Tainari88 wrote:Unlike you I am not stuck on a two-party system to explain away (it is the liberals fault) systemic racism.
I'm not stuck on a two party system. I'm registered independent. My point is that the welfare state party is primarily the Democrats, and secondarily the Republicans.
Tainari88 wrote:i see that capitalism controls both parties. That the corporations donate to both parties. That both parties have nearly identical value systems.
From a Marxist perspective, perhaps. Yet, we don't see nearly the degree of political correctness, speech and thought police, etc. from the Republican party, whereas it appears to be a cornerstone of the Democrats.
Tainari88 wrote:Bernie can't take over the Democratic party because he is not sold out enough for the banks and the corporations.
Well, the other plausible theory for Sanders is that he doesn't win because he is sold out to the banks and corporations--i.e., his political role is to fail.
Tainari88 wrote:You can argue over many things but the core of both parties are lobbyists, special interests and corporations and market driven neoliberal agendas and that is why both parties are horrible. Why are you upset BJ with the Republicans? You wanted them to be loyal to the USA first. Not to be shipping good working class jobs to China, that makes China able to manipulate internally USA trade policies. Why do these people do this thing of being not good nationalists? Globalists are multinational internationalist capitalists who don't owe loyalty to preserving the integrity of nationalistic interests. They don't have that loyalty. At all. So the ones corrupting both parties who are running in and out of each other's rotten little value system club is based on expanding globalist capitalist short term goals of making a fast buck over what is best for national interests of the USA's social fabric over time. This is obvious. Let me bring in a good example to show you?
You don't need to, because you just made my case for me. That's why I'm a civic nationalist. It's absurd that a country like the United States does not make antibiotics. It's frankly bewildering, and it took the Wuhan Coronavirus to illustrate that point to the public at large. The media barely touches that sort of thing, because they are funded by the globalists too.
Tainari88 wrote:The institutions are set up to obey capitalism and neoliberal forms of government.
Well, I would start to disagree that classical liberals and neoliberals are the same thing. Neoliberals purport to be cosmopolitan, and eschew nationalism. That's a big problem with post-modernism--the world we live in depends on modernism. Corporations are chartered by states, not the other way around.
Tainari88 wrote:The liberals are not socialists BJ. They are pro capitalism and even Elizabeth Warren says this.
However, they do oppose fundamental rights like freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religions, the right to keep and bear arms and so forth. So they are neoliberal, not classical liberal by any stretch of the imagination.
Tainari88 wrote:The liberals are not socialists BJ. They are pro capitalism and even Elizabeth Warren says this.
That's a goal of the neoliberals. It's hard to brainwash well-informed people. Yet, there are plenty of people easily fooled by ridiculous theories like Russiagate now, because people are conditioned what to think and not how to think.
Tainari88 wrote:Most people pay cursory attention to any detail like who wrote a crime bill in 1994 that started mass incarceration.
Right, and that's why people literally vote for the people they are protesting.
Tainari88 wrote:We are the party that is more about civil rights than the Republican party.
Yet, they aren't. Barry Goldwater notwithstanding, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was Republican legislation, Everett Dirksen to put a finer point on it.
Tainari88 wrote:Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is a total elitist liberal who loves her highly paid position in the Democratic party shilling for pro-capitalism corporations. She is black.
She is a Jew.
Tainari88 wrote:Condi Rice is the conservative version of Wasserman Shultz but has to get more rejection from the Black community who sees her as a wanna-be white in values.
She is the neoconservative version.
Tainari88 wrote:The welfare state was proposed by FDR and it was either that or some Commies and socialists creating trouble for the JP Morgans and Carnegies and Duponts and Vanderbilts and Rothchilds Blackjack21.
Indeed. They redistributed middle class wealth to the underclass to stimulate aggregate demand, and got wealthier by purporting to help the poor. Now they get wealthier by exploiting illegal aliens and pushing free trade policies and accusing anyone who disagrees with them as "racist."
Tainari88 wrote:Why do they still use white supremacist codes in the insular cases
Explain what you mean here. Polemics and legal analysis don't always mix well.
Tainari88 wrote:From the 1600s up until the end of the Civil War African Americans were denied even to be considered human beings.
Oh boy. You're not another victim of the 3/5ths Compromise meme that says whites considered blacks to be only 3/5ths human are you?
Tainari88 wrote:They were property according to the law of the land.
Yes. So were women and children.
Tainari88 wrote:Including burning down the communities with the most middle class and above black communities in them. They never arrested or tried anyone for the crimes. Ever. Why?
Because the people in power were the ones doing it: Democrats. Why are there so few arrests with the current rioters? It's because the Democrats ginned up the riots themselves.
Tainari88 wrote:Now you got less 55 years of civil rights that were built up and also torn down by those conservative people like Reagan and Bush I and II and other beacons of equality from the Republican party and the fake liberal two-faced liberal types like Superpredator throw them in jail Clintons.
What civil rights do you think Reagan or the Bushes opposed? I think George H.W. Bush was also opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when he was a congressman because he thought it was unconstitutional.
Tainari88 wrote:When I lived in Puerto Rico I could vote locally in Puerto Rican elections, but the President of the USA held ultimate power on what happens in Puerto Rico in all ways. But I have no way of checking that as a voter. It is a one-way street. That is unconstitutional.
Well, that's what the Insular Decisions were all about--the debate over whether the US could hold territory as sovereign. It's not unconstitutional as such, but it is contradictory to the founding principles of the United States. I will give you that.
Tainari88 wrote:Jamestown was about immigrants not Natives BJ. Trade with England and Europe was its reason for existing. It is based on capitalism.
Well, a sort of proto-capitalism, mercantilism.
Tainari88 wrote:You can't go back in time to isolationist trade policy.
Sure you can. In many respects, the Wuhan Coronavirus shows you can go back in time in terms of global travel for example. You can literally shut it off for 98% of the people, and life goes on.
Tainari88 wrote:Hell, most restaurants in LA, San Fran, etc can't operate without Latino immigrants.
That's because illegal aliens can't get welfare, and legal aliens don't want to remain underclass. Welfare is a trap. It makes people dependent on the state. Why? So they won't overthrow it. They won't bite the hand that feeds them.
Tainari88 wrote:The reason they can't stop that tide is that the economy is based on that kind of exploitation. They have to interfere or they will lose their grip on power, wealth, and profit.
They can stop it. They choose not to. The US didn't always have this issue. The establishment just figured out a new game. It is deeply cynical. If you oppose exploitation, they call YOU "racist."
Tainari88 wrote:But I guessed your nationalism is so important to you that these lower class people from outside the USA you dismiss as unimportant. They never were. In sheer numbers, they are the backbone of the wealth of the USA. They always have been.
From around 1920 to around 1965, the US did not allow much immigration at all. Why? Too many socialists were coming to the US, and Wilson feared revolution. They should be getting fearful of that now.
Tainari88 wrote:They were going to tax Wall street trading to the tune of billions or trillions of bucks.
That's a European proposal, because Europeans cheat on their taxes too. That's why they have VAT as well. The problem with VAT is that it favors vertical integration, which can be inefficient.
Tainari88 wrote:Trump is an erratic mess of a person. I don't give a single credit to his ethics.
I think Trump is a pussycat that just talks tough. He didn't fire Sally Yates until she was insubordinate. I would have fired her on day one.
Tainari88 wrote:But he is not a classic neoliberal with smooth rhetoric.
That's a big part of why people like him.
Tainari88 wrote:But Trump is a failed businessman with horrific administration skills and a lack of responsibility with ideas of total authority. He is a failure BJ.
Is that what you think? Or is that what you want me to think? Trump has made quite a bit of money in real estate and in the entertainment business. His TV show, The Apprentice, was making him $50M a year. You may consider that a failure, but when you make more in a year than most people will make in their entire lives, it's reasonable to accede to their success. Almost every entrepreneur has tasted business failure. I certainly have. It sucks. However, I don't consider myself a failure in general because I failed a few times.
Tainari88 wrote:But he is a threat to the status quo by sheer inconsistency and incompetence.
Which I think is a good thing.
Tainari88 wrote:I don't know if he is capable of engaging in wars and sacrificing American soldiers for profit for himself.
Why does this worry you about Trump when Obama and Bush demonstrated far, far worse behavior? I mean, it's not even close.
Tainari88 wrote:He is so low life he might do it. I don't trust that fuck racist man.
Well, in general, you should not put your trust in politicians of any stripe--especially the ones you agree with. You should try to understand what motivates them. I think at a gut level, Trump personally feels disgust with violence. He's far more circumspect about the use of military force than Obama or Bush. Think about Trump's nixed retaliation for Iran shooting down a drone. He decided it was not a proportionate response. When is the last time you heard a president of the US cancelling a retaliation, because he thought it wasn't proportionate? It's frankly unheard of. Yet, that's what Trump did. That suggests that he does have more ethics than you give him credit for. Again, I'm not saying you should like Trump, but you should try to be a bit more fair in your assessment.
Tainari88 wrote:BJ, Irish immigrants did not get dragged over in chains in smelly ships were a percentage of them committed suicide via throwing themselves overboard and working for free for centuries and Irish women being raped systemically and forced to have their babies and children sold off like calves in front of their eyes, to be from 1600s up until the end of Jim Crow being lynched by the thousands and terrorized by an organization like the KKK and being portrayed as subhumans and property in many ways.
Most people wouldn't consider the early experience of the Irish in the US "white privilege." Do you know that some Irish revolted against the US in the Mexican-American War? Saint Patrick's Battalion
. They fought with Catholics against Protestants.
However, the Irish were enslaved--not in the US--in the West Indies.
Tainari88 wrote:The Irish came here to avoid the potato famine in the 1840s
My grandmother came in 1919.
Tainari88 wrote:and many became slave owners in the South along with the Scottish who invented Southern Fried Chicken.
Many meaning more than one. However, most Southerners were not slave owners. Very few people could afford to own slaves.
Tainari88 wrote:Thus the reason so many African Americans have Scottish and Irish last names and bloodlines. My son's DNA was tested he has Scottish blood from Mississippi. Some long-ago ancestors raped a slave woman and he got it from them.
Many of them are Welsh surnames. A good number of blacks have my surname, which is English but more specifically Cambro-Norman or considered Welsh also.
Tainari88 wrote:The Irish are in Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Spain and South America, Central America, they are everywhere. Why? Poverty and escaping the English Empire wanting to take Ireland and get their territories. It is an old failed story BJ. Empire and cruelty and greed doesn't spell good things for people in the lower classes in any nation in any part of the world. Period.
Precisely, which is why so many people are offended by the notion of "white privilege."
"Unlike the African-American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly different attitudes about different things. "
-- Joe Biden