insects and the consequent fever and death? It created a mutation that helped them adapt. But if two parents had the same mutation? The child born with the sickle cell would have a deforming in the cell and it would cause pain. Your cells should flow easily through your arteries BJ. If they are shaped in a way that was originally helpful to ward off a virus that hijacked it to reproduce itself? It became deadly. Africans were adapting. Some other homo sapiens have other adaptations. You mentioned you had Neanderthal genetic material. They competed with the more modern homo sapiens and lost. They are extinct. Does that mean they have no purpose in your genes and you are inferior to the ones who don't have Neanderthal ancestry? No. It means there could be qualities in the Neanderthal genes you possess that might solve a genetic dilemma presented in the future. No one knows how it might help. It exists. That is reality. If I started speculating and putting socially constructed shit situations attached to it and saying you could be violent, your creativity and flexibility could be impeded...you could have x or z because of it? That is a problem. I hope you get that uniqueness is the strength of nature. Never repeat the same thing twice. Moving forward. Go through the instructions of previous life lived and arrive at the now....how to adapt? Respect that variation. And if you have to insist on sameness be aware of the why of it?

I detect a bit of frustration in this post with me Blackjack21.

It is the normal clash of the thought processes.

I got to go pick up the repaired car. I hope you reply. Quality of the proponent of political philosophy is very important. Good sound values, and good sound humanity. Good behavior and loving always. It convinces. Besides logic and empiricism. That is why Potemkin and I compliment each other a lot. A whole unit with differing styles. ;) ;)
#15099723
Tainari88 wrote:Is this is how you argue BJ? The reality is a society has ills and it has thrills and it has virtues and it has flaws. How does one govern the human species so that the basic needs are met? That is my pragmatic point of view Senor. How does one deal with that? I don't think a government can force someone to stop being fearful of gays or lesbians. Can't stop people from thinking that women are somehow not as qualified for some jobs even though they are. Can't stop people from being racist in their own minds and self-serving. But you can give them consequences for being that way and taking action if they violate another person's rights to life, to a living, peace and tranquility, and etc.

Consider today's government. In service to fighting the Wuhan coronavirus, governors unilaterally declared some people's livelihoods "non-essential." They violated their rights to make a living straight away. No popular vote. No vote of the legislature. They just did it. Not just in America either.

Tainari88 wrote:Make it a big problem and hard for them to practice that discrimination.

What if it enjoys popular support? Without Roe v. Wade, abortion would not be legal in all 50 states. Eugenic abortion is not popular among religious populations. This is why I question your dedication to democracy. The US Supreme Court defies democracy and makes up imaginary rights from nothing in service to an ideology. As we see in the case of the Wuhan coronavirus, governors can declare an emergency and further declare that some businesses are "non-essential". Doctors do not practice medicine by right. They practice it by license. As a matter of law, if a surgeon slices you with a scalpel it is a felony stabbing unless there is a license and agreements in place. So the constitution gives the government plenary authority to regulate commerce, except if a woman wants an abortion? I can't even go get a haircut right now. Tell me from a legal philosophy perspective how this makes sense? It doesn't. This generation of the establishment has failed, and failed miserably. People simply don't want to be ruled by them anymore.

Tainari88 wrote:I don't agree with conservative politics Senor because they never are the ones who protest injustice and lack of rights for people.

They peacefully protested lock-down orders and were called "racist" for it, as though race had anything to do with it. People protesting George Floyd's murder were called "peaceful" as they looted and burned businesses, police cars, etc. I simply do not accept the idea that the left is interested in "justice" anymore. That shipped sailed some time ago.

Tainari88 wrote:You keep arguing about how you think the pecking order of chickens and the hierarchy and the x and the y means that all human societies have to be a pecking order and it magically is?

No. Not magically. I'm saying leftist ideology abandons science when it no longer serves the left's purpose. Humans are animals--territorial animals. Humans are radically different during different stages of development. Babies cannot vote. Old people cannot prevail using force. Women can scarcely provide for themselves during late term pregnancy. See, if you want to argue from an irreligious perspective, love isn't anything more than one or more neurotransmitters such as oxytocin. It's just a biological mechanism.

Tainari88 wrote:You got Black Wall Street in Oklahoma and it is burned and bombed and no consequences for the Black owners and the Black owned businesses by white rioting murderers.

By white Democrat rioting murderers. See, you are painting with a very broad brush here. You are saying people are guilty by virtue of their skin color, not their actions. Who did this? What political ideology? Not conservatives. It was Democrats and their progressive, Eugenics ideology. Why do you keep whitewashing the history of the Democrat party? The Democrats were never conservative. It's like blaming white people for slavery. Most white people didn't have slaves. I don't mean 49% of white people had slaves. I mean like less than 5% of white people had slaves. The people who dominated in that hierarchy happened to be white, but it wasn't whiteness per se that made them slaveholders.

You got black-owned businesses in Minneapolis being looted and rioted by black and white "peaceful protesters," and there are no consequences. Who is in charge in these jurisdictions? Democrats. Yet, here you are ignoring that fact and painting with a very broad brush so you can libel the political faction you don't like with another political faction's crimes and dereliction of duties.

Then you get all these "woke" Hollywood types who go around saying, "I take responsibility." No. They don't. This isn't strictly a white vs. black issue. When you narrow it down to who is engaged in this oppression, you get some very highly statistically significant conclusions. The urban Democratic Party machine. It's right there, plain as day.

Tainari88 wrote:They can only feel good about themselves if someone or some group? In this case Black Americans are on their knees and never have true sharing of power and wealth. Never do they allow that.

I'm white. Do you hear me calling to outsource more jobs overseas? Do you hear me calling for more illegal immigration to depress black wages? No. Not at all. Yes. There are white people doing that. On the illegal immigration side, it is mostly Democrats. On trade, it is both parties, which is why I oppose them politically.

Tainari88 wrote:The Left is the one driving the forces of change. The Right is stagnant about those issues because they are the ones who are content with the status quo.

Quite frankly, you couldn't be more wrong, but it is because you want to view the world in a globalist sense. We don't have a global government. We have national governments, political subdivisions, local governments, etc. Who is opposing globalist wage depression and outsourcing? It's certainly not the left. Who's opposing open borders and wage depression from illegal aliens? It's certainly not the left.

Tainari88 wrote:The "Establishment" Encompsses them both. Time to give them the responsibilities of dealing with their inaction in eradicating the imbalances of power and representation.

It's not inaction. It's intentional.

Tainari88 wrote:Do they want a race war?

Maybe they do. I don't think they expected to be on the losing end of things though.

Tainari88 wrote:Even primates have fluid social orders.

We have stages of life. Everyone dies, so the people in the hierarchy always change. Even the nature of the hierarchy changes, but you pretty much always have a pecking order. That part remains.

Tainari88 wrote:That is a natural law. So what does that tell you?

It tells me that ideology will not prevail over nature.

Tainari88 wrote:Capitalism has laws saying 'turn a profit or shutter your business'. Make money or perish.

There is no legislature for these laws. They are called market forces for a reason. They are studied like physics. If price is lower than cost, the business shuts down whether the owner wants to or not. Just as if the airplane loses thrust, it loses lift and it crashes. It happens whether the pilot wants that to happen or not. Venezuela can keep running a state-oil company losing money, but eventually the country goes bankrupt. It's axiomatic.

Tainari88 wrote:It is not the perfect system of even-handedness and Fairplay.

Fraud, theft, impersonation, cheats--these are human behaviors. They aren't encoded in capitalism as such.

Tainari88 wrote:For you to sit here and write that it doesn't shape the grifters and the shills are mind-boggling to me.

I didn't say it doesn't shape such people, I'm saying capitalism doesn't create or endorse that behavior. Capitalism as pure ideology would preclude theft. See, if I were to borrow from the Marxian playbook, I would sit around arguing that what you're seeing isn't really pure capitalism, because pure capitalism has never been implemented anywhere. The apologists for socialism/communism play this game all the time.

Tainari88 wrote:I would not accept the 185k salary over what I make?

I said I would shit my pants, because it would be a big pay cut for me. I would have to leave my employment to become a congressman. Many congressman are lawyers, and their firms provide them income even though they are not practicing law. I would not be able to do something like that.

Tainari88 wrote:Your financial status is tied to capitalism. You have stocks, bonds, and you trade in Wall Street.

Anybody today who is not in rank poverty is tied to capitalism in one way or another.

Tainari88 wrote:It is part of capitalism BJ.

It is part of human behavior. It is part of dominance hierarchies. Capitalism itself doesn't want to preclude competition. Capitalism itself doesn't want to prevent newer more efficient, revolutionary technologies. Chickens aren't capitalists.

Tainari88 wrote:It is part of monopolies. An old story in capitalism. It has not gone away. Too big to fail in everything. It fails. Thus why the FDR New Deal stuff.

Monopolies predate capitalism. Letters patent, guilds, etc. were part of the medieval system too. FDR did not create the new deal because of monopolies. The New Deal was created to address a decline in aggregate demand while there was mass poverty--effectively killing two birds with one stone. By redistributing wealth to the poor--those with a high marginal propensity to consume--he addressed the nastier aspects of poverty while shifting the aggregate demand curve to the right.

Tainari88 wrote:But I won't accept things that are old and tried and devolve into exploitation. It won't function.

Exploitation functions. Just not in the way you would like it to.

Tainari88 wrote:You never read Erich Fromm BJ. He is German and Jewish too and logical. He taught in Mexico and is about psychology. Very influential in that field. You don't read him but judge. A bad thing to do.

It's been a long time. When I was in high school, we had a utopian literature class. We did read Fromm, Huxley, Orwell, BF Skinner, etc. Contrasting The Art of Loving and Beyond Freedom and Dignity was quite a debate for our fresh high schooler minds.

However, logic by itself is not the foundation of our civilization. Empiricism is important too. Have you ever downloaded a crappy app to your phone? Probably. It's 100% logic, but it's still crap. Did you read Natan Sharanksy's The Case for Democracy? I did. I was sucked into the neoconservative ideology in the early 2000s. The problem? The Palestinians elected Hamas, and Sharanksy became disillusioned by his own ideas. This happens with Jewish intellectuals more often than you think. It's the problem of oversimplification.

Tainari88 wrote:You are avoiding the question. Is the Republican party going to be led by a Black woman nationalist and will the white Republicans feel comfortable with that? If it is not Candace it could be someone else? Yes or no?

I don't think Candace Owens represents the nation, nor do I think that is her objective. I think her objective is to break the black voting bloc from always voting Democrat--getting blacks to vote their class rather than their race. So in a sense, she's like me--attacking the establishment, but with a very specific focus.

Tainari88 wrote:Yes, a lot of American voters are gonna wind up like the Mexicans who got sick of the two-party lock on the power that never did shit for them. You might think that an impossibility. But everything has its moment in history.

The difference in our viewpoints is that I think Donald Trump represents a rejection of the Washington establishment and you don't. They would not have come up with Russiagate, Ukrainegate, impeachment, and a myriad of other coup attempts if they really liked the guy. Trump is not their friend. He's not yours either, but that doesn't make him an establishment idol.

Think of all the neoconservative generals and retired generals who started hemming and hawing at Trump threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act and send Federal troops. Drlee and I have had this conversation that the establishment would easily put down any revolt. My position is that the US military cannot win against the American people, and now some are showing that they have no stomach for that fight. The establishment is scared now. They are running a senile establishment guy against their nemesis Trump. That's how perilous things are for them. If Trump wins again, they are in trouble as a political movement. However, they are in trouble even if Trump loses. They've allowed police precincts to close in multiple cities and have effectively ceded territory to anarchy. This is the stuff that was happening in Iraq and Syria not more than a few years ago, as ISIS came in and started claiming territory.

Tainari88 wrote:It won't change you can believe in for sure.

To preserve the status quo they are going to have to ditch some of their divisiveness, and I don't think that's going to happen without another Trump win. Either way, I think changes are afoot.

Coronavirus and the riots have shown many people a different path. I work at home, and I have for over a decade. To my portfolio manager friend, he wanted to get back into the city and was tired of working at home. As things are starting to open up, his mindset has changed. He represents an awakening of many white collar middle class workers who have proven that they can work from home--they don't need nearly as much high-priced class A office space. On the nastier side of things, mayors like Frey in Minneapolis and Lightfoot in Chicago literally withheld police protection from major businesses. A manufacturer, 7-Sigma, says they will not rebuild in Minneapolis. Walmart says they will not re-open in Chicago. What middle class white person wants to commute into a city with no police protection and pay exhorbitant rates for office space when they've demonstated that they can work from home? As that realization sinks in, a lot of people--myself included--are thinking about relocating to lower tax jurisdictions because location isn't as important as we once thought it was.

Do you know what coronavirus and the riots are doing to the treasuries of big cities? They are bankrupting themselves. Change is coming whether they like it or not.

Tainari88 wrote:Why mention him if it is not important?

It's just a retort to your ideas about me being racist in some sort of white supremacist neo-Nazi mindset, which is ludicrous.

Tainari88 wrote:No Blackjack. Sickle cell is about Africans having to adapt to malaria on the African continent that used to be a deadly thing. In order for many Africans to survive the rainy seasons that would bring out the malaria producing insects and the consequent fever and death? It created a mutation that helped them adapt. But if two parents had the same mutation? The child born with the sickle cell would have a deforming in the cell and it would cause pain. Your cells should flow easily through your arteries BJ. If they are shaped in a way that was originally helpful to ward off a virus that hijacked it to reproduce itself? It became deadly. Africans were adapting. Some other homo sapiens have other adaptations.

I don't need an explanation here. There is no chance I would get sickle cell anemia. I'm not black. However, it is an example of how certain genetic conditions may fall apparently along racial lines. This is why I pointed out to you that a 2-repeat allele of monoamine oxidase is associated with criminality, and it occurs in a very small but significant subset of the African population. Why would something like that evolve? We have to speculate, because universities won't touch that question with a mile long pole due to "woke" leftist politics that simply denies even very discrete differences that are traceable right down to one gene. I would say such a mutation exists to help people cope in geographies where people can only obtain a low amine diet, and they function better in such an environment by have a low rate of oxidizing monoamines. Yet, in an industrial society with plentiful food, obesity and high amine foods, people who oxidize monoamines slowly become irritable, aggressive and violent. In an extreme outlier case of MAOA gene deletion in a Dutch family, the people affected were extremely violent--would rape, attack the cops when getting arrested, etc. So we know one of the reasons for a stereotype of blacks being associated with high criminality, and it isn't simply bigotry on the part of non-black people.

Tainari88 wrote:You mentioned you had Neanderthal genetic material. They competed with the more modern homo sapiens and lost. They are extinct. Does that mean they have no purpose in your genes and you are inferior to the ones who don't have Neanderthal ancestry? No. It means there could be qualities in the Neanderthal genes you possess that might solve a genetic dilemma presented in the future.

Basically, humans that aren't sub-Saharan African tend to have some amount of Neanderthal DNA. Again, you have very clear genetic distinction that may serve as a clue to why anti-black racism seems to exist among non-black human populations everywhere.

Tainari88 wrote:If I started speculating and putting socially constructed shit situations attached to it and saying you could be violent, your creativity and flexibility could be impeded...you could have x or z because of it? That is a problem.

It's a problem if you have virtually no factual basis for your assertion.
#15099817
blackjack21 wrote:unfair competition from the communist dictatorship of China.

China is not Communist it is National Socialist or Nazi for short. China just simply does not have the same politco-economic system as the Soviet Union. It is a different system not only to the SU of Lenin and Stalin, but the SU of Brezhnev and Andropov. The Soviet Union remained fundamentally internationalist in its root ideology to the very end. Interestingly Hitler in his in final days regretted his failure to fully nationalise the economy, he seemed to be abandoning National Socialism for National Communism. This alone should be enough to put paid to the absurd attempts, by our modern day Hitler lovers to portray him as some great anti Communist fighter.

There were always elements of nationalism within the Chinese Communist Party, that differentiated it from the Bolsheviks / Russian Communist Party, however there was a decisive ideological break under Deng. China set off in a new direction. It ceased to be Internation Communist, with "special Chinese Characteristics" and became National Socialist.
#15100144
blackjack21 wrote:Consider today's government. In service to fighting the Wuhan coronavirus, governors unilaterally declared some people's livelihoods "non-essential." They violated their rights to make a living straight away. No popular vote. No vote of the legislature. They just did it. Not just in America either.

What is the excuse for the loss of personal freedom and the rights to work and make a living? It is a pandemic. People getting ill. Dying in more than normal numbers. The last one was the Spanish flu. Pandemics happen but it is not a common event. They are reporting they just had a new outbreak in China. Of CoronaVirus. What does one do? Natural disasters and viruses are part of living on this planet BJ. They have consequences. Governments are authoritarian structures that can be very abusive if misused. You have read enough anarchist theory to understand that right? But, the government is like having a planned schedule and rules and consequences in a household for everything. Some governments and households are too strict and have too many rules and take away harmony in the household and have household members up in arms about these rules...because they are about exercising authority excessively. All people need privacy and need space to think, and all people need to contribute to a household and help pay bills or at least wash dishes and mop and do laundry. If it all falls on just one person doing it all? that person gets pissed off with the rest of the family and there is a meeting, and re-negotiating going on. the government is not that different. But in the case of a pandemic, you are dealing with something a gov't has not dealt with in real-time for over a hundred years.

What if it enjoys popular support? Without Roe v. Wade, abortion would not be legal in all 50 states. Eugenic abortion is not popular among religious populations. This is why I question your dedication to democracy. The US Supreme Court defies democracy and makes up imaginary rights from nothing in service to an ideology. As we see in the case of the Wuhan coronavirus, governors can declare an emergency and further declare that some businesses are "non-essential". Doctors do not practice medicine by right. They practice it by license. As a matter of law, if a surgeon slices you with a scalpel it is a felony stabbing unless there are a license and agreements in place. So the constitution gives the government plenary authority to regulate commerce, except if a woman wants an abortion? I can't even go get a haircut right now. Tell me from a legal philosophy perspective how this makes sense? It doesn't. This generation of the establishment has failed and failed miserably. People simply don't want to be ruled by them anymore.

My sister is the attorney and I am not. I don't like legal mentalities in general BJ. But I know that they have to use some kind of legal argument to justify a law. Roe vs Wade was a legal decision. It stands because there was a movement about women's rights and it was fought Blackjack21 in the SCOTUS. The landmark decision was based on the idea that a woman has to bear the burden of pregnancy. And that is a medical issue and as such, she has a right to determine if she wants to go through the nine months of pregnancy and give birth to the baby or not, because it is her BODY and not the business of government to have the government determine when or how she should give birth about a new life. Most doctors felt that a woman can be in danger of losing her life by carrying a fetus full term. In history, many women have lost their lives in labor that went bad. The supreme court decided that the argument of individual and personal freedom of the mother was important. So they voted for legalizing abortion. It also placed conditions, such as before the third month of pregnancy, and made exceptions for later in the trimester pregnancies due to the life of the mother being in danger. women can get toxic shock syndrome and preeclampsia and so on...it is not as simple as it sounds giving birth to a baby.

So the law has its ways BJ. Forcing a teenage girl to have a baby she doesn't want to have? Because some religious people think it is a deadly sin is another matter entirely legally speaking.

For me? I am married, never been raped, had consensual sex as a responsible consenting adult. I also did not get pregnant for 27 years at all for reasons I have no damn idea about. But I was told I was old in my mid to late forties and had a bad chronic health condition that would not help the matter and that'my age and probability of having a child with birth defects, Down Syndrome, and or disabilities was high. They asked me to take a test and see if the babe would come out with a problem of that nature. I took the test. Before I got the results I made the decision of giving birth and taking the baby to full term because for me? All life has value BJ. I am not going to be killing my baby no matter what the FUCK the authorities in medicine or the suggestions of what is appropriate may believe. That was my personal decision. I adored my husband and wanted to be a mother and give him a child. And if that meant I was going to die in the process. SO BE IT. But that was my personal decision and my own personal circumstances and not the next woman's. I hate judging people without walking a mile in their moccasins and people who want to control the life decisions women living bad and unsupportive environments take? I disagree. I am not every woman either BJ. I am I. And I am I and my circumstances. My husband did not tell me what to do. He knew that was useless but he was scared shitless during the entire process. I gave birth to a beautiful healthy baby boy that weighed 7 pounds and 8 ounces, near the end of this month of June. He was the light of my life. And still is. to Imagine the idea of not letting him live? It is too much for me to even think about. I love LIFE. It goes with my character and my name. My parents named me correctly. I only wish I could have had another child or two. I loved being pregnant and I loved raising that baby. but Roe vs Wade is not about me only BJ. it is about how the law deals with individual rights versus socially responsible governance and women's health care issues too. It is a tough topic.

They peacefully protested lock-down orders and were called "
racist" for it, as though race had anything to do with it. People protesting George Floyd's murder were called "peaceful" as they looted and burned businesses, police cars, etc. I simply do not accept the idea that the left is interested in "justice" anymore. That shipped sailed some time ago.

I think there is a lot of frustration that the pandemic lockdown orders exacerbated for sure. But I won't let you paint the Left with a broad brush. No, BJ. The real left is not some wishy-washy neoliberals and liberals who believe in grifting and shilling and no action on justice. Those are sellout fucks. I don't identify with them. So as Toni Morrison speaks about it? Leave me out of it. I got to go cook and clean for my son here. So I am going to come back to answer the rest of your replies a bit later.

I am back from making breakfast and so on. Now where were we? Oh yes, have you listened to Martin Luther King's opinions on urban riots Blackjack? Here it is. When is the right going to stop thinking that leaving ethnic enclaves with the disadvantaged school system, too few high paying jobs and inferior quality infrastructure like leaky sewage systems and badly maintained public housing and moldy apartments infested with bedbugs and roaches and rats and drug dealing and desperate financial circumstances and it happens in a lot of neighborhoods populated by Blacks and Latinos and immigrant refugee communities all across this country. When are they going to stop blaming the victim and being assholes thinking if you are poor it is your own fault mentality? Who the hell wants to be poor and without power and without a way of making your life better? Who wants that? Black people? PLEASE. No one wants that. Find out what a community needs. As a community organizer, the job was sitting down in people's living rooms and asking them what they wanted out of life. Over and over again. And they were all living in school districts with low-income people as the majority. None of them said to me Blackjack, "I want more violence, more crime, more drugs, and more police arresting all of us at random." The vast majority again want action. They want teacher's aids in their kids' schools. They want to change. They want better-paying jobs, to learn English and affordable or free college educations for themselves and their children. They want opportunities to demonstrate they are responsible and trustworthy workers that are there for the long haul. They don't want low pay to the point of having to go to food banks forever to feed their families on two-week-old bread donated by Safeway stores when no one buys it. The Right has to stop making excuses for why it doesn't serve those people well or consistently BJ. And why they only serve big corporations over regular American citizens, irrespective of which ethnic background they belong to. Is that so mysterious? You don't know what the concerns are? Go out and talk to them then!


No. Not magically. I'm saying leftist ideology abandons science when it no longer serves the left's purpose. Humans are animals--territorial animals. Humans are radically different during different stages of development. Babies cannot vote. Old people cannot prevail using force. Women can scarcely provide for themselves during late-term pregnancy. See, if you want to argue from an irreligious perspective, love isn't anything more than one or more neurotransmitters such as oxytocin. It's just a biological mechanism.

Aha, Blackjack21 we have gotten to your true beliefs about humans. And it explains a lot. Finally. You are saying human beings are animals. Hmm. Yes, we are. But we are very interesting ones. Did you ever study Goodall's work in-depth? She had a male adult chimp named Goblin who was the son of Flo, a high ranking female leader in the Gombe reserve territory. Goblin was very attached to his mother, even as an adult male and her having other chimps. Jane Goodall observed them for decades. Flo was an excellent mother. Goblin found her dead and he was heartbroken and upset, and it was moving watching that son try to revive his dead mother. He eventually curled up near her and stopped eating and stopped drinking and died next to her. From heartbreak. Chimps are highly intelligent, sentient creatures and their attachments to each other and chinp society is such that they need to have a sense of connection to be happy. When are we going to respect our human relationships with a sense of compassion and respect? And stop seeing each other as a means to an end only? The Chimps have such a love and attachment with their family and their group as to suffer severe depression at a loss of a single member. They mourn the loss of a member deeply. They fight among each other and find joy when they find food and are hungry. They have very similar lives to us as humans. But our slight alteration in our DNA is about what we choose to do with our ability to make art and technology, use mathematics and science and build great projects and architecture not in isolation and with selfishness as the ultimate goal. But to be true to that need for connection that Goblin showed for Flo. To be the pinnacle of all that creative almost God-like endless beautiful projection of life, and our sensitive and connected ability to be attached to our most loved ones and our societies. Be the change we can be and should be. Manifest the best of us BJ. The Best of us is not grifting and shilling and being self-serving and false--but the opposite. Be the scientists, the artists, and the builders, and the innovators but with the love of our people and of each other like Goblin had for his mother in the Chimp reality. You get it blackjack21? You answered me about if you have ever been truly in love before. The answer you gave me was the paragraph above. No, you never have been. If you have? You would understand that that force is mightier than your attachments to this life. It all makes sense if you had felt it like I have or others who have been in love with that depth have been. You need that corazon Senor. It is not about romantic love only between a man and a woman that ends in sex and children. It is about all of the loved ones has in one's heart for all human beings. Read Fromm his explanation of what love is will be interesting to you. But? You should be spanked for not speaking Spanish in the state of California too....see how I tease you? ;)


By white Democrat rioting murderers. See, you are painting with a very broad brush here. You are saying people are guilty by virtue of their skin color, not their actions. Who did this? What political ideology? Not conservatives. It was Democrats and their progressive, Eugenics ideology. Why do you keep whitewashing the history of the Democrat party? The Democrats were never conservative. It's like blaming white people for slavery. Most white people didn't have slaves. I don't mean 49% of white people had slaves. I mean like less than 5% of white people had slaves. The people who dominated in that hierarchy happened to be white, but it wasn't whiteness per se that made them slaveholders.

Check out Bacon's rebellion BJ. Look at the Eastern Seaboard states were challenged. for economic and historical reasons. You see the true reason for racism's roots in the America's Blackjack21. Morrison's "A Mercy" book delves into that. It is a master work. As all of her books are. Here:



Cue it up at 3:18. See how they manipulated laws to keep their power and divide and conquer? There is the reason. It horrified the powers that be. She is right about that. There is your answer. And it is not just the liberals with sellout mentality in the Democratic party. It is the corporate Bush etc Republicans too.

You got black-owned businesses in MinneNow, we are dealing with history again. The 13 original colonies of the USA were founded by who and for what purpose? What were the original political and religious relationships of those colonizers and colonial people in the USA's early history. You did not view Toni Morrison's interview with the NYC public library interview til the end did you? She wrote a very great novel using that time in American history to depict how it might have panned out. And the why of it. She stated the idea of separate races was something new. Slavery was not. It was old in human history. Free labor and the need for it was great. Only a few people were wealthy enough to acquire slaves. And only white, property owning white men were allowed to vote. You are dealing with a specific framework in history BJ. So here is what she said about the Bacon Rebellion. It is about indentured white servants (similar in status to slaves) and slaves getting together to rebel against the landed gentry and the slaveowners. The pro English loyalists weren't doing what another group wanted them to do and so the Bacon Rebellion happened. The original agreements that were respected for half or more of a century between the European colonists and the Indian tribesapolis being looted and rioted by black and white "peaceful protesters," and there are no consequences. Who is in charge in these jurisdictions? Democrats. Yet, here you are ignoring that fact and painting with a very broad brush so you can libel the political faction you don't like with another political faction's crimes and dereliction of duties.

Then you get all these "woke" Hollywood types who go around saying, "I take responsibility." No. They don't. This isn't strictly a white vs. black issue. When you narrow it down to who is engaged in this oppression, you get some very highly statistically significant conclusions. The urban Democratic Party machine. It's right there, plain as day.


I'm white. Do you hear me calling to outsource more jobs overseas? Do you hear me calling for more illegal immigration to depress black wages? No. Not at all. Yes. There are white people doing that. On the illegal immigration side, it is mostly Democrats. On trade, it is both parties, which is why I oppose them politically.


Quite frankly, you couldn't be more wrong, but it is because you want to view the world in a globalist sense. We don't have a global government. We have national governments, political subdivisions, local governments, etc. Who is opposing globalist wage depression and outsourcing? It's certainly not the left. Who's opposing open borders and wage depression from illegal aliens? It's certainly not the left.


It's not inaction. It's intentional.


Maybe they do. I don't think they expected to be on the losing end of things though.


We have stages of life. Everyone dies, so the people in the hierarchy always change. Even the nature of the hierarchy changes, but you pretty much always have a pecking order. That part remains.


It tells me that ideology will not prevail over nature.


There is no legislature for these laws. They are called market forces for a reason. They are studied like physics. If price is lower than cost, the business shuts down whether the owner wants to or not. Just as if the airplane loses thrust, it loses lift and it crashes. It happens whether the pilot wants that to happen or not. Venezuela can keep running a state-oil company losing money, but eventually the country goes bankrupt. It's axiomatic.


Fraud, theft, impersonation, cheats--these are human behaviors. They aren't encoded in capitalism as such.


I didn't say it doesn't shape such people, I'm saying capitalism doesn't create or endorse that behavior. Capitalism as pure ideology would preclude theft. See, if I were to borrow from the Marxian playbook, I would sit around arguing that what you're seeing isn't really pure capitalism, because pure capitalism has never been implemented anywhere. The apologists for socialism/communism play this game all the time.


I said I would shit my pants, because it would be a big pay cut for me. I would have to leave my employment to become a congressman. Many congressman are lawyers, and their firms provide them income even though they are not practicing law. I would not be able to do something like that.


Anybody today who is not in rank poverty is tied to capitalism in one way or another.


It is part of human behavior. It is part of dominance hierarchies. Capitalism itself doesn't want to preclude competition. Capitalism itself doesn't want to prevent newer more efficient, revolutionary technologies. Chickens aren't capitalists.


Monopolies predate capitalism. Letters patent, guilds, etc. were part of the medieval system too. FDR did not create the new deal because of monopolies. The New Deal was created to address a decline in aggregate demand while there was mass poverty--effectively killing two birds with one stone. By redistributing wealth to the poor--those with a high marginal propensity to consume--he addressed the nastier aspects of poverty while shifting the aggregate demand curve to the right.


Exploitation functions. Just not in the way you would like it to.


It's been a long time. When I was in high school, we had a utopian literature class. We did read Fromm, Huxley, Orwell, BF Skinner, etc. Contrasting The Art of Loving and Beyond Freedom and Dignity was quite a debate for our fresh high schooler minds.

However, logic by itself is not the foundation of our civilization. Empiricism is important too. Have you ever downloaded a crappy app to your phone? Probably. It's 100% logic, but it's still crap. Did you read Natan Sharanksy's The Case for Democracy? I did. I was sucked into the neoconservative ideology in the early 2000s. The problem? The Palestinians elected Hamas, and Sharanksy became disillusioned by his own ideas. This happens with Jewish intellectuals more often than you think. It's the problem of oversimplification.


I don't think Candace Owens represents the nation, nor do I think that is her objective. I think her objective is to break the black voting bloc from always voting Democrat--getting blacks to vote their class rather than their race. So in a sense, she's like me--attacking the establishment, but with a very specific focus.


The difference in our viewpoints is that I think Donald Trump represents a rejection of the Washington establishment and you don't. They would not have come up with Russiagate, Ukrainegate, impeachment, and a myriad of other coup attempts if they really liked the guy. Trump is not their friend. He's not yours either, but that doesn't make him an establishment idol.

Think of all the neoconservative generals and retired generals who started hemming and hawing at Trump threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act and send Federal troops. Drlee and I have had this conversation that the establishment would easily put down any revolt. My position is that the US military cannot win against the American people, and now some are showing that they have no stomach for that fight. The establishment is scared now. They are running a senile establishment guy against their nemesis Trump. That's how perilous things are for them. If Trump wins again, they are in trouble as a political movement. However, they are in trouble even if Trump loses. They've allowed police precincts to close in multiple cities and have effectively ceded territory to anarchy. This is the stuff that was happening in Iraq and Syria not more than a few years ago, as ISIS came in and started claiming territory.


To preserve the status quo they are going to have to ditch some of their divisiveness, and I don't think that's going to happen without another Trump win. Either way, I think changes are afoot.

Coronavirus and the riots have shown many people a different path. I work at home, and I have for over a decade. To my portfolio manager friend, he wanted to get back into the city and was tired of working at home. As things are starting to open up, his mindset has changed. He represents an awakening of many white collar middle class workers who have proven that they can work from home--they don't need nearly as much high-priced class A office space. On the nastier side of things, mayors like Frey in Minneapolis and Lightfoot in Chicago literally withheld police protection from major businesses. A manufacturer, 7-Sigma, says they will not rebuild in Minneapolis. Walmart says they will not re-open in Chicago. What middle class white person wants to commute into a city with no police protection and pay exhorbitant rates for office space when they've demonstated that they can work from home? As that realization sinks in, a lot of people--myself included--are thinking about relocating to lower tax jurisdictions because location isn't as important as we once thought it was.

Do you know what coronavirus and the riots are doing to the treasuries of big cities? They are bankrupting themselves. Change is coming whether they like it or not.


It's just a retort to your ideas about me being racist in some sort of white supremacist neo-Nazi mindset, which is ludicrous.


I don't need an explanation here. There is no chance I would get sickle cell anemia. I'm not black. However, it is an example of how certain genetic conditions may fall apparently along racial lines. This is why I pointed out to you that a 2-repeat allele of monoamine oxidase is associated with criminality, and it occurs in a very small but significant subset of the African population. Why would something like that evolve? We have to speculate, because universities won't touch that question with a mile long pole due to "woke" leftist politics that simply denies even very discrete differences that are traceable right down to one gene. I would say such a mutation exists to help people cope in geographies where people can only obtain a low amine diet, and they function better in such an environment by have a low rate of oxidizing monoamines. Yet, in an industrial society with plentiful food, obesity and high amine foods, people who oxidize monoamines slowly become irritable, aggressive and violent. In an extreme outlier case of MAOA gene deletion in a Dutch family, the people affected were extremely violent--would rape, attack the cops when getting arrested, etc. So we know one of the reasons for a stereotype of blacks being associated with high criminality, and it isn't simply bigotry on the part of non-black people.


Basically, humans that aren't sub-Saharan African tend to have some amount of Neanderthal DNA. Again, you have very clear genetic distinction that may serve as a clue to why anti-black racism seems to exist among non-black human populations everywhere.


It's a problem if you have virtually no factual basis for your assertion.
Last edited by Tainari88 on 14 Jun 2020 19:02, edited 2 times in total.
#15100167
Tainari88 wrote:What is the excuse for the loss of personal freedom and the rights to work and make a living? It is a pandemic. People getting ill.

An interesting choice of words. It's an excuse for destroying the livelihoods of working class people. Remember a month ago when I said this would lead to violence? Here we are now...

Tainari88 wrote:But in the case of a pandemic, you are dealing with something a gov't has not dealt with in real-time for over a hundred years.

True, but 100 years ago the ruling class' reaction wasn't to destroy the livelihood of the working class and tell lies about masks, etc. because they had outsourced the medical supply chain to China.

Tainari88 wrote:women can get toxic shock syndrome and preeclampsia and so on...it is not as simple as it sounds giving birth to a baby.

I didn't say it was. In fact, it's why I do not labor under the illusion of egalitarianism.

Tainari88 wrote:I think there is a lot of frustration that the pandemic lockdown orders exacerbated for sure.

Oh I agree. That's why I don't think this really has all that much to do with George Floyd or police violence against blacks, anymore than I would say that Gavrilo Princip was responsible for starting WWI. For a lot of Democrats, political membership is more like a religious conviction than a series of policy positions and choices. Many people will not leave the Democratic party under any circumstances--slavery, segregation, police brutality, stealing elections, etc. They have no political independence whatsoever.

Ok Azuquita. I have friends coming over soon, so I will re-engage later. :D
#15100168
Rich wrote:China is not Communist it is National Socialist or Nazi for short. China just simply does not have the same politco-economic system as the Soviet Union. It is a different system not only to the SU of Lenin and Stalin, but the SU of Brezhnev and Andropov. The Soviet Union remained fundamentally internationalist in its root ideology to the very end. Interestingly Hitler in his in final days regretted his failure to fully nationalise the economy, he seemed to be abandoning National Socialism for National Communism. This alone should be enough to put paid to the absurd attempts, by our modern day Hitler lovers to portray him as some great anti Communist fighter.

There were always elements of nationalism within the Chinese Communist Party, that differentiated it from the Bolsheviks / Russian Communist Party, however there was a decisive ideological break under Deng. China set off in a new direction. It ceased to be Internation Communist, with "special Chinese Characteristics" and became National Socialist.

However, the Chinese Communist Party remains communist feeding off the socialism and capitalism of the nation of China including Hong Kong.
#15100176
Hindsite wrote:However, the Chinese Communist Party remains communist feeding off the socialism and capitalism of the nation of China including Hong Kong.


Wrong. By definition, a country that has a mixed system combining some aspects of Socialism and some aspects of Capitalism would not be a Communist country. The PRC is no longer Communist, it is now a primarily National Socialist blood and soil Ethnostate.
#15100180
blackjack21 wrote:An interesting choice of words. It's an excuse for destroying the livelihoods of working class people. Remember a month ago when I said this would lead to violence? Here we are now...


True, but 100 years ago the ruling class' reaction wasn't to destroy the livelihood of the working class and tell lies about masks, etc. because they had outsourced the medical supply chain to China.


I didn't say it was. In fact, it's why I do not labor under the illusion of egalitarianism.


Oh I agree. That's why I don't think this really has all that much to do with George Floyd or police violence against blacks, anymore than I would say that Gavrilo Princip was responsible for starting WWI. For a lot of Democrats, political membership is more like a religious conviction than a series of policy positions and choices. Many people will not leave the Democratic party under any circumstances--slavery, segregation, police brutality, stealing elections, etc. They have no political independence whatsoever.

Ok Azuquita. I have friends coming over soon, so I will re-engage later. :D


You don't give me time to respond to the first long Relampaguito fast and furious thing and then you go and re bomb me with this second one?

I got a child that wants to bake a cake and when I opened the cake box mix? Bugs in the Yucatan took over. I tossed it and he is upset. So I got to take a big ole pile of laundry to get washed and I got to go and get his cake mix and so on.

I ain't the fastest with your long posts. But I will get to all of it.

Then I wrote some great answers and it all disappeared. Frustration.

Regroup and come back later.
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

https://twitter.com/ForensicArchi/status/177308040[…]

Who needs a wall? We have all those land mines ju[…]

Puffer Fish, as a senior (and olde) member of this[…]

As someone that pays very close attention to Amer[…]