sorry, which of the world's "communist" regimes allowed their prisoners to vote in contested elections?

First off, communist countries didn’t lock people up for being black

It sounds like you're trying to defend communist countries' domestic policies by comparing them to the US.

However, didn't the USSR starve Ukraine for like 4 years in the 1930s?

China does some **** right, but some of their policies are still very dystopian. Like gamifying being a good citizen, so it impacts your credit rating and whether you can have a job. Or outlawing public protests, or any public instigation in any form to the degree they crack down on unions of all things.

It's my speculation that whether or not you want to equivocate foreign policy, classism and prejudices still exist in communist countries and they do have an impact.

I like it.

I'm now comfortably in deplorable Placerville on the way to Tahoe. The leftists are only the coast (literally and figuratively I suppose).

I wonder what Donnie the Dove, the Peace Candidate has been up to in Afghanistan

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...ns-taliban-and

A great number of Israelis are palestenians by that definition

But the issue is admitting israelis were there before 1948 hurts the Palestinian belief of a one state solution where Israel has no right to exist falls flat

looking into this just a bit more, it seems Omar didn't actually say anything herself, but retweeted this:




I have no idea how this gets spun into "admitting Israelies were there before 1948"... how that could possibly be read into this.*

The entire point of the message is that "Palestinian" does not mean "Muslim", it means "people living in the region known as Palestine".

Sure, technically the region wasn't called "Palestine" by the Romans for like 30-50 years after Jesus.



*actually, now I do - there was no State Of Israel prior to 1948, so the people living there could not have been "Israelis"

Thus you acknowledge that communist countries also denied franchise to prisoners?


Interesting that you chose to play the race card here, especially given that, afaiu, communist countries didn't have significant black populations to begin with, so of course they didn't lock people up for being black.

Here's a followup question, though - what is the track record of communist countries locking up ethnic minorities that actually were present within their borders?

Grandpa Bernie is 77, Grabby Uncle Joe is 76.

gjge expected dem voters

[quote author="@jman220" source="/post/3679/thread" timestamp="1556076175"]So I see that “luckbox” just made an account here (assuming it’s him). *I think he is light years worse than even Bundy and Juan given his posting in the POG politics thread, his trutherism, and the fact that he confronted someone who actually lost a friend in Columbine and linked him to a video of his dead friend to claim that it was faked. *I think the fact that he isn’t permabanned on 2+2 is a travesty. *Does anybody have any strong disagreements with him being banned here?[/quote]
It's the real Luckbox. I made this account because tapatalk requires you to register if you want to lurk and I have enjoyed lurking you guys in the past. It is good to know what other people are thinking. I don't have any intention of posting here if I'm not wanted to post here and if i was banned I would not attempt to post again, but I think the reasons that you give for wanting me banned from the onset are not valid and I will attempt to address them.

1) First I don't know anything about how Bundy and Juan are. I have seen some of their posts but I don't know what their thinking is about so I can't address whether I am "worse" than them or how I compare to them so I'll have to leave that alone.

But I'm not a troll. Nobody who actually interacts with me thinks that. I have tons of political posts on 2p2 and I have never been banned or infracted or exiled and that includes a couple hundred in the politics forum.

2) The situation with the guy who went to the neighboring highschool from Columbine and knew people was regrettable on my part. I had just woken up and was posting hastily without any kind of forethought. I apologized for my actions.

3) For my "posts in POG" doesn't really mean anything. Which posts?

4) It is for my "trutherism" that you want me banned and for that alone. But should "trutherism" be something that people should be so afraid of? If "trutherism" is a cancer then what better place is this for the people here to put me in my place and show how wrong my ideas actually are?

Ultimately I do actually believe a lot of things that would be considered far-out by mainstream standards, but the nature of how things are in this world isn't a popularity contest and you'll find that being on the side of the "few" in this world is oftentimes a lot more correct than being on the side of the "many".

So instead of banning me how about just giving me a thread where people can come and dunk on me? If it is ever thought that I am posting in bad faith or that I'm not making an attempt to address people's arguments, then ban me. And if you show how silly I am for thinking the things I think, consider the public service you will have done. This would be a much better result for the people here than looking like a group of people who cannot tolerate dissenting voices.
-------
Well I made this post on the new politics forum in response to a Jman op and it hasn't been deleted, or responded to, and I haven't been banned yet. I doubt I'll be getting a thread but I feel like there are enough valid points in there to make it worthwhile to cross post it here--especially as people like eyebooger and WN figure out what the appropriate level of censorship is here.

ill have to check it out

Not really sure why you cross-posted this here.

I, for one, said that no one should be "pre-banned" in the new forum, but I might be in the minority there.

Biggest problem (IMO) with Bernie/Biden is that they are old as ****. We don’t want the risk of another POTUS with senile dementia.

I cross posted it because I think there is a very real chance I am banned and the post is deleted and I wanted it saved here. And because some of the meta points are good.

I appreciate you (almost) sticking up for me there.

A bigger problem with Biden is that he sucks and won't excite anyone.

I really think his candidacy is going to flame out fast.

Biden has only proven to be an absolutely horrible presidential candidate over and over and over again, all the way back to his plagiarism scandal in the 80s. He's always been a ****ing joke, no idea what anybody ever saw in him politically that was even remotely appealing.

Sanders will turn out to be his own kind of socialist Vermont joke, stay tuned.

However the fact of the matter is that none of the "centrist" candidates excite anyone except mayyyyybe Buttigieg and he doesn't have anywhere near the name recognition of Biden.

I know that all the cool kids want hard left candidates but the reality is there are lots of olds and soccer moms and people that do vote in the primary that consider themselves Dems but aren't all in on socialism. Those votes are going to go somewhere and if not to Biden, where?

I'm not convinced that Harris or Gillibrand or Klobuchar have enough name recognition to pass Biden, let alone any of the even more fringe centrist candidates. They might need a really juicy scandal to keep Handsy Joe from a first or second place position.

Buttigieg primarily, with a significant chunk going to Beto or Harris.

Booker announced he 100% will have a female running mate

Banned but they kept the post up. Banned under the logic that I would be banned eventually, which seems silly because I know how to follow rules but, assim é a vida

Confirmed. I have not yet decided on who it will be and am specifically keeping my options open as to whether she will be Shona or Matebele. I can say that there is no way that Grace Mugabe or Joice Mujuru will be my selection as they are candidates to be tried for crimes against the people.

Together in partnership with an exceptional woman and the people of Zimbabwe we will make this country the shining star of Africa. Pamwe chete tinoita Zimbabwe nyeredzi yeAfrica!



Oh, you meant Cory Booker. Never mind then.

Personally I hope that you're right that Buttigieg is the primary recipient but I frankly doubt that Buttigieg is going to be able to raise his profile enough.

Beto is going to be a sideshow.

Whatever initial momentum Harris had seems to be stalled. I'm not up to date on her recent campaign efforts but she's seemed pretty invisible to me.

jfc! buttigieg is a monster! *sigh*

Narrator: filthy soon remembered that they were all monsters and imperialism will continue unabated regardless of who the nominee ends up being. Then he went for ice cream.