Who will face Trump in the election of 2020?

[annabenedetti]

trump doesn’t debate ... he blusters and bulllies. Regardless, it doesn’t matter. I am not voting for someone based on their debating skills but rather on their character. There is not one Dem running who wouldn’t be 100 percent better than what is currently in office.

A brick would be 100 percent better than what is currently in office.

 

[annabenedetti]

But Harris is ruthless, whereas Biden has qualms.

Harris scares the GOP.

 

[Stripe]

trump doesn’t debate ... he blusters and bulllies.

So he's Barbarian?

 

[annabenedetti]

So he's Barbarian?

Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump!

Barbarian, Barbarian, Barbarian, Barbarian!

:chuckle:

 

[Gary K]

The US government was THIS close to giving freed slaves 400,000 acres of land as reparations. Can you image if the US government had actually done that? The history of the post Civil War South would have been completely different. And who gave the US government this idea? Black Christian preachers did.

https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-am...history/the-truth-behind-40-acres-and-a-mule/

That needs to be balanced with the other side of the argument that came from black men during the same time frame. The author of the other side of the story was Frederick Douglass the former slave. Here is a quote from a speech he gave on the subject of what black people want to a group of abolitionists, the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society.

I ask my friends who are apologizing for not insisting upon this right, where can the black man look, in this country, for the assertion of his right, if he may not look to the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society? Where under the whole heavens can he look for sympathy, in asserting this right, if he may not look to this platform? Have you lifted us up to a certain height to see that we are men, and then are any disposed to leave us there, without seeing that we are put in possession of all our rights? We look naturally to this platform for the assertion of all our rights, and for this one especially. I understand the anti-slavery societies of this country to be based on two principles,—first, the freedom of the blacks of this country; and, second, the elevation of them. Let me not be misunderstood here. I am not asking for sympathy at the hands of abolitionists, sympathy at the hands of any. I think the American people are disposed often to be generous rather than just. I look over this country at the present time, and I see Educational Societies, Sanitary Commissions, Freedmen’s Associations, and the like,—all very good: but in regard to the colored people there is always more that is benevolent, I perceive, than just, manifested towards us. What I ask for the Negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. [Applause.] The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us. Gen. Banks was distressed with solicitude as to what he should do with the Negro. Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, “What shall we do with the Negro?” I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature’s plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! If you see him on his way to school, let him alone, don’t disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner-table at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot-box, let him alone, don’t disturb him! [Applause.] If you see him going into a work-shop, just let him alone,—your interference is doing him a positive injury. Gen. Banks’ “preparation” is of a piece with this attempt to prop up the Negro. Let him fall if he cannot stand alone! If the Negro cannot live by the line of eternal justice, so beautifully pictured to you in the illustration used by Mr. Phillips, the fault will not be yours, it will be his who made the Negro, and established that line for his government. [Applause.] Let him live or die by that. If you will only untie his hands, and give him a chance, I think he will live. He will work as readily for himself as the white man. A great many delusions have been swept away by this war. One was, that the Negro would not work; he has proved his ability to work. Another was, that the Negro would not fight; that he possessed only the most sheepish attributes of humanity; was a perfect lamb, or an “Uncle Tom;” disposed to take off his coat whenever required, fold his hands, and be whipped by anybody who wanted to whip him. But the war has proved that there is a great deal of human nature in the Negro, and that “he will fight,” as Mr. Quincy, our President, said, in earlier days than these, “when there is a reasonable probability of his whipping anybody.” [Laughter and applause.]

This was Douglass' closing paragraph. His entire speech needs to be known and here is the link to that speech. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/what-the-black-man-wants/

I have some more to say on this but have run out of time. I'll post links later to a book written by a black man describing the conflict over the government being the caretaker of blacks within the black community. Interesting book.

 

[Gary K]

A black man by the name of Oscar Michaeux wrote a couple of novels in the early 20th century. He based his most famous novel on his life as a homesteader in South Dakota where he was the only black homesteader for many miles around, In the novel he portrays the split in the black community over the government being a caretaker of the black community and how he viewed that split and why it existed. The main story itself is interesting. The story of the ideological split in the black community is fascinating.

The following link is to the download link for the book The Homesteader from Project Gutenberg. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39238

 

[Town Heretic]

Not like identity politics is about race. For MLK wanted race eliminated as a topic with regard to identifying people. Instead, he wanted all people identified by the content of their character, never by the color of their skin. But all identity politics cares about is the latter.

Rather, King opposed judgment, bias, and prejudice. He didn't hope for a world where we are fearful of our differences, or even ignorant of them, but one where those distinctions aren't an inherent impediment to the understanding of our value, virtue, and identity. It's how we devalue difference too often and the impact of that that was the problem King addressed and that was the problem of the nation.

There's no inherent evil or harm in identifying yourself as a Hoosier, or Irish, or conservative. Race should be no different. But it was, in this country, for generations. It degraded and worked a willful, evil harm on one people to the benefit of another.

Note that even a member of the Supreme Court referred to her "wise Latina" heritage as an integral part of her decision making.

There's nothing disqualifying or harmful in her noting that she has found wisdom and help from her cultural heritage. But that wasn't the sitting judge Trump declared, simply because he had parents who had been born in Mexico, suspect, that he should be disqualified, could not find fairness in judgment. That's the thinking that King was fighting against.

I wrote, "Trump repeatedly presents a bigoted mindset, more so than a purely racist one."

Never as President.

Remarkable that you think that. I just got through having a conversation with a few people about his aiming the "Go back..." horsefeathers at a few black Congresswomen, about the racial history and code of it. And that's before we get to his ongoing mischaracterization of the rule among immigrants at our borders, before we note his "shithole countries" view of Africa, before we talk about how he tried to give preferential treatment in immigration to largely non-brown peoples, before we address his using the term Pocahontas to describe Warren while speaking to Native Americans...Trump is worse than tone deaf. He's the very sort of person King was speaking about. And that's just a snippet of the public man. As we've learned time and time again, the private one is invariably worse. And that mind is making and influencing policy for the nation.

He has even expressly denounced white supremacy.

I only just watched him do it, in the most robotic and uninflected voice I'd ever heard from him. It was remarkably dull as teleprompter readings go. It reminded me of the weak "apologies" read by someone whose lawyer or press agent is doing damage control. There was nothing of the man in it. All it needed was a wink at the end to wrap it.

For he knows how dangerous racism can become, including the evil, reverse-racism of identity politics, which reviles whites.

We should, rightly, never forget how the right uses racism to paint itself as victim. Yes, the danger of reverse racism, of the splintered minority coming for the empowered and entrenched majority. That's the proper focus...

Like the Nazi brownshirts, they are starting with street-level thuggery, against innocent people. hey will not begin their genocide against their political opponents until

So that's a, "No," to Antifa and genocide except as some self-serving (in the argumentative sense) extrapolation. Here's a notion, be more responsible with your rhetoric. Antifa is a response to something, wrong as that response is in its violent nature. You won't understand what they are until you understand what they oppose. And you're a long way from doing that if this is any indicator.

they come into total power politically, i.e. under the future Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast" in Revelation 13:4-18), who will even behead his enemies, especially Biblical Christians (Revelation 20:4-6).

That's so presumptive I don't know how to speak to it. Okay then. Moving on.

But have there been liberals in Congress doing so who were born in a foreign country which is white?

If you keep qualifying you might even find a way to frame it so that it doesn't look like what it is, eventually. As it actually sits, Trump distinguished, and evidenced racial and bigoted presumption. He used the code everyone who grew up in and around understands. And those victimized by what followed its wink know all to well.

All that matters to Trump and his followers is someone's politics.

All evidence to the contrary, though I think it's truer of Trump, who is largely a creature of mild, generationally seated bigotry, than a revolutionary come to take back his homeland for the white guy. Trump, he just uses a tool in his chest as a means to power and the wealth that flows from it.

 

[ok doser]

A black man by the name of Oscar Michaeux wrote a couple of novels in the early 20th century. He based his most famous novel on his life as a homesteader in South Dakota where he was the only black homesteader for many miles around, In the novel he portrays the split in the black community over the government being a caretaker of the black community and how he viewed that split and why it existed. The main story itself is interesting. The story of the ideological split in the black community is fascinating.

The following link is to the download link for the book The Homesteader from Project Gutenberg. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39238

Sounds like a fascinating read - thanks ff - got it bookmarked!

 

[Town Heretic]

trump doesn’t debate

You obviously have never seen him read from a teleprompter.

Okay, not so much a debate there as a struggle with rhetoric. lain:

 

[The Berean]

That needs to be balanced with the other side of the argument that came from black men during the same time frame. The author of the other side of the story was Frederick Douglass the former slave. Here is a quote from a speech he gave on the subject of what black people want to a group of abolitionists, the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society.




This was Douglass' closing paragraph. His entire speech needs to be known and here is the link to that speech. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/what-the-black-man-wants/

I have some more to say on this but have run out of time. I'll post links later to a book written by a black man describing the conflict over the government being the caretaker of blacks within the black community. Interesting book.

The granting of the land to former slaves would not have been the government being the caretaker of black people. It would be RIGHTFUL payment for their years and decades of bitter slave service, violence, rape, murder, and terrorism forced on them. When the Hebrews left Egypt they were given reparations for their slavery.

 

[ok doser]

The granting of the land to former slaves would not have been the government being the caretaker of black people. It would be RIGHTFUL payment for their years and decades of bitter slave service, violence, rape, murder, and terrorism forced on them. When the Hebrews left Egypt they were given reparations for their slavery.

What about those slaves who did not endure harsh treatment, those who were valued members of a household?


What about those slaves who were not black?

Or those who were owned by blacks?

 

[drbrumley]

Elizabeth Warren: American Communist
Michael S. Rozeff


Elizabeth Warren is a radical socialist or, equivalently, an American communist. An American communist is a person who advocates communism while maintaining the facade of supporting American ideals and basic institutions. Warren disguises herself as a Democrat, but her proposals make her a communist. She doesn’t believe in private property. She’s an anti-capitalist.

 

[drbrumley]

Warren is an American communist parading around as a Democrat, like other candidates for the Democratic nomination. The Communist Party USA states:


“Many myths have been propagated about socialism. Contrary to right-wing claims, socialism would not take away the personal private property of workers, only the private ownership of major industries, financial institutions, and other large corporations, and the excessive luxuries of the super-rich.”

Warren proposes exactly the same: “…we can damn well use all the tools at our disposal to protect the interests of American workers.”

 

[Gary K]

The granting of the land to former slaves would not have been the government being the caretaker of black people. It would be RIGHTFUL payment for their years and decades of bitter slave service, violence, rape, murder, and terrorism forced on them. When the Hebrews left Egypt they were given reparations for their slavery.

Ummm.... All I did was show the opposing side of black thought back then. You don't like it, you'll have to take it up with Frederick Douglass. I'll tell you this much. He felt very strongly about it. He wanted society out of the "helping" of the black community. He said let us stand or fall all on our own. You've interfered with us too much as it is. And he was absolutely correct. If you've never read his autobiography I'd say it's time you do. You can download it from the Online Library of Liberty, and possibly from Project Gutenberg.

Douglass was a remarkable man. For that matter I'd recommend Booker T. Washington's autobiography too. He sides right down the line with Douglass.

 

[The Berean]

What about those slaves who did not endure harsh treatment, those who were valued members of a household?

Being held in bondage is by definition "harsh treatment" We know that slave masters kept black female slaves in the "big house" for their "entertainment".

What about those slaves who were not black?

What about them? Why wouldn't they be eligible?

Or those who were owned by blacks?

Why wouldn't these slaves not get payment? I don't see the relevance.

 

[The Berean]

Ummm.... All I did was show the opposing side of black thought back then. You don't like it, you'll have to take it up with Frederick Douglass. I'll tell you this much. He felt very strongly about it. He wanted society out of the "helping" of the black community. He said let us stand or fall all on our own. You've interfered with us too much as it is. And he was absolutely correct. If you've never read his autobiography I'd say it's time you do. You can download it from the Online Library of Liberty, and possibly from Project Gutenberg.

Douglass was a remarkable man. For that matter I'd recommend Booker T. Washington's autobiography too. He sides right down the line with Douglass.

1) Where did I say I didn't like it? Douglass had his views and other Black leaders had different views. My only point that giving former black slaves compensation for what they endured would have been the right thing to do. Plus, it has a Biblical basis. I'm not sure why people think that there is something wrong with giving an injured party monetary compensation for their pain and suffering. This is a legal concept has been around for thousands of years.

2) I've read Douglass' autobiography several times. I have it a copy in my personal library. I do need to read about Booker T. Washington in the near future.

 

[The Berean]

Warren is an American communist parading around as a Democrat, like other candidates for the Democratic nomination. The Communist Party USA states:


“Many myths have been propagated about socialism. Contrary to right-wing claims, socialism would not take away the personal private property of workers, only the private ownership of major industries, financial institutions, and other large corporations, and the excessive luxuries of the super-rich.”

Warren proposes exactly the same: “…we can damn well use all the tools at our disposal to protect the interests of American workers.”

Can you imagine a bunch of socialists trying to run a company like Boeing Aircraft as a co-op? LOL.

 

[Gary K]

1) Where did I say I didn't like it? Douglass had his views and other Black leaders had different views. My only point that giving former black slaves compensation for what they endured would have been the right thing to do. Plus, it has a Biblical basis. I'm not sure why people think that there is something wrong with giving an injured party monetary compensation for their pain and suffering. This is a legal concept has been around for thousands of years.

2) I've read Douglass' autobiography several times. I have it a copy in my personal library. I do need to read about Booker T. Washington in the near future.

I think it is a mistake to say that the Israelites were given reparations. That idea doesn't fit the Biblical narrative at all. On the same night of the passover when every first born child among the Egyptians died, along with all the first born of their animals, the children of Israel walked out of Egypt. They left in such a hurry that women had to carry their bread dough unbaked out of the land. And the Egyptians willingly offered them money to leave, to get out of Dodge, so to speak. They were scared to death of what might happen to them next if the Israelites didn't leave en masse, and right then.

The entire nation of Egypt had by that time been laid waste by the plagues. So the Egyptians were very anxious to see the entire nation of Israel depart. It was for that reason that they gave the Israelites anything they asked for, and even much they didn't ask for. The Bible says the Israelites spoiled the Egyptians. Fear of the Israelites staying was the impetus for their generosity, not the idea of paying reparations for the time the Israelites had spent as slaves.

edit: You will find Booker T. Washington's story interesting. I know I did.

 

[bibleverse2]

[Frederick Douglass:]

And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also.

Note that MLK taught the exact same thing: Do not treat Blacks differently than Whites. Treat everyone the same. Let them stand or fall as individuals, based not on the color of their skin, but on the content of their own, individual character.

And Blacks were standing just fine before the Dems began to destroy them under Johnson, and down until this day. For it is the Dems which have destroyed Black families and morals by welfare, giving individuals the incentive to fall, and to stay fallen, instead of standing on their own legs.

But the GOP offers freedom from this, freedom to get a job and support oneself. For Trump has reduced Black unemployment to record levels, the exact opposite of what Dem policies have done, even under Obama.

Many Blacks recognize this, and this is why they support Trump over Dem pols who only want to keep so many Blacks in unredeemable ghettoes, sucking at the pap of Dem welfare programs, and so voting for Dems forever.

This is sick. It must change. And Trump can help to do that.

 

[bibleverse2]

The granting of the land to former slaves would not have been the government being the caretaker of black people.

Good point.

For the land must be worked by its owner in order for him to gain a living income from it.

Also, this brings to mind how the granting of land to the poor people of the whole world (of whatever race) would also give them the opportunity to gain a living income by their own labor.

And this brings to mind how the Jubilee of Leviticus 25:10 allows all people every fifty years to be set at liberty from being hired servants (Leviticus 25:40), such as wage slaves today; and to return free from all debts to their own plots of land, which they can then work in support of themselves and their families.

This is a wonderful idea, and should be put into practice today. For a future, world economic collapse (similar to, but much worse than, 2008's Great Recession) will be brought about by the continued, unsustainable debt loads of the world's (especially China's) corporate and central banks (in the form of bad loans), and by the unsustainable debt loads of the world's governments, corporations, and individuals. God knew that eternal, recycling debts (that is, borrowing or printing new money to pay off old debts) can only result, in the long term, in widespread economic ruin, due to eventual huge defaults or rampant inflation. It is eternal debt and the subsequent loss of land ownership by poor and middle class people which cannot help but eventually result in wage slavery and inescapable poverty for 99% of the world's population. God knew this, and it cannot last.

The Jubilee idea prevents what we are seeing today: The unbelievable concentration of wealth and land ownership by only a relatively few people compared with the population of the planet. For example, Oxfam not long ago found that eight of the richest people in the world own more wealth than the 3.6 billion poorest people in the world. And even in the U.S., it is said that the top one-tenth of one percent of the population owns more wealth than the bottom 90% of the population. That is, in the U.S., one person out of 1,000 owns more wealth than even the combined wealth of 900 people out of 1,000. How can this be good? And how can it be rectified without resorting to the failed policies of socialism, which eventually render countries completely destitute, like what has happened to poor Venezuela, which used to be prosperous due to its vast oil resources?

Perhaps a good start to rectify the current, extreme situation globally (and in the U.S.), would be to abolish all taxes such as payroll, sales, and income taxes, which hurt the poor and the middle class the most; and replace all taxes with a global wealth tax of only 10% yearly on people with more than 1 million dollars in wealth. This wealth tax will have to be global, or else the wealthy will simply move their wealth to tax havens with no wealth tax; just as even today, wealthy people can hide their wealth in offshore shell companies, and in bogus "trusts", such as in the Cook Islands. The money from the global wealth tax can then be distributed to the world's poor in the form of sufficient food, clothing, housing, water supplies, farm animals (compare Heifer International), crop seeds, farm tools, fruit trees, and land for everyone to be able to support himself and his family by his own work on his own land (Micah 4:4).