What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2020 Democratic Challengers: Who ISN'T Running At This Point?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers: Who ISN'T Running At This Point?

Gee IDK what could possibly be wrong with hysterically straw-manning reparations for 2 pages.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers: Who ISN'T Running At This Point?

The emoluments clause argument is such weak sauce.

That clause was written into the original constitution. By my count there were 27 Presidents elected (and subject to the emoluments clause) before the first tax return was even invented in this country. Even then we went another 60 years with no presidential tax returns disclosed, until someone leaked Nixon's.

Richard Painter agrees with me. FYI.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers: Who ISN'T Running At This Point?

Why are you guys all butthurt that we're not talking about the specifics of Booker's bill?

Someone linked to an article that said he recently introduced a bill. Fade asked a question about whether it involved issuing checks. dx posted he was opposed to the outright issuance of checks, and the rest of us proceeded to comment on that subject.

Is this the first time discussion on this board has gone off on a tangent different than the subject of the original post?

Uhhh, I responded to this
I dont care what Booker said if it has anything to do with Reparations...literally anything he is wrong.
by explaining that reparations /= cutting checks. Someone is butthurt, but I'm pretty sure you'd need a mirror to see who it is.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers: Who ISN'T Running At This Point?

Okay, the joke just writes itself here!

(clearly she's made an exception)

:D
Best post in the thread

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Don't be surprised at the reaction. It's a college hockey board. Hard to find a more insulated group of old flyover suburban whites this side of the RNC steering committee. :p

USCHO, January 1863: "Oh, sure, Lincoln. Just expropriate all of that hard-earned property. That'll go over well in the election. Haw, haw."

Nope. Sometimes they just laugh at you. And continue to laugh. And then laugh some more. Reparations are to the far left what "taxation= theft" is to the far right.
 
So "lead by example" is all BS in your view?

When it comes to "if you want to pay more taxes you can do so voluntarily"? Yes, that's a BS position.

I can hate the designated hitter while still being ok with the Cubs using it in interleague games.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers: Who ISN'T Running At This Point?

Nope. Sometimes they just laugh at you. And continue to laugh. And then laugh some more. Reparations are to the far left what "taxation= theft" is to the far right.

Taxation = theft has worked for 40 years to the tune of 23 trillion dollars. I don't think that comparison works.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers: Who ISN'T Running At This Point?

Nope. Sometimes they just laugh at you. And continue to laugh. And then laugh some more. Reparations are to the far left what "taxation= theft" is to the far right.

Consider this: whereas generally people here (the 95% of non-idiots, anyway) are pretty good about debating and considering alternate ideas, there is one which literally even the mention of sets most of the board into a caterwauling fit of fist-clenched, crying, closed eyed butt hurt.

Why would that be on this particular idea? What is so threatening about it?

It's not the opposition that's interesting, it's the mode of opposition: scalded infant screeching.

This has the power to reduce most of the otherwise intelligent people here to Rover's insecure, bullying affect. That's interesting. It quite literally hits a nerve. What does that tell us, and what is that nerve, precisely? I don't think it's the money -- most people here are smarter and more ethical than conservatives. It's something way more fundamental.

Stumble across a thing that makes rational people irrational with rage and you've found an unspoken assumption. Examine that assumption and see what defenses it has deployed around it to prevent it from being brought into the open air. You may have found something you weren't supposed to.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers: Who ISN'T Running At This Point?

Please point out where "scalded infant screeching" and "a caterwauling fit of fist-clenched, crying, close-eyed butthurt" occurred while discussing the idea of reparations?

No one here went full Old Pio/Foxton over the last few pages. I think you're projecting.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers: Who ISN'T Running At This Point?

It's an issue corporate media, especially the right wing outlets, have poisoned the well on so much that it's almost impossible to have a serious discussion on (with the [mostly white] people who get their information from those outlets). People just go straight to their heuristics and Chappelle Show references the moment the word is even brought up. It also makes for the perfect gotcha question for CNN's purposes too because they know wishy washy liberal politicians who have zero specific policies can't just immediately **** on it and at best will hem and haw their way through an answer.
Please point out where "scalded infant screeching" and "a caterwauling fit of fist-clenched, crying, close-eyed butthurt" occurred while discussing the idea of reparations?
There were a few who went full derp and refused to even look at the specifics of what was an incredibly moderate income based proposal.
 
an incredibly moderate income based proposal.

Dude...dead loser issue. Any vote for this will Force one to move to south central if they hold any hope for re-election.
Even AOC base in the Bronx will run from this and complain that Latinos were never made slaves!!!!

Continually amazing how so many here think they live somewhere else other than America on earth :p
 
Consider this: whereas generally people here (the 95% of non-idiots, anyway) are pretty good about debating and considering alternate ideas, there is one which literally even the mention of sets most of the board into a caterwauling fit of fist-clenched, crying, closed eyed butt hurt.

Why would that be on this particular idea? What is so threatening about it?

It's not the opposition that's interesting, it's the mode of opposition: scalded infant screeching.

This has the power to reduce most of the otherwise intelligent people here to Rover's insecure, bullying affect. That's interesting. It quite literally hits a nerve. What does that tell us, and what is that nerve, precisely? I don't think it's the money -- most people here are smarter and more ethical than conservatives. It's something way more fundamental.

Stumble across a thing that makes rational people irrational with rage and you've found an unspoken assumption. Examine that assumption and see what defenses it has deployed around it to prevent it from being brought into the open air. You may have found something you weren't supposed to.
When they say it’s not about the money, it’s always about the money.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers: Who ISN'T Running At This Point?

When they say it’s not about the money, it’s always about the money.

There's a lot of truth to this but I think it's about their self-image as good liberals. It's exactly like Civil Rights Era white people who got all Guess Who's Coming to Dinner harumpf harumpf later when it came to bussing, intermarriage, or affirmative action. When it becomes the least bit alien or uncomfortable all of a sudden the fires of Righteousness in defense of Good die down and they hide under the huge legs of "caution" and "prudence," and peep about, seeking rigorous focus group testing.

"By Any Means Necessary!

Unless it upsets my wittle tummy."

Their "egalitarianism" is still ladling out gifts from a position of privilege while cocking the ear to hear "thanka massa oh thanka."

At least conservative racism is honest in its snarling, rock stupid bigotry.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers: Who ISN'T Running At This Point?

I don’t think those words mean what you think they mean. .
I think they do, what he proposed isn't exactly radical despite what a few blowhards on here said about their strawman version of reparations.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers: Who ISN'T Running At This Point?

I think they do, what he proposed isn't exactly radical despite what a few blowhards on here said about their strawman version of reparations.

My bet is not a single one of the critics has read it. They hear the R word, their eyes roll into the back of their heads, and they start screaming "UNCLEAN, UNCLEAN!!!!"

Here's the entire text of the House equivalent bill. It takes five minutes to read. Ten if you're from the Midwest. If you're from the South get somebody to read it to you.

Here's the meat:

SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT AND DUTIES.

(a) Establishment.—There is established the Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the “Commission”).

(b) Duties.—The Commission shall perform the following duties:

(1) Identify, compile and synthesize the relevant corpus of evidentiary documentation of the institution of slavery which existed within the United States and the colonies that became the United States from 1619 through 1865. The Commission’s documentation and examination shall include but not be limited to the facts related to—

(A) the capture and procurement of Africans;

(B) the transport of Africans to the United States and the colonies that became the United States for the purpose of enslavement, including their treatment during transport;

(C) the sale and acquisition of Africans as chattel property in interstate and intrastate commerce;

(D) the treatment of African slaves in the colonies and the United States, including the deprivation of their freedom, exploitation of their labor, and destruction of their culture, language, religion, and families; and

(E) the extensive denial of humanity, sexual abuse and the chatellization of persons.

(2) The role which the Federal and State governments of the United States supported the institution of slavery in constitutional and statutory provisions, including the extent to which such governments prevented, opposed, or restricted efforts of formerly enslaved Africans and their descendants to repatriate to their homeland.

(3) The Federal and State laws that discriminated against formerly enslaved Africans and their descendants who were deemed United States citizens from 1868 to the present.

(4) The other forms of discrimination in the public and private sectors against freed African slaves and their descendants who were deemed United States citizens from 1868 to the present, including redlining, educational funding discrepancies, and predatory financial practices.

(5) The lingering negative effects of the institution of slavery and the matters described in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) on living African-Americans and on society in the United States.

(6) Recommend appropriate ways to educate the American public of the Commission’s findings.

(7) Recommend appropriate remedies in consideration of the Commission’s findings on the matters described in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6). In making such recommendations, the Commission shall address among other issues, the following questions:

(A) How such recommendations comport with international standards of remedy for wrongs and injuries caused by the State, that include full reparations and special measures, as understood by various relevant international protocols, laws, and findings.

(B) How the Government of the United States will offer a formal apology on behalf of the people of the United States for the perpetration of gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity on African slaves and their descendants.

(C) How Federal laws and policies that continue to disproportionately and negatively affect African-Americans as a group, and those that perpetuate the lingering effects, materially and psycho-social, can be eliminated.

(D) How the injuries resulting from matters described in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) can be reversed and provide appropriate policies, programs, projects and recommendations for the purpose of reversing the injuries.

(E) How, in consideration of the Commission’s findings, any form of compensation to the descendants of enslaved African is calculated.

(F) What form of compensation should be awarded, through what instrumentalities and who should be eligible for such compensation.

(G) How, in consideration of the Commission’s findings, any other forms of rehabilitation or restitution to African descendants is warranted and what the form and scope of those measures should take.

(c) Report To Congress.—The Commission shall submit a written report of its findings and recommendations to the Congress not later than the date which is one year after the date of the first meeting of the Commission held pursuant to section 4(c).

Note that all the silly strawman bullsh-t in the comments about "well, my granpappy always done said the nicest thinks about those n-g, er, blacks so I'm exempt!!!" missed the entire point. Reparations would be paid not from individuals but from the US government to slave descendants. American governments have paid reparations to, among others:

+ Native Americans
+ Japanese interred during WW2
+ "Unfit" people who underwent forced sterilization
+ Victims of the Tuskegee experiments
+ Victims of the 1923 Rosewood race riot

You know... people we f-cked over. Like slaves.

Did your granpappy do any of those atrocities? No? You still paid. For that matter, the victims themselves paid, cuz that's how this mysterious thing the seers call "government" works.

In addition, reparations have been paid in other countries to families and descendants of Holocaust and Apartheid victims, so, yeah, you can even do it when the numbers are enormous (as if that was any reason not to do it?).

So,

(1) it's not a dumb idea on the face of it indeed it has been done before

(2) the bill itself anticipates all the difficulties you think are disqualifying, which is silly because that is like saying OH YOU'RE STUDYING GOING TO THE MOON BUT THAT'S HARD IT WILL NEVER WORK SEE, I CAN'T EVEN FIGURE IT OUT RIGHT HERE WITH 4 MINUTES OF THOUGHT!!!

(3) put on a new pair of undies and at least let it be studied, otherwise you're the GOP banning studying of gun violence cuz you don't want to know the answers.

And. Scene.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers: Who ISN'T Running At This Point?

My bet is not a single one of the critics has read it.
Well at least one of them admitted it so props to him for being honest :D. At least that's better than the disingenuous people who act like all they care about is "electability" when in reality they just have different politics and "purity tests".
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers: Who ISN'T Running At This Point?

There's a lot of truth to this but I think it's about their self-image as good liberals. It's exactly like Civil Rights Era white people who got all Guess Who's Coming to Dinner harumpf harumpf later when it came to bussing, intermarriage, or affirmative action. When it becomes the least bit alien or uncomfortable all of a sudden the fires of Righteousness in defense of Good die down and we should be "cautious" and use "prudence."

At the end of the day their "egalitarianism" still ladling out gifts from a position of privilege. At least conservatives are sincere and honest in their racism.

See I don't even think it's all about racism. I'm sure for some people it is, but certainly not everyone for whom the word "reparations" is toxic.

Talking about righting wrongs is one thing, and most reasonable people don't oppose righting a wrong, at least in principle. And we can ignore the practical problems that exist like proving who is entitled to reparations, and at what level, financing, etc...

The reason an overwhelming majority of people of all political persuasions blanche at the subject of reparations is that when you talk about it, what they hear is people who didn't commit a wrong being asked to pay reparations to people who didn't suffer the wrong. Furthermore, and this is where it really gets dark for people, especially on the left, is that they understand deep down in their hearts that regardless of how horrible the American Slave Trade event was (and it was horrible), at the end of the day those that survived it and their descendants are substantially better off than they would have been if left in Africa. The US can be a terribly racist country, but in spite of that racism, the standard of living, education, financial wealth and general health of african descendants in this country is significantly better than those in the african countries from whence they came.

Their ancestors paid a horrible price for that, and if they were still around I don't know that we could identify reparations sufficient to right that wrong. But they aren't.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers: Who ISN'T Running At This Point?

While I don't think (other than a small handful of people like pokechecker and Frauddy) anyone here is overtly racist it's kinda telling that people went full derp when they saw the word "reparations" and didn't even bother to look at what Booker proposed. And you can claim we're having a separate conversation from that but it wasn't exactly a productive one when people are just spouting off nonsense about some reparations strawman that literally nobody proposed.
The US can be a terribly racist country, but in spite of that racism, the standard of living, education, financial wealth and general health of african descendants in this country is significantly better than those in the african countries from whence they came.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAA yeah geeeee I wonder why that could be :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top