[Sixstrings]

How is your having a half black president more significant than us having a white redhead woman PM?

You're right. The world needs more red-headed presidents.

Brits and Aussies are ahead of us in female leadership, but it's just my cultural take on it that they are not quite there yet as far as electing a black PM.

Not that you vote for someone based on race and just because and just to do it -- you have to like them for other reasons, obviously. USA is the first western nation that produced a black candidate that a majority voted for.

We'll see if we get Hillary in '16, our first female president. I'm tempted to vote R though.. we'll see who they put up..

[SeaGypsy]

Obama ain't black & I don't think the American dialogue has gotten over that fact. He's what is called a mixed race American. A mixed race Australian has as good a chance as Obama ever did.

[evilgenius]

So many if you are so racist it really is sad. If the prejudice exhibited here reflects mainstream US thought I pity for you all!

They appear to be national chauvinists rather than racists. Anything that makes their utopia look bad cannot be allowed to pass.

Of course, denying reality does not make problems go away and instead they fester and progressively get worse. We are seeing this in the USA.

What are you talking about? Aren't you actually exhibiting a tendency to pre-judge, and not accepting any evidence to the contrary?

I grew up getting pulled over by the police constantly, for driving a hotrod. You don't have to be black in America to go about with a target on your back. Yes, when I stopped driving a fast car the harassment lessened, but I was left with the understanding that potential danger lurked behind the wheel of every police cruiser. I'm not black, but I grew to understand why they complained about police harassment so much. I could make a choice about my behavior, but I understood that black people could not simply change the color of their skin.

The US does have problems. They are obvious. The trouble here is that people are not taking this case on its merits. Instead, they are conflating it with the national problem. You call us national chauvinists for daring to see this case individually and attempting to judge it by its own circumstances. If we dare to do that, then we are the farthest thing from what you accuse us of being.

I am most certainly not a police apologist. When they hurt people that they could have confronted in a more peaceful manner I am hurt too. I'm not going to come here, however, and try to sugar coat the dangerous nature of their jobs, or condemn them all for the actions or a few. Without the cops we only have each other to handle those who get out of line, let alone do all of the other things that cops do. Personally, I'd rather the cops take care of that, as they have to conduct themselves to a standard, whether they adhere to it or not, and it's mostly easy to tell who they are.

That being said, there probably are too many cops in the US. Mostly, I think it's a municipal issue, pertaining to how the police make an effective tool for raising revenue. Ever since the explosion of anti-drunk driving sentiment this has been a festering issue. It really got exacerbated when the economy went down and tax revenues dropped in municipalities all across the country. Many localities tried to use the police to make up the gap during that time.

In Ferguson you have a different problem. There you are dealing with the situation you get when the people are mired in apathy. The black people there are practically up in arms over this young man's death. They can riot alright, but they can't organize. These protests, btw, are not organization. True organization results in statistics at the ballot box. It addresses the market that exists for power within a community. You get this when civic duty is always somebody else's duty.

There is nothing wrong with Ferguson that a massive voter registration drive and across the board recall election for every local office wouldn't cure. It's beautiful, isn't it. In America you can do that. We always have it within our grasp to effect this kind of change. We only have to do it, though. It takes a lot less courage and effort to riot than it does to organize.

[wildbourgman]

There is nothing wrong with Ferguson that a massive voter registration drive and across the board recall election for every local office wouldn't cure. It's beautiful, isn't it. In America you can do that. We always have it within our grasp to effect this kind of change. We only have to do it, though. It takes a lot less courage and effort to riot than it does to organize.

Evilgenius, who would the people of Ferguson replace all those recalled politicians with?

See, I don't think that simply having the mob vote more really repairs anything, unless they know who to vote for and why. I'm thinking that the Ferguson mob would probably be prone to vote for the same type of politicians that have entrenched New Orleans, Detroit, Chicago, and other urban areas that continue to get worse socially and economically. So how does that fix anything?

I'm not saying they shouldn't vote, but voting alone without information does nothing at best and possibly makes it worse.

[evilgenius]

Like I said, power is a market. If you choose not to participate you probably lose. It isn't necessarily the case that you will, but in order not to you will have to rely upon the benevolence of those in charge.

The basic nature of this paradigm ought, actually, to cause us to reconsider what we think about winning and losing, but it doesn't. Winners don't take special care to embrace the losing side when it comes to power. What they do is to understand themselves, and when that connects with the losers then they extrapolate. Mired in apathy you can wait a long time for your overlords to come round.

It's not unlike how I said I learned about the plight of blacks in America. Now, that's an over-simplification actually, as I had some idea beforehand due to my parents teaching and the fact that I grew up watching the news, but it makes the point. You could say that what I was taught was tested and proved true, by virtue of the fact that I made mistakes and learned from them. I not only learned what I was doing wrong, but about sympathy for those sharing my plight who did not bring it upon themselves.

And what about the politics in cities like Chicago or Detroit? Is those peoples only choice between black Democrats who always say the same thing and white Republicans who seem to come from another planet? It is only if the electorate doesn't learn. How are they to learn unless they make mistakes?

I have faith in people. I don't see democracy as mob rule. Sure, it can be. In the ancient world it often was.

[wildbourgman]

And what about the politics in cities like Chicago or Detroit? Is those peoples only choice between black Democrats who always say the same thing and white Republicans who seem to come from another planet? It is only if the electorate doesn't learn. How are they to learn unless they make mistakes?

Well it's worse than that. In Detroit the more democrats that were elected the worse the economy got and the more the upper and middle class left town. Then more even democrats were elected due to the deomgraphic shift and the economy got even worse and then the welfare state grew. So at some point the electorate learns that more democrats means more welfare and other assistance, so the economic damage actually causes more people who promise welfare to get elected which cause the economy to get worse. It's a vicious cycle and the electorate has no cause to call their past vote a mistake because the leaders gave them what they need to survive.

[PrestonSturges]

Well it's worse than that. In Detroit the more democrats that were elected the worse the economy got and the more the upper and middle class left town. Then more even democrats were elected due to the deomgraphic shift and the economy got even worse and then the welfare state grew. So at some point the electorate learns that more democrats means more welfare and other assistance, so the economic damage actually causes more people who promise welfare to get elected which cause the economy to get worse. It's a vicious cycle and the electorate has no cause to call their past vote a mistake because the leaders gave them what they need to survive.

Blaming the problems of Detroit on black people and not mentioning the decline of the US car industry (which IIRC was run by white guys) is well a 100% racist version of history. You may not like that, but you are the one telling a story only in terms of race.

[wildbourgman]

Well it's worse than that. In Detroit the more democrats that were elected the worse the economy got and the more the upper and middle class left town. Then more even democrats were elected due to the deomgraphic shift and the economy got even worse and then the welfare state grew. So at some point the electorate learns that more democrats means more welfare and other assistance, so the economic damage actually causes more people who promise welfare to get elected which cause the economy to get worse. It's a vicious cycle and the electorate has no cause to call their past vote a mistake because the leaders gave them what they need to survive.

Blaming the problems of Detroit on black people and not mentioning the decline of the US car industry (which IIRC was run by white guys) is well a 100% racist version of history. You may not like that, but you are the one telling a story only in terms of race.

Preston, your a racist for reading it that way, because I didn't write it that way. I didn't mention race once, you read that into it and leftist kool-aide drinkers always look at race first even when it's not there, but the leftist elite that pour the kool-aide know it's just a means to an end.

Now when I say democrats, I mean exactly that. I didn't mention the Labor Unions (democrats) severely crippling the American auto industry due to trying to be brief.

[evilgenius]

I'll give you the fact that democracy has a weakness for propaganda. That an uninformed electorate will make mistakes, and that those mistakes will tend to fall all the same way because of the influence of propaganda.

The thing is that markets will rule out. When market forces are prevented from operating where they are naturally the form, then there can be huge swings between the outcomes up for grabs. So, if blacks, or any other group, want to listen to the prevailing arguments and eschew the arguments with weaker voices there can be a huge swing toward what was the weaker, even though it would seem there was no chance for it under the former paradigm.

There are hints of this today in the Republican outreach to minorities. The Republican mantra of self-sufficiency appeals to more and more middle-class blacks, who are growing in number. The whole Republican position on immigration is also framed within the context of hispanic support. The old guard in the GOP has found it necessary to capitulate on these and other issues in order to ensure their future. It's beyond me to predict the future, but you can see one potential pivot point for an unexpected swing right there.

The same goes for how the Democrats are supposedly the party of labor. They like to go to that well, but it isn't as full as it once was. In reaction to this Democrats have actually acted in many anti-labor ways in recent years. There's tension building up there which could burst loose at some time in the future. Labor could pick another party. The Democratic party could split up. Just as easily they could 'come to Jesus' and find their roots. Who knows?

[PrestonSturges]

Preston, your a racist for reading it that way, because I didn't write it that way. I didn't mention race once, you read that into it and leftist kool-aide drinkers always look at race first even when it's not there, but the leftist elite that pour the kool-aide know it's just a means to an end.

Now when I say democrats, I mean exactly that. I didn't mention the Labor Unions (democrats) severely crippling the American auto industry due to trying to be brief.

As Hitler said, the only real racism is reverse racism. Oh and that trade unions and the (Social) Democrats would destroy civilization. Your points are straight from Mein Kampf.

Would you be one of our resident Holocaust deniers? Because there are Holocaust deniers here.

[wildbourgman]

Preston, your a racist for reading it that way, because I didn't write it that way. I didn't mention race once, you read that into it and leftist kool-aide drinkers always look at race first even when it's not there, but the leftist elite that pour the kool-aide know it's just a means to an end.

Now when I say democrats, I mean exactly that. I didn't mention the Labor Unions (democrats) severely crippling the American auto industry due to trying to be brief.

As Hitler said, the only real racism is reverse racism. Oh and that trade unions and the (Social) Democrats would destroy civilization. Your points are straight from Mein Kampf.

Would you be one of our resident Holocaust deniers? Because there are Holocaust deniers here.

Oh, so your the first to go to the Hitler comment (Godwin's law), I think that means you just lost the debate in most circles. Hitler was a socialist much closer to your politics than mine. Laughable!

[wildbourgman]

I'll give you the fact that democracy has a weakness for propaganda. That an uninformed electorate will make mistakes, and that those mistakes will tend to fall all the same way because of the influence of propaganda.

The thing is that markets will rule out. When market forces are prevented from operating where they are naturally the form, then there can be huge swings between the outcomes up for grabs. So, if blacks, or any other group, want to listen to the prevailing arguments and eschew the arguments with weaker voices there can be a huge swing toward what was the weaker, even though it would seem there was no chance for it under the former paradigm.

There are hints of this today in the Republican outreach to minorities. The Republican mantra of self-sufficiency appeals to more and more middle-class blacks, who are growing in number. The whole Republican position on immigration is also framed within the context of hispanic support. The old guard in the GOP has found it necessary to capitulate on these and other issues in order to ensure their future. It's beyond me to predict the future, but you can see one potential pivot point for an unexpected swing right there.

The same goes for how the Democrats are supposedly the party of labor. They like to go to that well, but it isn't as full as it once was. In reaction to this Democrats have actually acted in many anti-labor ways in recent years. There's tension building up there which could burst loose at some time in the future. Labor could pick another party. The Democratic party could split up. Just as easily they could 'come to Jesus' and find their roots. Who knows?

I absolutely agree. I don't know if Republican's are smart enough to follow through but it's right there for the taking. It won't be the blue bloods or chamber of commerce republicans that turn a few more blacks, but they can be turned. If the democrat party doesn't get a high percentage of blacks to vote, they loose in national elections. If republicans get a strong black candidate to run against Hillary I think shes screwed, because the numbers won't work.

[PrestonSturges]

Would you be one of our resident Holocaust deniers? Because there are Holocaust deniers here.

Oh, so your the first to go to the Hitler comment (Godwin's law), I think that means you just lost the debate in most circles. Hitler was a socialist much closer to your politics than mine. Laughable!

That is the #1 trope of Holocaust deniers - "Hitler was a Socialist." Because if Hitler was a Socialist, then he probably didn't really kill all those Socialist Jews, right?

So, are you a Holocaust denier? You wouldn't be the only one here, believe me.

[wildbourgman]

Would you be one of our resident Holocaust deniers? Because there are Holocaust deniers here.

Oh, so your the first to go to the Hitler comment (Godwin's law), I think that means you just lost the debate in most circles. Hitler was a socialist much closer to your politics than mine. Laughable!

That is the #1 trope of Holocaust deniers - "Hitler was a Socialist." Because if Hitler was a Socialist, then he probably didn't really kill all those Socialist Jews, right?

So, are you a Holocaust denier? You wouldn't be the only one here, believe me.

Dude, you can go on and on with that BS, but it just shows how easily a highschool educated oilfield worker just pushed you into going all out with the Hitler baloney. Hell, I'm doing a touchdown dance right now. I have never so thoroughly defeated someone in an online debate that they doubled down on the Hitler invocation. Wow!

[wildbourgman]

Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum (Latin for "reduction to" and "argument to" and dog Latin for "Hitler" respectively), is a term coined by philosopher Leo Strauss in 1951.[1] According to Strauss, the Reductio ad Hitlerum is a humorous observation where someone compares an opponent's views with those that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party.

According to Strauss, Reductio ad Hitlerum is a form of ad hominem or ad misericordiam, a fallacy of irrelevance, in which a conclusion is suggested based solely on something's or someone's origin rather than its current meaning.[citation needed] The suggested rationale is one of guilt by association. Its name is a variation on the term reductio ad absurdum.

Reductio ad Hitlerum is sometimes called "playing the Nazi card." According to its critics and proponents, it is a tactic often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent

[PrestonSturges]

So.... we can assume that you are in fact a Holocaust denier?

Or if you aren't, you may want to refine your rhetoric so you don't go around saying exactly the things that a Holocaust denier says.

[wildbourgman]

So.... we can assume that you are in fact a Holocaust denier?

Or if you aren't, you may want to refine your rhetoric so you don't go around saying exactly the things that a Holocaust denier says.

I've never met a Holocaust denier so I don't know how they speak and I won't refine my rhetoric because I'm an unrefined person. I know that Hitler and the National socialist workers party in Germany killed millions during the Holocaust. Stalin and Mao also killed millions.

[PrestonSturges]

. I know that Hitler and the National socialist workers party in Germany killed millions during the Holocaust. Stalin and Mao also killed millions.

Well FYI, that is exactly what a Holocaust denier sounds like, because the "socialist" wing of the Nazi party including the Strassers was purged (murdered) in the Night Of The Long Knives in the summer of 1934. Of course, they had already killed the trade union leaders in the spring of 1933. Therefore, the "socialist" component of the Nazis had nothing to do with WW2 or the Holocaust.

There was a socialist ("socialist" not "Socialist") aspect of the Nazis before 1993 because Nazism was a sort of socialism for party members (whites-only) Immigrants and Jews were stripped of their rights because all these non-white people were supposedly ruining the fatherland, and the benefits were funneled only to party members.

If you don't know what a Holocaust denier is, you need to maybe ask some of the people you agree with if they are Holocaust deniers, because people who trade in these talking points about "Hitler and the National socialist workers party" typically are. Also, check the banner ads at whatever other sites you haunt. Are the advertising books with titles like "The Holocaust Hoax?"

[wildbourgman]

So Preston what your saying is facism starts with socialist that eventually turn into the kind of tyrants and despots that kill millions of people? I can agree with that.

[PrestonSturges]

So Preston what your saying is facism starts with socialist that eventually turn into the kind of tyrants and despots that kill millions of people? I can agree with that.

Then you'd definitely be in agreement with Holocaust deniers on that one also.

There a couple different versions of the quote that says "In America, Fascism is disguised as anti-Fascism." This means claiming that Fascism is somehow not primarily a right wing phenomenon featuring xenophobia, sexism, homophobia, fertility, early marriage, rural Christian fundamentalism, censorship of pornography, anti-intellectualism, military fetishism, a cult of heroic death, the close cooperation of church and state, and in Germany privatization of public assets (Reprivatisierung). It also means adopting Third Reich talking points about saving the Fatherland from "class warfare," and "socialism," and "envy."

A Holocaust denier says "The Fascists were actually leftists, so I can't possibly be a Fascist."