Robert Mugabe has died. He had an exceptional career in retaining power in Zimbabwe for 37 years and still has wide support in Africa as a symbol of anti-colonialism. In more recent years he followed divisive and racist policies and brought a relatively well-off country to economic ruin. However, those policies were not always espoused by him.
Like Mandela in South Africa, Mugabe endured ill-treatment as a result of his support for the opposition to the government (in Rhodesia). After the formation of Zimbabwe though he preached reconciliation and for some years after that the future looked pretty good. I travelled through Africa in the early 1990s, which was just at the start of moves to speed up the process of land reform (and prior to the corruption of that process by illegal seizures on behalf of leaders of the ruling Zanu-PF party). It struck me forcibly at that time how good race relations seemed to be in Zimbabwe then (particularly when contrasted to some neighboring countries) and that the country was generally in good order.
While it is possible to argue that Mugabe was pushed into changing policies by the need to placate veterans of the insurrection against Rhodesia, I don't think that really tells the story. I think it would be more accurate to say that he deliberately kept the veterans as a homogenous group in order to underpin his power base and he made a clear shift over a number of years from relying on democracy and the rule of law to extra-judicial methods. 'Paying' those veterans by allowing them to take over white-owned farms was a significant factor in the crash in agricultural production and the downturn in the economy, though the terror tactics against political opponents (like Joshua Nkomo) were more important in destabilizing the country.
Trump's still insisting he was right about Hurricane targeting Alabama despite that never being a thing. He even dragged a state media Fox News Reporter into the oval office to bully him into not calling out his lies as late as yesterday.
This is a deeply insecure man who will never admit that he's wrong even in the face of facts. He's a Baghdad Bob for America. If you don't know him, Baghdad Bob was Saddam Hussein's propaganda man who insisted that everything was fine and the American's were nearly beaten. His pronouncements included claims that American soldiers were committing suicide "by the hundreds" outside the city, and denial that there were any American tanks in Baghdad, when in fact they were only several hundred meters away.
Trump is this guy. He will never admit he's wrong. He will never tell us the truth. He will hide anything inconvenient, just like Baghdad Bob.
I thought I posted a reply, but apparently it got eaten. A somewhat less well-crafted response:
Short version is that this is good to know, but to say that reproductive justice is strictly about abortion is inaccurate. It's about people having the freedom to choose or not choose to have children. In the US, a lot of people, especially disabled people and people of color, have been involuntarily or deceptively sterilized to prevent them from having children, often for "eugenics" reasons. And this has happened recently, although I'm not certain if it's happened in the 21st century.
Responding while I can see this message, apoligies if you had intended t move on and I just haven't seen any replies yet. This is literally the first time I've seen anyone mention or discuss reproductive justice in ANY context outside abortion. So I don't know if this is the standard meaning or not, but thank you for explaining your stance. As for your earlier comment about a fetus being aborted before it develops into a child, that really depends on the time frame you are talking about, and I've never seen two people agree on one. But we both know that late term abortions are a thing. And yes, I acknowledge that they are the minority, but when I see people talk about abortion in a blanket sense, I have to assume they mean it in any form.
Look to Bermuda, an African majority British territory and richer than US in GDP per capita.
It also has a population of 72,000 and is a prime financial center for many multinationals to avoid income taxes because it has no corporate income tax.
There are at LEAST 15,000 corporations who SAY they are headquartered on a tiny island with an area barely 20 square miles with 72,000 people.
To put it mildly, the GDP of Bermuda is rather distorted.
That is how you attract business.
Is much better to live in an Tax Heaven than in a "Tax Hell" where you are overtaxed and have to deal with insane bureaucracy an regulations.
As for Mugabe, that is his legacy. Keynes "In the long run we are all dead" Approves.
"Zimbabwe 'asks farmers to return'" "All but 300 of the 4,000 white farmers have been forced off their land since President Robert Mugabe started his "fast-track" land reform in 2000." source > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4932060.stm
Tax havens only work so long as only a few small countries offer it, same as throwing your waste in the nearest river is the smart thing to do if you are the only one doing it.
It is not as if they are attracting "real" business, i.e. industries and service providers. It's only paper companies and holdings that claim the winnings made in real countries with normal taxes.
Belle, why Asians commit less crimes and earn mode than whites on US? IMO is cultural. Not genetic like WN advocates. Look to Bermuda, an African majority British territory and richer than US in GDP per capita.
"White nationalist" is a euphemism meant to give the impression of being less violent. "White nationalists" are actually white supremacists, and they want what all white supremacists want: Genocide.
If you really want to know what's going on with Asian-Americans, I highly recommend looking it up, but not looking it up anywhere that advocates of the Bell Curve like to congregate.
As for centralization, autoritarian people generally love centralization. Why? Look to US cities who approved strict gun control, they are very close to be dominated by gangs like Detroid. People who hate an authoritarian law can "vote with their feet" and leave an city ruined by socialism, but if the same law is enforced federally, they have no choice...
This has departed the point of the discussion by a wide margin, since my point was that Rome didn't fall because of centralization and in fact was decentralized when the Western Roman Empire fell.
Also, socialism isn't authoritarian and it doesn't ruin cities. Since you don't know what socialism actually is I strongly recommend not using it as the basis of an argument.
The "four emperors" was an LAST RESORT idea. And seriously that you think that 4 guys controlling an empire who controls an big portion of Middle east, North Africa and Europe is "decentralized"? Only USSR managed to be more centralized...
As for socialism not being authoritarian, that is not what "history" says. Even Bakunin, an leftist recognized that Marx socialism would lead to an tinny bureaucracy controlling everything and lets be honest, left wing authoritarian regimes was far more deadly than right wing authoritarian regimes. Pinochet that is demonized, is far less deadly than Venezuela and Cuba. I an not saying that he was perfect, i don't agree with his crimes against humanity, but the reality is that the deadliest right wing dictatorship is less deadlier than the softest left wing dictatorship.
PS : Can you put an single white supremacist advocating for genocide? I can point that Valerie Solanas advocated for an man's genocide and other radical feminist. IMO at least they are honest on their misandry. They din't masqueraded their hate.
This article is basically smoking-gun evidence of the Republican contempt for democracy. We've discussed this guy before in regards to his relation to the census, but his files are basically the Rosetta Stone on this subject. The GOP's "plan" is to rig the board in any and every way possible. They KNOW it's the only way to maintain power. There is nothing on display here but a naked power grab at the expense of the rights of untold numbers of citizens.
The "four emperors" was an LAST RESORT idea. And seriously that you think that 4 guys controlling an empire who controls an big portion of Middle east, North Africa and Europe is "decentralized"? Only USSR managed to be more centralized...
As for socialism not being authoritarian, that is not what "history" says. Even Bakunin, an leftist recognized that Marx socialism would lead to an tinny bureaucracy controlling everything and lets be honest, left wing authoritarian regimes was far more deadly than right wing authoritarian regimes. Pinochet that is demonized, is far less deadly than Venezuela and Cuba. I an not saying that he was perfect, i don't agree with his crimes against humanity, but the reality is that the deadliest right wing dictatorship is less deadlier than the softest left wing dictatorship.
PS : Can you put an single white supremacist advocating for genocide? I can point that Valerie Solanas advocated for an man's genocide and other radical feminist. IMO at least they are honest on their misandry. They din't masqueraded their hate.
Incidentally - I am a historian, and the majority of this is either factually incorrect or specious.
The Tetrarchy was put in place because the Roman Empire had become too difficult to effectively manage for one emperor located in one place. It didn't really last all that long (so I'm not sure why anyone is fixated on it). Out of the Tetrarchy you had the system of one emperor in the west and one in the east (although they sometimes conquered each other - but even then they usually had either a junior emperor set up or a governor who discharged the duties of the displaced emperor).
Taking a a single head of state and divesting him of his authority, then giving that authority to a group of people is functionally a form of decentralization. Comparing the Tetrarchy to the USSR doesn't make sense for dozens of reasons (cultural, technological, etc).
I don't really know how anyone can weigh the moral math and suggest a left-wing dictatorship is somehow worse or better than a right-wing one. Either way, extremists murdered and destroyed lives. Both are bad, and there is no reasonable objective scale to chart them on.
The idea of trying to weigh Pinochet vs Castro or Hitler vs Stalin is fundamentally disturbing to me. Assigning them an order or "badness" seems like it implicitly justifies one over the other, or that we should tolerate either in any way. I'm not comfortable trying to do that.
I don't really know how anyone can weigh the moral math and suggest a left-wing dictatorship is somehow worse or better than a right-wing one. Either way, extremists murdered and destroyed lives. Both are bad, and there is no reasonable objective scale to chart them on..
An maelstrom who kills 20 people is less deadly than an maelstrom that kills millions. Talking about genocides, no genocide killed more people than Holodomor.
About "Tetrarchy was put in place because the Roman Empire had become too difficult to effectively manage for one emperor located in one place." is exactly what i've said. Become too much complex for one central power to control everything and it was an last resort. When i compared to USSR i only mentioned in therms of centralization.
Moscow determining everything from the Eastern part of Russia to the Western part of Poland is a terrifying awful idea.
Brussels determining everything from the southern part of Sicily to the northern part of Sweden is a terrifying awful idea.
Washington DC determining everything from the southern part of Florida to the northern part of Alaska is a terrifying awful idea.
Socialists wanna that the federal government enforces socialism, because people can't "vote with their foots", when the correct is more autonomy. Let the cities decide if citizens can be armed or if guns will be an monopoly of the state and criminals. Let the cities determine if abortion, marijuana, socialized healthcare, etc is legal or not. If diversity is good or not, etc.
An maelstrom who kills 20 people is less deadly than an maelstrom that kills millions. Talking about genocides, no genocide killed more people than Holodomor.
This isn't remotely true. The Nazi Holocaust is estimated at 11 million, the Holodomor at most is estimated at 7.5 million. Widely available numbers. Again, double check things before presenting them as facts, it will improve the quality of discussion on here.
And even so, the Native American genocide at the hands of the various European empires outpaces all of that.
I thought I posted a reply, but apparently it got eaten. A somewhat less well-crafted response:
Short version is that this is good to know, but to say that reproductive justice is strictly about abortion is inaccurate. It's about people having the freedom to choose or not choose to have children. In the US, a lot of people, especially disabled people and people of color, have been involuntarily or deceptively sterilized to prevent them from having children, often for "eugenics" reasons. And this has happened recently, although I'm not certain if it's happened in the 21st century.
Responding while I can see this message, apoligies if you had intended t move on and I just haven't seen any replies yet. This is literally the first time I've seen anyone mention or discuss reproductive justice in ANY context outside abortion. So I don't know if this is the standard meaning or not, but thank you for explaining your stance. As for your earlier comment about a fetus being aborted before it develops into a child, that really depends on the time frame you are talking about, and I've never seen two people agree on one. But we both know that late term abortions are a thing. And yes, I acknowledge that they are the minority, but when I see people talk about abortion in a blanket sense, I have to assume they mean it in any form.
@BelleSorciere and @ThacoBell , I'm sorry for having brought up a sensitive topic that's bound to cause disagreement. I wasn't sure what the term was referring to, if it meant the right to use contraceptives, or access to treatment for infertility, or if it meant abortion, or something else entirely in the context. The term "reproductive justice" seems to have several meanings, and sounds controversial, that's why I asked. And then I forgot to check if someone replied, because life is, well, kind of busy, and this thread moves on so fast that I can't keep up.
Thank you for the link with the explanation what you meant.
I think the bulk of the Native American population that vanished did so because of disease rather than violence. The settlers didn't have the numbers to wipe out the native population, on its home territory, simply because they had better weapons.
There was a period of time in South America, granted, where the bulk of the death would have been due to violence rather than disease. The conquistadors were there specifically for military conquest and came prepared for it: they came with breastplates and horses and guns, and their goal was to find gold. The natives didn't have the weapons to pierce breastplates, nor the animals to outpace horses, which enabled the kind of bizarre atrocities the conquistadors committed in South America. The conquistadors did have the kind of military superiority that gave them near-absolute power when they first arrived.
Further north, though, the early settlers didn't have those kinds of advantages over the natives. The English settlers were there to start a new life rather than bring back gold and treasure, but their attempts at agriculture failed miserably because they didn't know how to grow corn. They did bring along guns, but they were not trained soldiers like the conquistadors, and their encroachment on native land was more gradual.
It was only later on, when the native population started dying off from the diseases introduced by European livestock, that the settlers were able to take over. By that point, the natives were able to push back to some extent by getting firearms through trade--they could use the same weapons against the settlers--but that was not enough. The settlers in North America were actually considerably weaker than the natives at first. The natives could have easily wiped out the settlers in the early days, if they decided to.
They didn't, and 500 years after the first groups of natives decided to take pity on the starving white folks, the natives are nearly extinct except for those that ended up interbreeding with the settlers.
Anyway, given the sheer scale of the death toll, it wouldn't surprise me if the number of violent deaths, even excluding those due to disease, still far outstripped any other given genocide. We're talking about a war (or wars) that went on for hundreds of years, and while we don't know precisely how many people lived in the Americas before the settlers arrived, the natives were nearly wiped out entirely.
I don't know of any estimates, but for the sake of argument, even if you said 90% of the deaths were due to disease and only 10% were due to violence, killing 10% of two entire continents is still a massive genocide.
American history is very dark and very strange. Nothing else in history has been quite like the American genocide.
An maelstrom who kills 20 people is less deadly than an maelstrom that kills millions. Talking about genocides, no genocide killed more people than Holodomor.
This isn't remotely true. The Nazi Holocaust is estimated at 11 million, the Holodomor at most is estimated at 7.5 million. Widely available numbers. Again, double check things before presenting them as facts, it will improve the quality of discussion on here.
And even so, the Native American genocide at the hands of the various European empires outpaces all of that.
I believe that was 6 mi. But not sure, anyway
There have been well over 300 major films and documentaries depicting and/or exploring the tragic events that took place, in an event that has become known as the Holocaust, where between a quarter million to as many as 6 million people, mostly religious and ethnic minorities, were killed at the end of World War II by German forces.
Another genocide targeting civilians, with at least as many casualties, was the man-made famine in the Ukrainian SSR between 1932 and 1933, which has become known as Holodomor.
Even Germany, a country that would be particularly well-positioned to comment on Holodomor, does not even recognize the event as genocidal in nature.
How could this event, which made Ukraine's population drop by 10% between 1926 and 1939, have gone unnoticed in Hollywood, where it seems that another blockbuster movie about the Holocaust is released every year?
Why was my entire 5th grade social studies curriculum centered around the somber reflections of Anne Frank and Elie Wiesel, and my trip to Washington DC in 8th grade punctuated by a solemn visit to the National Holocaust Museum? It took until after I got out of college in 2009 before I discovered anything about Holodomor. Not a page or even a sentence was to be found about Holodomor in any of my school history books. Yet entire curriculums are devoted to the Holocaust.
Moreover, how come in Europe some people can go to jail for a crime called "Holocaust denial" but others can publicly deny Holodomor, a genocide of at least equal size, without fear of legal repercussion? " https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=138814
But how many times people will try to implement socialism and as Bakunin've said, create an totalitarian dictatorship? Venezuela, Cuba, USSR, North Korea, China<...> If something fails in Asia, fails on Europe, fails on Americas, why some people believes that it can work?
PS : Can you put an single white supremacist advocating for genocide? I can point that Valerie Solanas advocated for an man's genocide and other radical feminist. IMO at least they are honest on their misandry. They din't masqueraded their hate.
Perhaps you can point to the widespread and increasingly popular movement among feminist women advocating for the end of all men.
Anyway, Richard Spencer wants the US to become a white ethno-state. Perhaps you could explain how this would not in any way involve genocide against multiple groups?
“The ideal of a white ethno-state — and it is an ideal — is something that I think we should think about in the sense of what could come after America,” Spencer told public radio program “Reveal.” “It's kind of like a grand goal … It's a way of thinking about [how] we want a new type of society that would actually be a homeland for all white people.”
Perhaps you can explain Andrew "weev" Auernheimer's quotes on this page. Here's a sample:
“The reality we have to accept is that we have to kill them all.”
— On Christopher Cantwell’s podcast, discussing non-whites, January 2017.
Perhaps you can explain what was intended at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in August 2017, when white supremacists marched with tiki torches chanting that Jews will not replace them?
Perhaps you can explain what securing a future for white children is meant to mean, exactly?
Perhaps you can explain things seen and heard in Shaun's video about Cville?
As far the Holodomor, it was awful and tragic and wrong and should not have happened, but this does not in any way diminish the white supremacist project of Nazi Germany that sent Jews, Romani, LGBT, and disabled people to concentration camps where millions died.
Also, while remarking on socialist states failing, it's necessary to point out that the United States has done its level best to destabilize each and every socialist state and that unlike white supremacy, socialism is not actually predicated on genocidal ambition.
It's weird how something fails over and over again when the CIA is actively trying to make it fail.
PS : Can you put an single white supremacist advocating for genocide? I can point that Valerie Solanas advocated for an man's genocide and other radical feminist. IMO at least they are honest on their misandry. They din't masqueraded their hate.
Perhaps you can point to the widespread and increasingly popular movement among feminist women advocating for the end of all men.
Anyway, Richard Spencer wants the US to become a white ethno-state. Perhaps you could explain how this would not in any way involve genocide against multiple groups?
“The ideal of a white ethno-state — and it is an ideal — is something that I think we should think about in the sense of what could come after America,” Spencer told public radio program “Reveal.” “It's kind of like a grand goal … It's a way of thinking about [how] we want a new type of society that would actually be a homeland for all white people.”
Perhaps you can explain Andrew "weev" Auernheimer's quotes on this page. Here's a sample:
“The reality we have to accept is that we have to kill them all.”
— On Christopher Cantwell’s podcast, discussing non-whites, January 2017.
Perhaps you can explain what was intended at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in August 2017, when white supremacists marched with tiki torches chanting that Jews will not replace them?
Perhaps you can explain what securing a future for white children is meant to mean, exactly?
Perhaps you can explain things seen and heard in Shaun's video about Cville?
As far the Holodomor, it was awful and tragic and wrong and should not have happened, but this does not in any way diminish the white supremacist project of Nazi Germany that sent Jews, Romani, LGBT, and disabled people to concentration camps where millions died.
Also, while remarking on socialist states failing, it's necessary to point out that the United States has done its level best to destabilize each and every socialist state and that unlike white supremacy, socialism is not actually predicated on genocidal ambition.
It's weird how something fails over and over again when the CIA is actively trying to make it fail.
Yet the Soviets did their best to eradicate many minorities in their territories. They also displaced ethnic Germans from East Prussia and Poles from historically Polish territory and replaced them with Russians. Ever hear of Königsberg? No? It's now called Kaliningrad. How is it that there's that little piece of 'Russia' so far from the rest of their territory?
Anyway, Richard Spencer wants the US to become a white ethno-state. Perhaps you could explain how this would not in any way involve genocide against multiple groups?
A ) Balcanization
B ) Encouraging certain groups to have more children
C ) promoting certain ethnic group immigration and prohibiting another
D ) Paying for non whites to leave
I an not in favor of it. Only showing how it can be done without bloodsheed. Whites can become the greatest majority or a minority without institutionalized violence
As far the Holodomor, it was awful and tragic and wrong and should not have happened, but this does not in any way diminish the white supremacist project of Nazi Germany that sent Jews, Romani, LGBT, and disabled people to concentration camps where millions died.
Nazism as the name suggests is national socialism. Socialism is awlays bad. Doesn't matter if is "right wing socialism"
Also, while remarking on socialist states failing, it's necessary to point out that the United States has done its level best to destabilize each and every socialist state and that unlike white supremacy, socialism is not actually predicated on genocidal ambition.
US interventionism is mostly to maintain FED interests. An African guy was in power from decades, when he decides to try establish an gold currency, suddenly found mass destruction weapons in his possession and an trillionary war started.
This article is basically smoking-gun evidence of the Republican contempt for democracy. We've discussed this guy before in regards to his relation to the census, but his files are basically the Rosetta Stone on this subject. The GOP's "plan" is to rig the board in any and every way possible. They KNOW it's the only way to maintain power. There is nothing on display here but a naked power grab at the expense of the rights of untold numbers of citizens.
The United States is not, and never has been a democracy. That's explicitly by design so if you want to change it you'll have to change the Constitution. I really am tired of hearing about how we're not a democracy like that's somehow a bad thing. Most of the Democratic Party politicians understand this and I don't hear them bitching about it nearly as much as I hear in this Forum. Just sayin'...
This article is basically smoking-gun evidence of the Republican contempt for democracy. We've discussed this guy before in regards to his relation to the census, but his files are basically the Rosetta Stone on this subject. The GOP's "plan" is to rig the board in any and every way possible. They KNOW it's the only way to maintain power. There is nothing on display here but a naked power grab at the expense of the rights of untold numbers of citizens.
The United States is not, and never has been a democracy. That's explicitly by design so if you want to change it you'll have to change the Constitution. I really am tired of hearing about how we're not a democracy like that's somehow a bad thing. Most of the Democratic Party politicians understand this and I don't hear them bitching about it nearly as much as I hear in this Forum. Just sayin'...
I gotta say, this is just bad political analysis. It's not a good argument. *EVERY* democracy on the planet is a representative republic. Every democracy on the planet has legislatures full of members who are representing constituents. When people are talking about the word "democracy" today it is generally to distinguish a government from an autocracy.
It's not how international organizations that rank things like democratic freedom use the word. It's not how the United States' own State Department uses the word. It's not how the word is used in political science texts. You're making a pedant's point but it's actually wrong since the thing you're talking about is called a "direct democracy". And it hasn't existed in practice since the ancient Greek city-states. So why are we making these pedantic points distinguishing something that is commonplace and all over the globe from something that doesn't exist?
This article is basically smoking-gun evidence of the Republican contempt for democracy. We've discussed this guy before in regards to his relation to the census, but his files are basically the Rosetta Stone on this subject. The GOP's "plan" is to rig the board in any and every way possible. They KNOW it's the only way to maintain power. There is nothing on display here but a naked power grab at the expense of the rights of untold numbers of citizens.
The United States is not, and never has been a democracy. That's explicitly by design so if you want to change it you'll have to change the Constitution. I really am tired of hearing about how we're not a democracy like that's somehow a bad thing. Most of the Democratic Party politicians understand this and I don't hear them bitching about it nearly as much as I hear in this Forum. Just sayin'...
I gotta say, this is just bad political analysis. It's not a good argument. *EVERY* democracy on the planet is a representative republic. Every democracy on the planet has legislatures full of members who are representing constituents. When people are talking about the word "democracy" today it is generally to distinguish a government from an autocracy.
It's not how international organizations that rank things like democratic freedom use the word. It's not how the United States' own State Department uses the word. It's not how the word is used in political science texts. You're making a pedant's point but it's actually wrong since the thing you're talking about is called a "direct democracy". And it hasn't existed in practice since the ancient Greek city-states. So why are we making these pedantic points distinguishing something that is commonplace and all over the globe from something that doesn't exist?
Because garnering over 50% of the popular vote doesn't guarantee victory so it's meaningless. I'm just tired of hearing about it.
Edit: I apologize if I sound harsh. In my old age I think I've become more Machiavellian. I don't agree with voter suppression, but many of the other ways parties try to maintain their power is understandable to me. You have to understand that the 'other side' believes that they're in the right. I'm sorry, but if I believe that I'm in the right I'll do everything I can to defend my power. I personally don't ascribe the 'other side' as evil and I'd really appreciate a little less 'righteousness' preaching here from the folks to the left of me.
Garnering over 50% of the popular vote for the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES absolutely should guarantee victory. It's the one arm of the federal government that the founders specifically stated was supposed to represent the popular will.
Garnering over 50% of the popular vote for the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES absolutely should guarantee victory. It's the one arm of the federal government that the founders specifically stated was supposed to represent the popular will.
It did. The House is slightly Democrat controlled now. The Senate will be in a few years if things don't change. If the Republicans don't wake up they'll only control the Judicial soon and even that is tenuous if the Supreme Court sees a shift in popular opinion. Change takes time and I think that's a good thing in the long run.
In early Spring of this year, an Air National Guard crew made a routine trip from the U.S. to Kuwait to deliver supplies. What wasn’t routine was where the crew stopped along the way: President Donald Trump’s Turnberry resort, about 50 miles outside Glasgow, Scotland.
Since April, the House Oversight Committee has been investigating why the crew on the C-17 military transport plane made the unusual stay — both en route to the Middle East and on the way back — at the luxury waterside resort, according to several people familiar with the incident. But they have yet to receive any answers from the Pentagon.
The inquiry is part of a broader, previously unreported probe into U.S. military expenditures at and around the Trump property in Scotland. According to a letter the panel sent to the Pentagon in June, the military has spent $11 million on fuel at the Prestwick Airport — the closest airport to Trump Turnberry — since October 2017, fuel that would be cheaper if purchased at a U.S. military base. The letter also cites a Guardian report that the airport provided cut-rate rooms and free rounds of golf at Turnberry for U.S. military members.
Taken together, the incidents raise the possibility that the military has helped keep Trump’s Turnberry resort afloat — the property lost $4.5 million in 2017, but revenue went up $3 million in 2018.
“The Defense Department has not produced a single document in this investigation,” said a senior Democratic aide on the oversight panel. “The committee will be forced to consider alternative steps if the Pentagon does not begin complying voluntarily in the coming days.”
The Pentagon, Air Force and White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
I swear if I hear anyone who votes for this man complain about "wasteful spending" ever again in my life I'm going to vomit into the nearest paper bag or trash can I lay my eyes on. This is madness. In what universe is this acceptable??
Important to note that this conversation about gerrymandering is about the House of Representatives and state-level legislatures. And gerrymandering can thwart voting majorities from winning legislative majorities. As it did federally in 2012, and as has happened in a number of purple state legislatures. The story jjstraka linked that you initially replied to was about gerrymandering.
In early Spring of this year, an Air National Guard crew made a routine trip from the U.S. to Kuwait to deliver supplies. What wasn’t routine was where the crew stopped along the way: President Donald Trump’s Turnberry resort, about 50 miles outside Glasgow, Scotland.
Since April, the House Oversight Committee has been investigating why the crew on the C-17 military transport plane made the unusual stay — both en route to the Middle East and on the way back — at the luxury waterside resort, according to several people familiar with the incident. But they have yet to receive any answers from the Pentagon.
The inquiry is part of a broader, previously unreported probe into U.S. military expenditures at and around the Trump property in Scotland. According to a letter the panel sent to the Pentagon in June, the military has spent $11 million on fuel at the Prestwick Airport — the closest airport to Trump Turnberry — since October 2017, fuel that would be cheaper if purchased at a U.S. military base. The letter also cites a Guardian report that the airport provided cut-rate rooms and free rounds of golf at Turnberry for U.S. military members.
Taken together, the incidents raise the possibility that the military has helped keep Trump’s Turnberry resort afloat — the property lost $4.5 million in 2017, but revenue went up $3 million in 2018.
“The Defense Department has not produced a single document in this investigation,” said a senior Democratic aide on the oversight panel. “The committee will be forced to consider alternative steps if the Pentagon does not begin complying voluntarily in the coming days.”
The Pentagon, Air Force and White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
I swear if I hear anyone who votes for this man complain about "wasteful spending" ever again in my life I'm going to vomit into the nearest paper bag or trash can I lay my eyes on. This is madness. In what universe is this acceptable??
Yet I'd still bet the deficit comes up in the 2020 election somehow. Trump is NOT a fiscal conservative, that much is obvious. He's a dishonest social conservative at best. He's pissing away military funds on the Godforsaken 'border wall' too...
Important to note that this conversation about gerrymandering is about the House of Representatives and state-level legislatures. And gerrymandering can thwart voting majorities from winning legislative majorities. As it did federally in 2012, and as has happened in a number of purple state legislatures. The story jjstraka linked that you initially replied to was about gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering is not illegal yet unless it's found to be strictly a racial issue. That's hard to prove since minorities overwhelmingly support one of the two parties.
I think it's important to differentiate the difference between whatever corruption those on the left and right may or may not believe happened under Clinton, Bush, and Obama and this. And it shouldn't even really need to be said. Which is that taxpayer dollars are literally being SHOVELED into his businesses like coal being loaded into boilers to fuel the engines of the Titanic. He is using the apparatus of the Executive Branch to steer money to his businesses. And he isn't even being particularly secretive about it. From the beginning, this guy has been DARING us (voters, the media, Democrats in Congress) to do something about this, and we'll have ONE chance next year to stop this. If not?? I don't believe this system of government will survive.
There have been well over 300 major films and documentaries depicting and/or exploring the tragic events that took place, in an event that has become known as the Holocaust, where between a quarter million to as many as 6 million people, mostly religious and ethnic minorities, were killed at the end of World War II by German forces.
Another genocide targeting civilians, with at least as many casualties, was the man-made famine in the Ukrainian SSR between 1932 and 1933, which has become known as Holodomor.
Even Germany, a country that would be particularly well-positioned to comment on Holodomor, does not even recognize the event as genocidal in nature.
How could this event, which made Ukraine's population drop by 10% between 1926 and 1939, have gone unnoticed in Hollywood, where it seems that another blockbuster movie about the Holocaust is released every year?
I'm not sure what the argument here is. Again, there's no real moral math to add up. The Soviet influence famine in Ukraine absolutely deserves to be broadcasted freely/clearly. - I believe it has, although not as much as the Holocaust. The same can be said for the Armenian Genocide (A genocide that even Israel doesnt recognize, by the way), or the genocide by Belgium in the Congo in the 19th century (Which was largely driven by capitalism, mind you).
As for numbers: Almost all reputable historians put the cost of human lives in the holocaust above 6 million. In fact, when 6 million is referenced, it's *usually* a reference to just Jewish people who died. Another 5 to 6 million Slavs, "disabled", Romani and other undesirables were murdered.
It's worth pointing out that the holocaust wasnt even necessarily the most costly event in human lives during WWII. The second Sino-Japanese war (When Japan invaded China) is still perhaps the single most deadly ever in human history. (By the way - Japan was 100% a right wing military dictatorship during WWII).
But how on earth do we compare the holocaust to that? Both were awful. I dont think we would say one was "more awful" than the other. It's not a simple question of math.
Lastly - Genocide as a concept is not necessarily simply the act of murdering everyone. It can be the intentional destruction of one's culture and identity. The USA engaged in this practice with great effort during manifest destiny ("Kill the Indian, Save the man").
So when a white nationalist wants to kill African Americanism as a cultural concept by kicking them all out of the country... that's genocide.
I think it's important to differentiate the difference between whatever corruption those on the left and right may or may not believe happened under Clinton, Bush, and Obama and this. And it shouldn't even really need to be said. Which is that taxpayer dollars are literally being SHOVELED into his businesses like coal being loaded into boilers to fuel the engines of the Titanic. He is using the apparatus of the Executive Branch to steer money to his businesses. And he isn't even being particularly secretive about it. From the beginning, this guy has been DARING us (voters, the media, Democrats in Congress) to do something about this, and we'll have ONE chance next year to stop this. If not?? I don't believe this system of government will survive.
We've survived corruption in the past so I'm not as worried about that. I just hope the Democratic Party is smarter about their candidate than last time. I like Bernie as a person but he and Kamala Harris would be flirting with disaster in my opinion. Warren is a roll of the dice too but maybe a bit of a safer bet. I'd probably vote for Obama light (Biden) at this point but I'm hoping for a long shot right now (Gabbard).
Edit: My view of Warren has softened a bit since I found out she used to be a Republican. At the very least she should be able to understand the other side's viewpoint more than most people...
Churchill did a genocide during World War 2 but most people don't know about the famine he caused in India. The US did a genocide against Native Americans. Canada did one against the indigenous people. Every empire during Europe's expansionist period. We have the Rape of Nanking, the Armenian Genocide, Australia did a genocide against aboriginal people that was extremely recent compared to many of those others, the Khmer Rouge, and so many more. But the thing is, that these things happened does not diminish the explicit white supremacist fascist stance they're trying to sell in the US, Canada, Australia, the UK, multiple European nations. This is a present day concern.
Comments
Like Mandela in South Africa, Mugabe endured ill-treatment as a result of his support for the opposition to the government (in Rhodesia). After the formation of Zimbabwe though he preached reconciliation and for some years after that the future looked pretty good. I travelled through Africa in the early 1990s, which was just at the start of moves to speed up the process of land reform (and prior to the corruption of that process by illegal seizures on behalf of leaders of the ruling Zanu-PF party). It struck me forcibly at that time how good race relations seemed to be in Zimbabwe then (particularly when contrasted to some neighboring countries) and that the country was generally in good order.
While it is possible to argue that Mugabe was pushed into changing policies by the need to placate veterans of the insurrection against Rhodesia, I don't think that really tells the story. I think it would be more accurate to say that he deliberately kept the veterans as a homogenous group in order to underpin his power base and he made a clear shift over a number of years from relying on democracy and the rule of law to extra-judicial methods. 'Paying' those veterans by allowing them to take over white-owned farms was a significant factor in the crash in agricultural production and the downturn in the economy, though the terror tactics against political opponents (like Joshua Nkomo) were more important in destabilizing the country.
https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-reporter-says-trump-called-him-oval-office-argue-he-was-right-about-dorian-threatening-1457978
This is a deeply insecure man who will never admit that he's wrong even in the face of facts. He's a Baghdad Bob for America. If you don't know him, Baghdad Bob was Saddam Hussein's propaganda man who insisted that everything was fine and the American's were nearly beaten. His pronouncements included claims that American soldiers were committing suicide "by the hundreds" outside the city, and denial that there were any American tanks in Baghdad, when in fact they were only several hundred meters away.
Trump is this guy. He will never admit he's wrong. He will never tell us the truth. He will hide anything inconvenient, just like Baghdad Bob.
Responding while I can see this message, apoligies if you had intended t move on and I just haven't seen any replies yet. This is literally the first time I've seen anyone mention or discuss reproductive justice in ANY context outside abortion. So I don't know if this is the standard meaning or not, but thank you for explaining your stance. As for your earlier comment about a fetus being aborted before it develops into a child, that really depends on the time frame you are talking about, and I've never seen two people agree on one. But we both know that late term abortions are a thing. And yes, I acknowledge that they are the minority, but when I see people talk about abortion in a blanket sense, I have to assume they mean it in any form.
That is how you attract business.
Is much better to live in an Tax Heaven than in a "Tax Hell" where you are overtaxed and have to deal with insane bureaucracy an regulations.
As for Mugabe, that is his legacy. Keynes "In the long run we are all dead" Approves.
Talking about anti white racism in Africa
"Zimbabwe Begs White Farmers To Return As Country Plunges Into Famine"
https://newspunch.com/zimbabwe-white-farmers-return/
Other source
"Zimbabwe 'asks farmers to return'"
"All but 300 of the 4,000 white farmers have been forced off their land since President Robert Mugabe started his "fast-track" land reform in 2000." source > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4932060.stm
It is not as if they are attracting "real" business, i.e. industries and service providers. It's only paper companies and holdings that claim the winnings made in real countries with normal taxes.
"White nationalist" is a euphemism meant to give the impression of being less violent. "White nationalists" are actually white supremacists, and they want what all white supremacists want: Genocide.
If you really want to know what's going on with Asian-Americans, I highly recommend looking it up, but not looking it up anywhere that advocates of the Bell Curve like to congregate.
This has departed the point of the discussion by a wide margin, since my point was that Rome didn't fall because of centralization and in fact was decentralized when the Western Roman Empire fell.
Also, socialism isn't authoritarian and it doesn't ruin cities. Since you don't know what socialism actually is I strongly recommend not using it as the basis of an argument.
As for socialism not being authoritarian, that is not what "history" says. Even Bakunin, an leftist recognized that Marx socialism would lead to an tinny bureaucracy controlling everything and lets be honest, left wing authoritarian regimes was far more deadly than right wing authoritarian regimes. Pinochet that is demonized, is far less deadly than Venezuela and Cuba. I an not saying that he was perfect, i don't agree with his crimes against humanity, but the reality is that the deadliest right wing dictatorship is less deadlier than the softest left wing dictatorship.
PS : Can you put an single white supremacist advocating for genocide? I can point that Valerie Solanas advocated for an man's genocide and other radical feminist. IMO at least they are honest on their misandry. They din't masqueraded their hate.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-secret-files-of-the-master-of-modern-republican-gerrymandering
Incidentally - I am a historian, and the majority of this is either factually incorrect or specious.
The Tetrarchy was put in place because the Roman Empire had become too difficult to effectively manage for one emperor located in one place. It didn't really last all that long (so I'm not sure why anyone is fixated on it). Out of the Tetrarchy you had the system of one emperor in the west and one in the east (although they sometimes conquered each other - but even then they usually had either a junior emperor set up or a governor who discharged the duties of the displaced emperor).
Taking a a single head of state and divesting him of his authority, then giving that authority to a group of people is functionally a form of decentralization. Comparing the Tetrarchy to the USSR doesn't make sense for dozens of reasons (cultural, technological, etc).
I don't really know how anyone can weigh the moral math and suggest a left-wing dictatorship is somehow worse or better than a right-wing one. Either way, extremists murdered and destroyed lives. Both are bad, and there is no reasonable objective scale to chart them on.
The idea of trying to weigh Pinochet vs Castro or Hitler vs Stalin is fundamentally disturbing to me. Assigning them an order or "badness" seems like it implicitly justifies one over the other, or that we should tolerate either in any way. I'm not comfortable trying to do that.
An maelstrom who kills 20 people is less deadly than an maelstrom that kills millions. Talking about genocides, no genocide killed more people than Holodomor.
About "Tetrarchy was put in place because the Roman Empire had become too difficult to effectively manage for one emperor located in one place." is exactly what i've said. Become too much complex for one central power to control everything and it was an last resort. When i compared to USSR i only mentioned in therms of centralization.
Socialists wanna that the federal government enforces socialism, because people can't "vote with their foots", when the correct is more autonomy. Let the cities decide if citizens can be armed or if guns will be an monopoly of the state and criminals. Let the cities determine if abortion, marijuana, socialized healthcare, etc is legal or not. If diversity is good or not, etc.
This isn't remotely true. The Nazi Holocaust is estimated at 11 million, the Holodomor at most is estimated at 7.5 million. Widely available numbers. Again, double check things before presenting them as facts, it will improve the quality of discussion on here.
And even so, the Native American genocide at the hands of the various European empires outpaces all of that.
@BelleSorciere and @ThacoBell , I'm sorry for having brought up a sensitive topic that's bound to cause disagreement. I wasn't sure what the term was referring to, if it meant the right to use contraceptives, or access to treatment for infertility, or if it meant abortion, or something else entirely in the context. The term "reproductive justice" seems to have several meanings, and sounds controversial, that's why I asked. And then I forgot to check if someone replied, because life is, well, kind of busy, and this thread moves on so fast that I can't keep up.
Thank you for the link with the explanation what you meant.
There was a period of time in South America, granted, where the bulk of the death would have been due to violence rather than disease. The conquistadors were there specifically for military conquest and came prepared for it: they came with breastplates and horses and guns, and their goal was to find gold. The natives didn't have the weapons to pierce breastplates, nor the animals to outpace horses, which enabled the kind of bizarre atrocities the conquistadors committed in South America. The conquistadors did have the kind of military superiority that gave them near-absolute power when they first arrived.
Further north, though, the early settlers didn't have those kinds of advantages over the natives. The English settlers were there to start a new life rather than bring back gold and treasure, but their attempts at agriculture failed miserably because they didn't know how to grow corn. They did bring along guns, but they were not trained soldiers like the conquistadors, and their encroachment on native land was more gradual.
It was only later on, when the native population started dying off from the diseases introduced by European livestock, that the settlers were able to take over. By that point, the natives were able to push back to some extent by getting firearms through trade--they could use the same weapons against the settlers--but that was not enough. The settlers in North America were actually considerably weaker than the natives at first. The natives could have easily wiped out the settlers in the early days, if they decided to.
They didn't, and 500 years after the first groups of natives decided to take pity on the starving white folks, the natives are nearly extinct except for those that ended up interbreeding with the settlers.
Anyway, given the sheer scale of the death toll, it wouldn't surprise me if the number of violent deaths, even excluding those due to disease, still far outstripped any other given genocide. We're talking about a war (or wars) that went on for hundreds of years, and while we don't know precisely how many people lived in the Americas before the settlers arrived, the natives were nearly wiped out entirely.
I don't know of any estimates, but for the sake of argument, even if you said 90% of the deaths were due to disease and only 10% were due to violence, killing 10% of two entire continents is still a massive genocide.
American history is very dark and very strange. Nothing else in history has been quite like the American genocide.
I believe that was 6 mi. But not sure, anyway
There have been well over 300 major films and documentaries depicting and/or exploring the tragic events that took place, in an event that has become known as the Holocaust, where between a quarter million to as many as 6 million people, mostly religious and ethnic minorities, were killed at the end of World War II by German forces.
Another genocide targeting civilians, with at least as many casualties, was the man-made famine in the Ukrainian SSR between 1932 and 1933, which has become known as Holodomor.
Even Germany, a country that would be particularly well-positioned to comment on Holodomor, does not even recognize the event as genocidal in nature.
How could this event, which made Ukraine's population drop by 10% between 1926 and 1939, have gone unnoticed in Hollywood, where it seems that another blockbuster movie about the Holocaust is released every year?
Why was my entire 5th grade social studies curriculum centered around the somber reflections of Anne Frank and Elie Wiesel, and my trip to Washington DC in 8th grade punctuated by a solemn visit to the National Holocaust Museum? It took until after I got out of college in 2009 before I discovered anything about Holodomor. Not a page or even a sentence was to be found about Holodomor in any of my school history books. Yet entire curriculums are devoted to the Holocaust.
Moreover, how come in Europe some people can go to jail for a crime called "Holocaust denial" but others can publicly deny Holodomor, a genocide of at least equal size, without fear of legal repercussion? " https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=138814
But how many times people will try to implement socialism and as Bakunin've said, create an totalitarian dictatorship? Venezuela, Cuba, USSR, North Korea, China<...> If something fails in Asia, fails on Europe, fails on Americas, why some people believes that it can work?
Perhaps you can point to the widespread and increasingly popular movement among feminist women advocating for the end of all men.
Anyway, Richard Spencer wants the US to become a white ethno-state. Perhaps you could explain how this would not in any way involve genocide against multiple groups?
Perhaps you can explain Andrew "weev" Auernheimer's quotes on this page. Here's a sample:
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/andrew-“weev”-auernheimer
Perhaps you can explain what was intended at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in August 2017, when white supremacists marched with tiki torches chanting that Jews will not replace them?
Perhaps you can explain what securing a future for white children is meant to mean, exactly?
Perhaps you can explain things seen and heard in Shaun's video about Cville?
As far the Holodomor, it was awful and tragic and wrong and should not have happened, but this does not in any way diminish the white supremacist project of Nazi Germany that sent Jews, Romani, LGBT, and disabled people to concentration camps where millions died.
Also, while remarking on socialist states failing, it's necessary to point out that the United States has done its level best to destabilize each and every socialist state and that unlike white supremacy, socialism is not actually predicated on genocidal ambition.
It's weird how something fails over and over again when the CIA is actively trying to make it fail.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/a-timeline-of-cia-atrocities/5348804
Yet the Soviets did their best to eradicate many minorities in their territories. They also displaced ethnic Germans from East Prussia and Poles from historically Polish territory and replaced them with Russians. Ever hear of Königsberg? No? It's now called Kaliningrad. How is it that there's that little piece of 'Russia' so far from the rest of their territory?
A ) Balcanization
B ) Encouraging certain groups to have more children
C ) promoting certain ethnic group immigration and prohibiting another
D ) Paying for non whites to leave
I an not in favor of it. Only showing how it can be done without bloodsheed. Whites can become the greatest majority or a minority without institutionalized violence
Nazism as the name suggests is national socialism. Socialism is awlays bad. Doesn't matter if is "right wing socialism"
US interventionism is mostly to maintain FED interests. An African guy was in power from decades, when he decides to try establish an gold currency, suddenly found mass destruction weapons in his possession and an trillionary war started.
During cold war, yes US tried to avoid having more "Cuba problems", but socialism was never accepted without bloodsheed. If i was alive during Russian revolution, i would join the white army https://www.britannica.com/place/Russia/The-Civil-War-and-War-Communism-1918-21#ref422164
The United States is not, and never has been a democracy. That's explicitly by design so if you want to change it you'll have to change the Constitution. I really am tired of hearing about how we're not a democracy like that's somehow a bad thing. Most of the Democratic Party politicians understand this and I don't hear them bitching about it nearly as much as I hear in this Forum. Just sayin'...
I gotta say, this is just bad political analysis. It's not a good argument. *EVERY* democracy on the planet is a representative republic. Every democracy on the planet has legislatures full of members who are representing constituents. When people are talking about the word "democracy" today it is generally to distinguish a government from an autocracy.
It's not how international organizations that rank things like democratic freedom use the word. It's not how the United States' own State Department uses the word. It's not how the word is used in political science texts. You're making a pedant's point but it's actually wrong since the thing you're talking about is called a "direct democracy". And it hasn't existed in practice since the ancient Greek city-states. So why are we making these pedantic points distinguishing something that is commonplace and all over the globe from something that doesn't exist?
Because garnering over 50% of the popular vote doesn't guarantee victory so it's meaningless. I'm just tired of hearing about it.
Edit: I apologize if I sound harsh. In my old age I think I've become more Machiavellian. I don't agree with voter suppression, but many of the other ways parties try to maintain their power is understandable to me. You have to understand that the 'other side' believes that they're in the right. I'm sorry, but if I believe that I'm in the right I'll do everything I can to defend my power. I personally don't ascribe the 'other side' as evil and I'd really appreciate a little less 'righteousness' preaching here from the folks to the left of me.
It did. The House is slightly Democrat controlled now. The Senate will be in a few years if things don't change. If the Republicans don't wake up they'll only control the Judicial soon and even that is tenuous if the Supreme Court sees a shift in popular opinion. Change takes time and I think that's a good thing in the long run.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/06/air-force-trump-scottish-retreat-1484337
In early Spring of this year, an Air National Guard crew made a routine trip from the U.S. to Kuwait to deliver supplies. What wasn’t routine was where the crew stopped along the way: President Donald Trump’s Turnberry resort, about 50 miles outside Glasgow, Scotland.
Since April, the House Oversight Committee has been investigating why the crew on the C-17 military transport plane made the unusual stay — both en route to the Middle East and on the way back — at the luxury waterside resort, according to several people familiar with the incident. But they have yet to receive any answers from the Pentagon.
The inquiry is part of a broader, previously unreported probe into U.S. military expenditures at and around the Trump property in Scotland. According to a letter the panel sent to the Pentagon in June, the military has spent $11 million on fuel at the Prestwick Airport — the closest airport to Trump Turnberry — since October 2017, fuel that would be cheaper if purchased at a U.S. military base. The letter also cites a Guardian report that the airport provided cut-rate rooms and free rounds of golf at Turnberry for U.S. military members.
Taken together, the incidents raise the possibility that the military has helped keep Trump’s Turnberry resort afloat — the property lost $4.5 million in 2017, but revenue went up $3 million in 2018.
“The Defense Department has not produced a single document in this investigation,” said a senior Democratic aide on the oversight panel. “The committee will be forced to consider alternative steps if the Pentagon does not begin complying voluntarily in the coming days.”
The Pentagon, Air Force and White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
I swear if I hear anyone who votes for this man complain about "wasteful spending" ever again in my life I'm going to vomit into the nearest paper bag or trash can I lay my eyes on. This is madness. In what universe is this acceptable??
Yet I'd still bet the deficit comes up in the 2020 election somehow. Trump is NOT a fiscal conservative, that much is obvious. He's a dishonest social conservative at best. He's pissing away military funds on the Godforsaken 'border wall' too...
Gerrymandering is not illegal yet unless it's found to be strictly a racial issue. That's hard to prove since minorities overwhelmingly support one of the two parties.
I'm not sure what the argument here is. Again, there's no real moral math to add up. The Soviet influence famine in Ukraine absolutely deserves to be broadcasted freely/clearly. - I believe it has, although not as much as the Holocaust. The same can be said for the Armenian Genocide (A genocide that even Israel doesnt recognize, by the way), or the genocide by Belgium in the Congo in the 19th century (Which was largely driven by capitalism, mind you).
As for numbers: Almost all reputable historians put the cost of human lives in the holocaust above 6 million. In fact, when 6 million is referenced, it's *usually* a reference to just Jewish people who died. Another 5 to 6 million Slavs, "disabled", Romani and other undesirables were murdered.
It's worth pointing out that the holocaust wasnt even necessarily the most costly event in human lives during WWII. The second Sino-Japanese war (When Japan invaded China) is still perhaps the single most deadly ever in human history. (By the way - Japan was 100% a right wing military dictatorship during WWII).
But how on earth do we compare the holocaust to that? Both were awful. I dont think we would say one was "more awful" than the other. It's not a simple question of math.
Lastly - Genocide as a concept is not necessarily simply the act of murdering everyone. It can be the intentional destruction of one's culture and identity. The USA engaged in this practice with great effort during manifest destiny ("Kill the Indian, Save the man").
So when a white nationalist wants to kill African Americanism as a cultural concept by kicking them all out of the country... that's genocide.
We've survived corruption in the past so I'm not as worried about that. I just hope the Democratic Party is smarter about their candidate than last time. I like Bernie as a person but he and Kamala Harris would be flirting with disaster in my opinion. Warren is a roll of the dice too but maybe a bit of a safer bet. I'd probably vote for Obama light (Biden) at this point but I'm hoping for a long shot right now (Gabbard).
Edit: My view of Warren has softened a bit since I found out she used to be a Republican. At the very least she should be able to understand the other side's viewpoint more than most people...