Topic: 2020 Democrats - page 15. (Read 12657 times)

No, I'd like a vote on REMOVING THE ONE THAT'S THERE NOW.

After all, we're talking about the thug that said this.

"If the missiles had remained (in Cuba),We would have used them against the very heart of the U.S., including New York City. The victory of Socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims."
 - Ernesto 'Che" Guevara, November 1962.

And by the way, let's leave all the Confederate statues up. The Left got it's share of statues down, and they did it their way. They don't get more. Now it's time for Lenin, Stalin, Che, and many others. To go down.

You wanna build a statue for Che Guevara in Central Park?

....

Let's start with the Che statue in NY Central Park. How about that, Twitch?

No violence, no mobs, a simple vote in the House and the Senate.

I mentioned before that removing statues isn't really an issue if it's democratically decided and voted on. I get the argument that you don't want a statue of a ruthless slave owner and confederate on your doorstep but it's gone from that to targeting statues of abolitionists and then a statue of George Washington. This is the slippery slope you go down because the reality is, any historical figure does not have a clean history.

I won't make the argument that everyone tearing down statues represents all the millions of protesters because it just isn't true. I haven't seen many others make that argument either but I also haven't looked hard enough. Regardless, it's a disingenuous point to lump in these mobs and protesters. But we know why this is becoming a partisan issue and it's because Trump chose to give a stance on it therefore people feel the need to do a 180 on his position to spite him.

We've already seen this happen with the whole CHOP/CHAZ fiasco where the Mayor of Seattle, Jenny Durkan, tweeted at Trump a few weeks ago defending CHOP claiming that he shouldn't be so afraid of democracy. This was in response to Trump's threat to bring in the national guard to Seattle after its leadership failed to enforce the law.

Fast forward 3 weeks later and there's now been two killings of unarmed black people (the irony) as the CHOP vigilantes seemingly shoot indiscriminately at anyone that poses even the slightest threat. Real democracy, according to Jenny Durkan.


Again, fair points and I agree with most parts with respective to confederate statues. But like I said, people have targeted abolitionists and George Washington.

I don't think anyone should be tearing them down and destroying them, and I'm sure the majority of BLM protesters and democrats would agree with me on that.  
The reason I think it's so partisan is because of the effort going into convincing people that the looters and statue destroyers represent the millions of people (around the world) that are protesting, which is just not true.  There's a difference between thinking the statues should be removed, and supporting defacing or destroying them - I think a lot of people right now, and in this thread, compound the two.

Personally I have no problem with any statue being removed, and especially when it comes to Confederate monuments I think they should've been removed in the 1960s.  These aren't just monuments to remember notable historical figures:

- They went up most quickly when Jim Crow laws were in full swing and it's well documented that most of the effort behind them were from White Supremacists pushing the idea that Whites were superior and Black people should thank them for allowing them to be here and learn what Christianity is.

- Black people have been protesting them since they started being erected.

- They continue to be built today. From 2008-2018 "American taxpayers have spent at least $40 million on Confederate monuments and groups that perpetuate racist ideology"


Here's a good article I that touches on most of this (and it's from a few years ago): https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/costs-confederacy-special-report-180970731/#xqhmLkq8ks7k5PO9.99

Very odd that you'd even have to ask such a thing.

Shouldn't the idea of removing statues and setting them on fire in angry mob fashion not be a partisan issue though?

"The Left" will view Pences anti-lgbtq stances as equally absurd as "The Right" views removing statues.

I wonder if Pence would be allowed to debate her alone or would he need to bring his wife.

If Tammy Duckworth gets Biden's VP pick, you'll hear Mike Pence grill her over her stance on statues in a VP debate. Pence is a fantastic debater and won't let her absurd stance on statues slide.

I'm fine with a national vote, because these characters wanted to take down our NATION, as they did others. They were not a part of the building of this country. But it'd be entertaining to hear the debates.

The argument that people make against removing statues is that they represent the concrete history that can't be changed, but also represent how far we've come. I don't necessarily disagree with the logic, but it falls apart when you talk about erecting a statue of Hitler. Lenin and Stalin fall in that category so yeah I think it's a good idea to allow people to vote on it and democratically have statues removed, not mobbing George Washington and setting it ablaze.

Wouldn't make them national votes though. Specific statues in a jurisdiction are a local matter so hold local votes.

But while we're on the subject, how about a national vote on statues?

In the USA, there are several of Lenin, and at least one of Stalin.

They need to go. Let's get some voting on the matter, and watch those Democrats squirm as they try to lecture us dull deplorables why statues of complete Marxist assholes should not be taken down.

Che needs to go, too.

https://www.newsmax.com/MichaelDorstewitz/lenin-che-guevara-statues-robert-e-lee/2017/08/21/id/808898/

They enslaved more people than American old time slaveowners ever dreamed of.

I don't even think she needs to offer much. She's insufferable as a politician but she's a women and she's black, so she already checks off two intersectional boxes. I guess that's enough. The hard left would probably have issues with her record as California AG, but no moderate is going to care. Even for the hard left, they'd prefer anyone over Trump.



If you stand by taking down statues, let alone one of Washington, it's a disqualifier. I don't get why politicians are dying on this hill to please the far left. No one cares about statues.

What changed is enough people made certain bets, and the odds were adjusted to entice betters to change their betting patterns.

Betting odds are ultimately set in a way that books hope the payout will be approximately the same, regardless of the outcome.

---

In other news, a potential VP running mate, Tammy Duckworth, said she would consider taking down statutes of Washington, our country's founder. Insane.

The above comments should disqualify Duckworth. Deisha Bottoms should be disqualified due to her handling of the police shooting in her city, Atlanta. Rice will be disqualified due to her liability from her involvement in the spying on the Trump campaign, and the DNC is likely unsure if she will even be out of Jail in November.

I would almost say that Biden the DNC should pick Clinton as Biden's running mate/President after ~4 months if Biden is elected. She is one of few democrats that have not moved so far left that them being on the ticket would not result in Trump winning 45+ states, plus the corresponding down ballot wins.

Kamala is definitely the big favorite, which isn't surprising.  According to most books, until a week or so ago Val Demmings was #2 and Susan Rice a distant third - now Rice seems to be favored over Demmings across the board and I'm not sure what changed.


https://www.sportsbook.com/sbk/sportsbook4/politics-betting/democratic-vp-nomination.sbk


It seems like tapping Demmings could give Biden a boost in FL, GA, NC and maybe TX - she was a cop in Orlando for 20+ years and eventually police chief - maybe that's a negative, or maybe she's perfectly suited to ease tensions ... I don't know.

Kamala is safest choice - but she doesn't really have much to offer when it comes to potential electoral votes.

On July 23rd in 2016, Hillary Clinton announced Tim Kaine as her running mate. There isn't really a formal time to announce your VP pick but around July prior to the DNC convention would make sense. I think we're getting close to that point. Obama on the other hand announced Joe Biden as his running mate on August 23rd 2008, just a few months ahead of the election but obviously waiting late to announce your VP is a bad campaign strategy so I think we're close to finally seeing who Biden picks.

Kamala Harris is still on my list as Biden's top pick, as with almost everyone. With how well Biden's doing in swing states, he doesn't really need a governor to help him pick up a state meaning he's got an nonrestrictive list of potential picks. Kamala tops that list.

We're in agreement.

"It is the blacks who kow-tow to the Democratic machine who should be so classified."

You just don't like the direction of my accusation.

He needs an economic recovery and to show that his next moves are strong in fighting the coronavirus. Plus -- he needs to get benefits in the hands of people who need it. I know the Republican way is to typically be VERY STRONG ANTI WELFARE, but no one wants to see another big business take tons of money from the taxpayers who are going to lose the bulk of their benefits come July (extra $600 unemployment benefits)


This is going to be interesting to see play out. Not sure if it's illegal though, but I do think that this is a bad look to see. DOJ is kinda supposed to stay independent -- but that's no possible because of of the political appointment of the AG.

A scandal or two happens like this per administration -- but this seems a bit more serious.

Reality requires full information and not just that cherry picked to suit an agenda.

The term "Uncle Tom" is used as a derogatory epithet for an excessively subservient person, particularly when that person perceives their own lower-class status based on race. It is similarly used to negatively describe a person who betrays their own group by participating in its oppression, whether or not they do so willingly. The term has also, with more intended neutrality, been applied in psychology in the form "Uncle Tom syndrome", a term for the use of subservience, appeasement and passivity to cope with intimidation and threats.

The popular negative connotations of "Uncle Tom" have largely been attributed to the numerous derivative works inspired by Uncle Tom's Cabin in the decade after its release, rather than the original novel itself, whose title character is a more positive figure. These works lampooned and distorted the portrayal of Uncle Tom with politically loaded overtones.

The vast majority of black people have decided that the highlighted meaning above is the prevalent one. Since they're the ones applying it to their own race, I think that takes precedence over what anyone else might think or want.