Jump to content
270soft Forum

A 2020 Prediction. What are your predictions?


Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Patine said:

Read what a "Republic" meant, by definition, in that day and age, in my post, above.

I prefer to use Madison’s definition since he was closer to the movement. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

I never debated that they were. It was an abhorrent moment in our worlds history. I’m arguing your premise that it was the motivator for breaking away from Britain. 

https://www.counterpunch.org/2011/05/23/was-the-american-revolution-fought-to-save-slavery/ Just saying, lofty ideals of equality probably weren't high on the minds of slave holders.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

I prefer to use Madison’s definition since he was closer to the movement. 

Madison is not Plato. He did not invent or innovate the concept of the "Republic." He just took his own slant on it, which, with all of the Founding Fathers' flowery language of liberty, equality, and justice that was not even remotely come close to being lived up to, was very much closer to the preceding ideals and historical examples of a "Republic" that the Founding Fathers had to draw upon, before the Civil War, at the earliest, than any modern ideal on the issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Patine said:

Madison is not Plato. He did not invent or innovate the concept of the "Republic." He just took his own slant on it

100% my point. And the only one that matters 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

100% my point. And the only one that matters 

No, it's not all that matters. His personal view of a "Republic" wasn't that spectacular, halcyon, grand, or praiseworthy as you make it out to be. The tendency of a lot of Americans in Constitutional matters to always to default to the views of the Founding Fathers as ALWAYS being weighted immensely over anyone else's, no matter who they may be and what the context is and the times what, and to always be timid and restrained with Constitutional reform, regardless of the benefit, prosperity, or even necessity of it, ignores the fact that the Founding Fathers of a different era who have not possibly have foreseen, or adapted to, the world today, AND were indeed men of strong prejudices and bigotries who viewed certain institutions considered repugnant and criminal today as run-of-the-mill, or even essential, and, that weighting their views so highly, above anyone else, in that way, also smacks of superstition, mythologization, hero-worship, and cult-thinking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

No, it's not all that matters. His personal view of a "Republic" wasn't that spectacular, halcyon, grand, or praiseworthy as you make it out to be. The tendency of a lot of Americans in Constitutional matters to always to default to the views of the Founding Fathers as ALWAYS being weighted immensely over anyone else's, no matter who they may be and what the context is and the times what, and to always be timid and restrained with Constitutional reform, regardless of the benefit, prosperity, or even necessity of it, ignores the fact that the Founding Fathers of a different era who have not possibly have foreseen, or adapted to, the world today, AND were indeed men of strong prejudices and bigotries who viewed certain institutions considered repugnant and criminal today as run-of-the-mill, or even essential, and, that weighting their views so highly, above anyone else, in that way, also smacks of superstition, mythologization, hero-worship, and cult-thinking.

You're changing the argument now.

The original point that WV made (that you butted in on) was about the purpose of the founding, and reason for breaking away.  To this I'll again point to Madison as being a better authority that any of us in here, on the motivators and purpose behind the structure of the republic.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

(that you butted in on)

This is a forum, not a PM. Anyone can contribute to any posted point.

21 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

To this I'll again point to Madison as being a better authority that any of us in here, on the motivators and purpose behind the structure of the republic.  

Why is he a better authority on the concept that Plato (who coined the concept in the first place), Marcus Aurenicus (who was a founding ideologue behind the first actual application of the concept anywhere in the world), or any other ideologue or philosopher who had conflicting or alternate ideas on the concept of a "Republic" (which, is, in the modern, a term used in the official name and/or Constitutional or legal identity of the great majority of sovereign nations in the world today). Where does he derive this monopoly of authority to define the term from, if I may ask?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The revolution was fought to establish independence.  The republic came later.  Initially each state was to retain its "sovereignty, freedom, and independence".  They were an alliance, or confederation, more along the lines of the EU than what the USA eventually became.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, pilight said:

The revolution was fought to establish independence.  The republic came later.  Initially each state was to retain its "sovereignty, freedom, and independence".  They were an alliance, or confederation, more along the lines of the EU than what the USA eventually became.

Correct

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Patine said:

This is a forum, not a PM. Anyone can contribute to any posted point.

Why is he a better authority on the concept that Plato (who coined the concept in the first place), Marcus Aurenicus (who was a founding ideologue behind the first actual application of the concept anywhere in the world), or any other ideologue or philosopher who had conflicting or alternate ideas on the concept of a "Republic" (which, is, in the modern, a term used in the official name and/or Constitutional or legal identity of the great majority of sovereign nations in the world today). Where does he derive this monopoly of authority to define the term from, if I may ask?

Your question is why does Madison have more authority on the purpose of the formation of our governmental aims/structure than Plato?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HonestAbe said:

Your question is why does Madison have more authority on the purpose of the formation of our governmental aims/structure than Plato?

Why question is why he has more authority on the motivators and structures of a "republic?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, WVProgressive said:

Yes, the American war for independence was a revolution to establish a republic, that only empowered RICH WHITE MEN. Why is it so hard for you to understand that the founders were white supremacists, who also established a regime that was somewhat more democratic than the British Empire? It's no surprise that a revolution led by bourgeois elite, would have the bourgeoisie's interests in mind, I don't know how you're finding this hard to grasp.

It empowered local rich white men instead of those back in England.  The notion that women and/or minorities were any better off under British rule is laughable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pilight said:

It empowered local rich white men instead of those back in England.  The notion that women and/or minorities were any better off under British rule is laughable.

Where did I say they were better off?

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Patine said:

Also, the statement by @pilight you just said was "correct" does nothing to disprove ANY statement of the motivations of any of the Founding Fathers made by @WVProgressive or myself for conducting the Revolution that you so vehemently disagree with.

The founding of our government, keep up.  Our current government was founded with this constitution.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

The founding of our government, keep up.  Our current government was founded with this constitution.  

The same constitution that didn't allow women, people of color, or poor whites to vote, protected slavery, while still counting them towards a state's representatives, and that was written by a slaveholding sex pervert.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This just in: People who died centuries ago weren't perfect by modern standards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright it's taken me a while to get to this.

Declared Candidates (And exploratory committees)

Booker (D-NJ)

Buttigieg (D-IN)

Castro (D-TX)

Delaney (D-MD)

Gabbard (D-HI)

Gillibrand (D-NY)

Harris (D-CA)

Hickenlooper (D-CO)

Inslee (D-WA)

Klobuchar (D-MN)

Sanders (D-VT)

Warren (D-MA)

Expected Candidates in my view

Vice President Joe Biden (D-DE)

Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH)

Representative Beto O'Rourke (D-TX)

Mayor Michael Bloomberg (D-NY)

Before-Iowa Caucuses

Buttigieg, Gabbard Drop Out

Iowa Caucuses

1st - Biden (approx. 25% of the vote), 2nd- Sanders (approx. 17.5% of the vote), 3rd- O'Rourke (approx. 14% of vote), 4th- Klobuchar (approx. 12% of vote), 5th - Harris (9% of vote)

Inslee, Castro, Delaney, Bloomberg Drop Out

Klobuchar, Harris gain momentum with solid performances in Iowa.

New Hampshire Primary

1st- Sanders (approx. 30% of the vote), 2nd- Warren (approx. 18% of vote), 3rd- Biden (approx. 15% of the vote), 4th- Harris (approx. 11% of the vote), 5th- Brown (approx. 9% of vote)

Gillibrand Drops Out and Endorses Senator Sanders, boosting his momentum. Booker hangs on, but is expected to drop out if he does not perform well in SC.

Nevada Caucuses

1st- Biden (approx. 25% of the vote), 2nd- Harris (approx. 17%), 3rd-Sanders (approx. 15%), 4th- O'Rourke (approx. 10%), 5th- Brown (approx. 8%)

Hickenlooper drops out and endorses Biden. 

South Carolina 

1st- Harris (approx. 25%), 2nd- Biden (approx. 17.5%), 3rd- O'Rourke (approx. 15%), 4th- Booker (10%), 5th- Sanders (8%)

Booker is expected to drop out, but does not. Harris captures an endorsement from Bloomberg. Klobuchar drops out and Endorses Biden. 

Super Tuesday

Alabama - Winner Joe Biden

California - Winner Kamala Harris

Massachusetts- Winner Elizabeth Warren

Minnesota - Winner Joe Biden

North Carolina- Winner Joe Biden

Oklahoma- Winner Bernie Sanders

Tennessee- Winner Joe Biden

Texas- Winner Beto O'Rourke

Vermont- Winner Bernie Sanders

Virginia- Winner Joe Biden

Senator Sherrod Brown drops out and endorses Joe Biden, much to the chagrin to Progressives. He says it's because he is the presumptive nominee at this point. It is inconclusive if this actually helped Biden.

Louisiana

1st- Biden (30%), 2nd- Harris (20%), 3rd - O'Rourke (15%), 4th- Sanders (12.5%)

Booker Drops Out and Endorses Harris, hoping to earn a VP slot.

Super Tuesday II

Hawaii- Winner Elizabeth Warren

Idaho- Winner Bernie Sanders

Michigan- Winner Kamala Harris

Mississippi- Winner Joe Biden

Missouri - Winner Joe Biden

Ohio- Winner Bernie Sanders

Warren is boosted by the win in Hawaii to continue the race. O'Rourke is in a precarious position and is anticipated to drop out, should he not gain more ground in the next round

"Big Three"

Arizona- Winner Kamala Harris

Florida- Winner Joe Biden

Illinois- Winner Elizabeth Warren

Warren upsets in Illinois, while Harris squeaks out a win in Arizona. O'Rourke drops out and does not endorse until the campaign is done.

Wisconsin

Wisconsin- Winner Joe Biden

Sanders Drops out and does not endorse, but is in talks with the Biden camp about some sort of cabinet secretary position.

Super Tuesday III

Connecticut- Winner Joe Biden

Delaware- Winner Joe Biden

Maryland - Winner Elizabeth Warren

Pennsylvania - Winner Joe Biden

Rhode Island - Winner Joe Biden

After a strong showing, Biden is propelled forward. Harris drops out and endorses Biden.

Biden locks up the nomination with more victories, as Warren plays what Sanders did in 2016 and rides it out to the end, hoping to gain enough support for a position herself.

Trump faces minimal contest in the Republican nomination. Biden wins 279-259.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, pilight said:

I'm lost as to your point then.

Just because I don't like America doesn't mean I like the British Empire, I was simply pointing out that the US was founded, and built, on the idea of white supremacy, and so was the British Empire.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

Just because I don't like America doesn't mean I like the British Empire, I was simply pointing out that the US was founded, and built, on the idea of white supremacy, and so was the British Empire.

I think that falls into the category of "Duh".  Everybody knows that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ZedWilliamsR said:

This just in: People who died centuries ago weren't perfect by modern standards.

No they certainly weren't. But Constitutional originalists hold their view and ideals weighted FAR above modern political ideologues about needed and beneficial reforms as pertain to the modern day, leading to a lagging behind in Constitutional development, advancement, adaptability, effectiveness, and modern context to most other First World Constitutions, falling sharply from having been the greatest and most stellar guiding document of governance at the time it was written in 1787.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read an article that warren's internal campaign team wants to be a backup for a Sanders like candidate (focused on anti-corruption) in case something happens to Sanders in the primary and intends to stay fairly late into the cycle. I doubt she'd endorse anyone else if she did drop out.
____
Harris is the establishment's preferred candidate since she's good at 1) Identity Politics, 2) faking being a progressive better than clinton, 3) Young, and 4) being corrupt so controllable by the rich donors. But she's failing to gain traction right now. So there's a big push for Biden to enter since the establishment wants Bernie to lose. If Biden enters I expect Harris to drop out and endorse Biden.

Harris is incredibly corrupt and if she somehow wins the primary (not that unlikely given our district voted her in) expect Trump to win as big scandal hit pieces would come out. Harris is basically Hillary 2.0. (I support Warren and Tulsi in addition to Bernie, so no it's not her gender, she is seriously corrupt). She got millions from corporate donors to get elected and she said in a live senator primary debate that she would take care of her donors if elected. Instant attack ad right there in the general. Or any of her other past integrity/corruption scandals (eg https://ocweekly.com/kamala-harris-president-campaign-2/, http://www.abovealllaws.com/2019/01/29/senator-kamala-harris-and-her-corrupt-ways-part-1-of-3-videos/)

I'll vote for Jill Stein again if Harris is the nominee (no it's not a vote for trump California isn't a swing state). Hillary would be a better president than Harris. At least Hillary only had integrity issues and not corruption issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...