American Politics Discussion Thread

[GeneralKilCavalry]

Lets be honest. Immigration is not about resources. Republicans just like Democrats can somehow always find resources and justify spending for their own projects. Republicans are just better at PR about the deficit (btw I hate them both for this; many countries have fallen by thinking their resources are limitless). Immigration debate is really about fear. Fear of the them, fear of the other, fear of change. We are actually probably living in an enlightened age that we can even get 1 party to advocate for people only trying to make a better life for themselves

An outsider's point of view:

In this enlightened age, white(-dominated) societies are trying to use education (aka indoctrination) to reverse one of the deepest natural instincts. The rest of the world, while generally friendly to tourist and guests, continues to harbour emnity for other ethnicities and races as they have for millennia.

It cannot be denied that the white peoples' experiment of antiracism is fascinating, but otherwise the rest of the world does not care.

This statement is historically illiterate. The Middle East under Muslim rule from 700-1200 was extremely tolerant, there’s countless examples of multi-ethnic societies operating fine for centuries. Racism as tool of exploitation has largely been the purview of western societies. Ethnic conflict and strife isn’t nearly the same as the massive experiments in racial segregation, racial slavery, and total genocide. 

And when you say “the rest of the world”, that is based on what, your post-collapse perspective in an eastern bloc state? The Soviet Union managed to prevent the ethnic struggle that plagues the Caucuses now. Ethnic nationalism and racism are western inventions that are wholly different from the developmental patterns of other nations. India, until nadendra modi has maintained a multi-ethnic nation like no other with civil strife limited to religious rather than ethnic lines. 

I honestly think this Fascistic and Hobbesian argument of survival of the fittest has no place in the modern world, and it is correct that we eradicate all traces of racism in our lives.

[ipecac]

This statement is historically illiterate. The Middle East under Muslim rule from 700-1200 was extremely tolerant, there’s countless examples of multi-ethnic societies operating fine for centuries.

Yes, empires can be reasonably tolerant and multi-ethnic, look at the Roman empire. That tends to happen only after massive conquering and slaughtering that puts one (or a few) ethnicity on top, and the peace is only held together by the threat of force (that never lasts).

Ethnic conflict and strife isn’t nearly the same as the massive experiments in racial segregation, racial slavery, and total genocide. 

...India, until nadendra modi has maintained a multi-ethnic nation like no other with civil strife limited to religious rather than ethnic lines. 

India, famous for its racial segregation and caste system? You need better examples.

Ethnic nationalism and racism are western inventions that are wholly different from the developmental patterns of other nations.

All true about the ideas, as is the idea of antiracism which is wholly western. The rest of the world don't need the 'idea' of racism, they simply are racist and nationalist (eg. WW2 era Japan or contemporary China vs India) without needing a grand ideology or some taboo book.

and it is correct that we eradicate all traces of racism in our lives.

It is the greatest experiment in human nature, let's see how things turn out.

[suboptimal]

Just read that the senate only convene mid October due to Covid-19. Am I right in that if for example 4 republican senators are ill and can't participate on the vote for the supreme court, then the Republicans can't confirm the nominee?

This is correct, IIRC.  Senators can only cast votes from the floor of the Senate; there is no remote voting.  If they held the vote and they can't participate then the Dems would have the majority (the Senate is currently 53-47, though 2 of the 45 are "independents that caucus with the Democrats").  However, two GOP senators (Murkowski and Collins) have stated they don't want to vote on a nominee before the electrion. Depending on whether or not the GOP would/could convince them otherwise the GOP might only be able to afford two senators out on illness to get the vote to stick.

[GeneralKilCavalry]

This statement is historically illiterate. The Middle East under Muslim rule from 700-1200 was extremely tolerant, there’s countless examples of multi-ethnic societies operating fine for centuries.

Yes, empires can be reasonably tolerant and multi-ethnic, look at the Roman empire. That tends to happen only after massive conquering and slaughtering that puts one (or a few) ethnicity on top, and the peace is only held together by the threat of force (that never lasts).

Ethnic conflict and strife isn’t nearly the same as the massive experiments in racial segregation, racial slavery, and total genocide. 

...India, until nadendra modi has maintained a multi-ethnic nation like no other with civil strife limited to religious rather than ethnic lines. 

India, famous for its racial segregation and caste system? You need better examples.

Ethnic nationalism and racism are western inventions

All true, as is the idea of antiracism which is wholly western. The rest of the world don't need the 'idea' of racism, they simply are racist and nationalist (eg. WW2 era Japan or contemporary China) without needing a grand ideology or some taboo book.

and it is correct that we eradicate all traces of racism in our lives.

It is the greatest experiment in human nature, let's see how things turn out.

Again, my point is that ethnic conflict is not the same as racism. The creation of a class system based on entirely on artificial racial constructs (look at the spanish system of racial constructs in latin america, or the one drop rule in the us) is a western invention.

The caste system in india has little to do with ethnicity. And modern india, the one created by Nehru is at its core a state which has managed to include hundreds of ethnicities. India is plagued by religious conflicts, muslims vs. hindus. The prime example of ethnic conflict in India is in assam, but in a state of hundreds of ethnicities, it is surprisingly low. Just look at how things have broken down in Ukraine over the banning of Russian  - these kinds of conflicits haven't arisen in modern India, so I don't think you know what you're talking about.

And to quote chairman mao:

"I call on the workers, peasants, revolutionary intellectuals, enlightened elements of the bourgeoisie and other enlightened persons of all colours in the world, whether white, black, yellow or brown, to unite to oppose the racial discrimination practised by U.S. imperialism"

I would not call Maoism a western ideology, nor is this anything but an anti-racist statement.

Or as Mahatma Ghandi said:
"India’s freedom will remain incomplete so long as Africa remains in bondage"


And under Nehru, the Indian delegation to the UN regularly sponsored resolutions against English colonial racism.

Don't pretend like the natural state of the world is ethnic strife.

[Ichabod]

Lets be honest. Immigration is not about resources. Republicans just like Democrats can somehow always find resources and justify spending for their own projects. Republicans are just better at PR about the deficit (btw I hate them both for this; many countries have fallen by thinking their resources are limitless). Immigration debate is really about fear. Fear of the them, fear of the other, fear of change. We are actually probably living in an enlightened age that we can even get 1 party to advocate for people only trying to make a better life for themselves

An outsider's point of view:

In this enlightened age, white(-dominated) societies are trying to use education (aka indoctrination) to reverse one of the deepest natural instincts. The rest of the world, while generally friendly to tourist and guests, continues to harbour emnity for other ethnicities and races as they have for millennia.

It cannot be denied that the white peoples' experiment of antiracism is fascinating, but otherwise the rest of the world does not care.

This is what happens when you ask for an honest opinion.

But never mind the outsider, back to the regular schedule of Trump-cope and sh*tting on others for not being sufficiently enlightened.

Well, Ipecac, you didn't really give an opinion, you stated what you perceive to be a fact. And this claim of yours is huge, with implications on several areas I don't have a lot of knowledge on, so there's not a lot I kind say about it. I just can say that my personal experience doesn't suit your claim, for whatever that is worth, and that you'll need significant proof to back what you said, because the little I know about it goes againt what you are saying.

On a more general note, my recollection is that you place youself against virtually every mainstream position on challenging and controversial topics. While this is not a problem per se, it kind of gives me the impression that you have some motive behind it (my best guess is that you like being controversial and seeing the uproar that goes with it). It's unfair of me to think that way, but there you go. On a pure probabilistic line of thought, it seems pretty unlikely that someone will support every single controversial position while every single one of those choices are independent from each other. 

[ipecac]

Again, my point is that ethnic conflict is not the same as racism. The creation of a class system based on entirely on artificial racial constructs (look at the spanish system of racial constructs in latin america, or the one drop rule in the us) is a western invention.

The caste system in india has little to do with ethnicity.

You'll admit that the caste system is an 'artificial construct', but somehow groups of people forbidden to intermarry over centuries don't count as separate races or ethnicities.

And modern india, the one created by Nehru is at its core a state which has managed to include hundreds of ethnicities. India is plagued by religious conflicts, muslims vs. hindus. The prime example of ethnic conflict in India is in assam, but in a state of hundreds of ethnicities, it is surprisingly low.

Aka an empire inherited from the British, previously disparate domains of squabbling Indian princes.

And to quote chairman mao:

"I call on the workers, peasants, revolutionary intellectuals, enlightened elements of the bourgeoisie and other enlightened persons of all colours in the world, whether white, black, yellow or brown, to unite to oppose the racial discrimination practised by U.S. imperialism"

I would not call Maoism a western ideology, nor is this anything but an anti-racist statement.

Or as Mahatma Ghandi said:
"India’s freedom will remain incomplete so long as Africa remains in bondage"

Don't mistake advertising and slogans for the reality, Ghandi was famously racist against Africans.

Maoism obviously descends from western Marxism. A few years ago China issued an official statement against western ideologies and influence, a professor then pointed out that Maoism and communism itself are western

Don't pretend like the natural state of the world is ethnic strife.

Nature, red in tooth and claw. Or is it now enlightened to move beyond the previously enlightened survival of the fittest, ideas of Darwinism and social Darwinism?

Again, my point is that ethnic conflict is not the same as racism. The creation of a class system based on entirely on artificial racial constructs (look at the spanish system of racial constructs in latin america, or the one drop rule in the us) is a western invention.

If racism just is about the creation of a class system based on entirely on artificial racial constructs, I certainly don't see the that such a thing persists in the west anymore. But if you really want to maintain that only the west is racist, fine, let it be an intra-western quarrel.

[ipecac]

On a more general note, my recollection is that you place youself against virtually every mainstream position on challenging and controversial topics.

Every mainstream Western postition.

While this is not a problem per se, it kind of gives me the impression that you have some motive behind it (my best guess is that you like being controversial and seeing the uproar that goes with it). It's unfair of me to think that way, but there you go.

Not unfair, I am certainly interested from a sociological perspective to how Westerners in a bubble of Western ideas react to a wholly un-Western perspective.

[GeneralKilCavalry]

Ghandi was racist as a young man, his experiences taught him better.

And a caste system is different from the recially-based slavery instituted by colonial western powers.

And Maoism is a revision on marxism and pretty heavy one on that.

I have a question for you ipecac, what do you define as western? Where do you see Romania as?

Because I don't see Ukraine or Russia as a western country despite it being composed of racially "white people".

[ipecac]

Ghandi was racist as a young man, his experiences taught him better.

And Maoism is a revision on marxism and pretty heavy one on that.

"I call on the workers, peasants, revolutionary intellectuals, enlightened elements of the bourgeoisie and other enlightened persons of all colours in the world, whether white, black, yellow or brown, to unite to oppose the racial discrimination practised by U.S. imperialism" could have been spoken by any communist in the west of the cold war era. It was simply an anti-US slogan.

I have a question for you ipecac, what do you define as western? Where do you see Romania as?

Liberalism, with the avowed extreme focus on freedom and equality. I don't know anything about Romania. The vampire country?

Because I don't see Ukraine or Russia as a western country despite it being composed of racially "white people".

Agreed, except that Russia is still a multi-ethnic empire.

[GeneralKilCavalry]

Ghandi was racist as a young man, his experiences taught him better.

And Maoism is a revision on marxism and pretty heavy one on that.

"I call on the workers, peasants, revolutionary intellectuals, enlightened elements of the bourgeoisie and other enlightened persons of all colours in the world, whether white, black, yellow or brown, to unite to oppose the racial discrimination practised by U.S. imperialism" could have been spoken by any communist in the west of the cold war era. It was simply an anti-US slogan.

I have a question for you ipecac, what do you define as western? Where do you see Romania as?

Liberalism, with the avowed extreme focus on freedom and equality. I don't know anything about Romania. The vampire country?

Because I don't see Ukraine or Russia as a western country despite it being composed of racially "white people".

Agreed, except that Russia is still a multi-ethnic empire.

fuck im dumb i confused you with mackoti because netiher of you have profile pictures

sorry