J.C.MacSwell

Thanks...that clears up all the Confucius

"83% of quotes fora the internet are dreadfully attributed" Mathatma Ghandi Better?

I hadn't realized you held Trump in such high esteem... I don’t mean this as an insult, but have you actually thought this through?

"83% of quotes used on internet forums are incorrectly attributed" Mahatma Ghandi

For here at least, we might as well accept that the electoral college system that's in place will decide 2020...regardless of how much collusion, or lack of it, takes place. ...and that might mean it would be better for the Democrats to tread much more cautiously to the left than they might otherwise get away with.

I would suggest the "Democratic positions" this is based on are probably closer to Biden's than most other candidates...so my point remains...why mess with such a good position? Surely moving left on these positions would lead to the advantage dropping, if not starting to reverse. Kudos for them at least being honest with the exception of Harris, who now claims she raised her hand in error by misunderstanding the question on universal health care.

Right. So assuming that being true...what makes them think they should run on a platform so far to the left? Why rely on Trump being so unpopular that they can do that successfully?

OK thanks.

Trying to justify why it was rigged isn't much of an argument toward claiming it wasn't. It was rigged, quite significantly, in some candidates favour. You called that BS...then you essentially admitted it was rigged...

Seriously? You think there was no agenda whatsoever in favour of the better known candidates? Did you watch it?

Obviously I was kidding about winning with 13+ minutes, but I thought he did better than expected. Obviously Harris made an impression, as did Sanders, though I think Sanders message is so clearly Socialist it will put limits on his upside. Harris also proved she's pretty far left of most Democrats with her stance on medicare for all. (only Sanders agreed with it, where the other 8 declined to support a single system) Given that, I can't help but think Biden more than held his own. That seemed more like Sanders...an impassioned plea to get off the lawn, put the mower away, and stay in public school til they are 35... In any case...debate was clearly rigged toward certain candidates...

Yep, Biden won with 13+ minutes, and Yang came last with just 3.

Was it this biased last night? The moderators are, very obviously, not very evenhanded.

Yang night...looking forward to seeing how he does.

So for the debates...here we go...or does it really start tomorrow night?

If you threw everyone in jail that did not respect different races and cultures...wouldn't you have to lock yourself up as well? Or do you respect cultures of racism and bigotry?

Meaning the same event. You seem to be recognizing this here...

1 what?

I certainly welcome it being discussed here. My objections are based more on the politicization of it in the wider forum (quite prominently in the Democrat Primaries) and a belief that it is a waste of time and effort to look at the past on that basis (slavery ended essentially with the civil war...few would wish to look at the civil war with the view of potentially ascertaining reparations in 2019) I had asked...Can we agree that, on average, descendants of slaves still have a residual disadvantage vs descendants of slave owners? I don't believe anyone would disagree with that. I can't add much more other than to state that I would agree this disadvantage should be reduced where it still exists, if possible, if it can be done in a way that does considerably less harm than good; and to state I believe there are likely better ways to accomplish this than reparations as they are being discussed currently in the US...most of which I see as being promoted for political reasons, and with intent to be divisive for self serving reasons. ...and of course discussing other ways (Universal Basic Income etc) would be getting off topic here.

Frankly. That is a crock. How are questions on implementation not part of the investigation?

If it is recent enough to have directly affected an individual or identifiable group then this might be something for the Courts. If not then it might be something for politicians to address, but I would suggest direct reparations cannot be accomplished equitably. In any case, the reparations issue seems to be quite focused on slavery. (google "reparations" and see what comes up)

OK. Can we agree that, on average, descendants of slaves still have a residual disadvantage vs descendants of slave owners? Let's hypothesize that 'x' amount of compensation should be provided to someone 100% descended from slaves, based on slavery alone (setting aside other effects from Jim Crow Laws etc, for now, to have them determined later) How much do I get, as a percentage of 'x', if I am say 75% descended? 50%? 25%? What if I am 25% descended from slaves, and 75% from slave owners? What about 25% each and 50% from more recent immigration? Etc. Etc. Now how much should 'x' be? Then we consider Jim Crow Law affects... Mortgages and access to business loans... How much, if any, I have benefitted from affirmative action... Wouldn't it be more productive for all concerned to focus on doing better going forward?

What obstacles am I putting up? I'm just recognizing some that are there, hidden or otherwise. There are pitfalls that should be avoided if you want to improve outcomes for African Americans. If you can't see, or admit, or accept that then it might not turn out as dandy as you intend. I would hate to see Trump re-elected based on overreach and miscalculation, or a similar backlash after someone gets elected based on it. My concerns are not the obstacles. I have no direct stake in this, nor any say in it.

And vice versa. There is more than one way to view the same thing. It is unfair and unreasonable to expect everyone to subscribe to your viewpoint, especially when you are intentionally framing it in a particular way, regardless of how well intended (or not). Resetting a system to make it perfectly fair for everyone is impractical, even if you could fully trust those charged with doing it. What can be practically accomplished is not always clear, but improvements have certainly been made in the last couple centuries (though sometimes at great cost) ..."you" should not be read as "you" in particular...it applies to all of us