• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

In the 1990s, Joe Biden said William Barr was "one of the best" attorneys general

Redress said:
I said stuff back in the 90s that makes me cringe today too. 30 years from now, Sanders and Trump supporters will cringe remembering that.
Click to expand...

Does anyone think that William Barr will have a position in the Biden Administration?
 
Surrealistik said:
#1: Biden won't give us 25% of what we want, nevermind 75%; get out of here with that absurd nonsense.

#2: Your nonsense 'but muh McGovern' spiel is as tired, ridiculous and inapplicable now as it was months ago, particularly given your selective misinterpretation of their losses as being wholly or chiefly predicated on their political agenda as opposed to the factually more salient reasons underlying their fatal personalities, gaffes and sub-par campaigning. Meanwhile, your precious ****ty centrist candidate literally just lost to probably the worst one the Republicans have ever fielded as the Blue Wall flipped on her, while her centrist colleagues in the party under centrist leadership lost the House and Senate wholesale in a historic blowout, and now, fresh on the heels of that, we're going to war with a guy who smacks of early stage dementia whose campaign wholly subscribes to the same 'referendum on Trump' strategy that failed so egregiously before. It truly is fortunate in some ways this is all set to the backdrop of COVID-19, because otherwise we wouldn't have a hope in hell. Moreover, that someone holds 'far left' and revolutionary/populist policy views is in no way inherently linked to electoral failure; see FDR.

#3: Whether or not Biden is better than Trump, and I would submit that he is, the fact is his track record is on the whole pretty heinous and should be dredged up, discussed and frankly regarded with the contempt it deserves.

#4: You don't know **** about CMPancake, so don't pretend as though you know he doesn't have something to lose.

#5: Your 'far left' (see, actual left), a term you love to throw around in order to delegitimize those you disagree with, is the rest of the developed world's centre to mainstream left.

By the way, I probably will hold my nose and vote for this election's establishment shill again, and while I certainly don't agree that Biden is as bad as Trump, or that there's no substantive difference between the two, I'm frankly sick of seeing people like you try to bully Sanders supporters and others on the actual left with this sort of vapid, disingenuous nonsense should they be less than persuaded to get behind today's quadrennial corporate whore, which is exactly what Biden is, has been, and will be.
Click to expand...

I am not a fan of Sanders. I don't think he would make an effective president at all, and I think many of his proposals were not only impractical but also politically impossible.

Just the same, early in the primary season when it looked like Sanders might win the nomination, I started contributing to his campaign. Had he won the nomination, I would have continued to contribute to his campaign and maxed out this election cycle contributing to his campaign. I would have also volunteered for his campaign, manned phone banks for him, drove people to the polls for him, and whatever they needed from me. Why? Because Sanders is still an order of magnitude better than the utterly despicable human being sitting in the White House today.

Does anyone think that William Barr would have a place in the Biden Administration? No, of course not, which why the entire premise of this thread is nothing more than whiny stupidity.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I am not a fan of Sanders. I don't think he would make an effective president at all, and I think many of his proposals were not only impractical but also politically impossible.

Just the same, early in the primary season when it looked like Sanders might win the nomination, I started contributing to his campaign. Had he won the nomination, I would have continued to contribute to his campaign and maxed out this election cycle contributing to his campaign. I would have also volunteered for his campaign, manned phone banks for him, drove people to the polls for him, and whatever they needed from me. Why? Because Sanders is still an order of magnitude better than the utterly despicable human being sitting in the White House today.

Does anyone think that William Barr would have a place in the Biden Administration? No, of course not, which why the entire premise of this thread is nothing more than whiny stupidity.
Click to expand...

There is nothing whiny or stupid about pointing out the reality of who Biden is, and where he comes from on a policy and votation standpoint, and how he hasn't really changed all that much since; he's still a behind the times laggard on policy economic, social and otherwise.

Second, though I completely disagree with your assessment of Sanders as a president, and find that a left populist who actually represents people as opposed to corporate interests is long overdue in the White House, I respect that you would have worked to see him elected if what you're claiming is true.

That having been said, there are absolutely legitimate reasons for not voting Biden (or making those votes conditional on certain policy platforms), many of which I agree with, even if in balance I presently lean more in the direction of harm minimization despite this fact. Those who feel they need to hold their vote for ransom have a point: after all, the Democratic party is probably never going to respect the votes of those it believes it can take for granted, or those it deems it can otherwise browbeat, bully and intimidate into submission (why would or should they?), and unfortunately I see precious little in the way of substantive overtures, concessions and reconciliation between the Biden campaign and party progressives that would suggest responsiveness to the latter's desires and concerns.
 
CMPancake said:
Historically speaking, that is a lie. Unless you genuinely believe segregation and mass incarceration of black Americans is helping them. I wanted to save the country and supported my compromise candidate. Democrats instead opted to want to lose by nominating a Conservative who doesn't want to save the country.
Click to expand...

You are confused, my friend, about the history. Bernie will tell you to vote Biden. Do so.

Any prog lefty who won't vote for Biden has no place in America's future.
 
Puigb said:
So? Throughout the 1990's Trump was Bill Clinton's biggest supporter. In 2005 Trump had them at his wedding. In 2008 Trump said Hillary would make a good president. Even in 2013, as already a registered Republican and Birther, he was STILL praising Hillary Clinton. What Biden said 25-30 years ago is irrelevant to now, especially in the era of Trump where a candidates past, even recent past, doesn't matter in the slightest.
Click to expand...

Oh but that's fine for Republicans
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Blowing everything up is never an option.

Politics is the art of possible, that is the political philosophy I subscribe to.
Click to expand...

Not only is it sometimes an option to blow things up, at times it is necessary, inevitable, or both. History reinforces this point time and time and time again. A smattering of semi-recent examples:


  • World War, chapter I and II
  • Collapse of the Ottoman Empire
  • Collapse of the British Empire
  • Indian Revolution
  • Chinese Revolution
  • Vietnam, war and revolution
  • Collapse of the Soviet Union
  • The "Arab Spring"

Frankly, I'm not sure what you're thinking here.
 
Last edited:
ashurbanipal said:
Not only is it sometimes an option to blow things up, at times it is both necessary and inevitable. History reinforces this point time and time and time again.
Click to expand...

And not everyone wants to take a chance on radical change after 4 years of chaos. What if people just want to return to a normal before all of the madness of this administration.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
And not everyone wants to take a chance on radical change after 4 years of chaos. What if people just want to return to a normal before all of the madness of this administration.
Click to expand...

Oh, people may well want that. People also want to sit on the sofa all day, eat steak and potato chips, and watch cable TV. It's nice and comfortable...and also a slow death.

Now, do I think there's anything that can be done, practically speaking, about the future I see happening? No, I do not think so--precisely because people want a "return to normal," as you say. But none of that means I have to go along with it, or that those of us who are driven by our conscience have to go along with it, either.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Oh, people may well want that. People also want to sit on the sofa all day, eat steak and potato chips, and watch cable TV. It's nice and comfortable...and also a slow death.
Click to expand...

What is the alternative? Total social and political reform?

Such a task takes a lifetime, possibly two or three, in order to accomplish such a task. It requires a set of underlying principles. It requires making arguments on the purpose of government and its institutions.
 
CMPancake said:
In the 1990s, Joe Biden said William Barr was "one of the best" attorneys general - CBS News



Joe Biden has been one of the biggest allies to the Republican Party and Conservatives for almost his entire political career. If you truly feel like William Barr is a political extremist that is causing irreparable harm to American Politics as AG then you cannot vote for Biden who did his best to massage Barr's reputation while Barr pushed to create more prisons and prisoners to fill them with.
Click to expand...

Barr is doing no less or no more than the US has ever done for justice..
 
ashurbanipal said:
I think the "far left" (which, as someone else noted, is just the rest of the world's center/slightly left) doesn't believe Biden will give them 75% of what they want. Rather, he will give them 0% of what they want--so there's nothing to choose between him and Trump.
Click to expand...

That's simply not true. The far left in the US consists of democratic socialists, many of whom are members of the DSA, which is one of the largest socialist organizations in the world. Right in the DSA constitution it states they support a centralized, planned economy and the elimination of capitalism, just like the USSR or Cuba. That's not "center left" anywhere in the world.
 
CMPancake said:
If you truly feel like William Barr is a political extremist that is causing irreparable harm to American Politics as AG then you cannot vote for Biden who did his best to massage Barr's reputation while Barr pushed to create more prisons and prisoners to fill them with.
Click to expand...

Right, if you feel Barr is "causing irreparable harm" you should definitely pass up the chance to remove him from the DOJ. Makes perfect sense!

And if you think the courts are swinging too far right, make sure to vote to swing them further right. If you think not enough Americans have access to health care, make sure to vote to take access away from tens of millions of people.

Righties pretending to be lefties are a fun poster type.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
What is the alternative? Total social and political reform?

Such a task takes a lifetime, possibly two or three, in order to accomplish such a task. It requires a set of underlying principles. It requires making arguments on the purpose of government and its institutions.
Click to expand...

Yes, total social, political, and economic reform is the alternative. And it does take a long time, though it also takes widespread motivation and the right set of circumstances, along with a new base of theory.

Part of the problem I see is that the base of theory we use is nearly three centuries old, and grew out of what turns out more and more to look like an aberration from the main lines of history, rather than an outgrowth from them. Enlightenment thinkers that inspired the founding fathers, such as John Locke, Edward Gibbon, Adam Smith, Thomas Reid, Alexander Pope, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Charles-Louis de Montesquieu, and so on, all shared a common vision of human beings that we know is entirely false (and actually, they should have known it--Jonathan Swift and David Hume both issued stern warnings), and the systems they created within which human beings are supposed to fit are therefore flawed. We are watching the gradual unraveling of those Enlightenment ideals, and that process will lead to its inevitable conclusion in one of two ways: either the total collapse of western civilization, or the complete triumph of corporatism. Hard to tell which will occur, but if I had to place a bet, I'd place a bet on the latter.

The former affords us the chance to rebuild. The latter...reminds me of George Orwell's prediction: if you want to know the future, just envision a jackboot stamping on a human face forever. Only it won't be a government soldier wearing the boot, it'll be this or that company man.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Yes, total social, political, and economic reform is the alternative. And it does take a long time, though it also takes widespread motivation and the right set of circumstances, along with a new base of theory.

Part of the problem I see is that the base of theory we use is nearly three centuries old, and grew out of what turns out more and more to look like an aberration from the main lines of history, rather than an outgrowth from them. Enlightenment thinkers that inspired the founding fathers, such as John Locke, Edward Gibbon, Adam Smith, Thomas Reid, Alexander Pope, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Charles-Louis de Montesquieu, and so on, all shared a common vision of human beings that we know is entirely false (and actually, they should have known it--Jonathan Swift and David Hume both issued stern warnings), and the systems they created within which human beings are supposed to fit are therefore flawed. We are watching the gradual unraveling of those Enlightenment ideals, and that process will lead to its inevitable conclusion in one of two ways: either the total collapse of western civilization, or the complete triumph of corporatism. Hard to tell which will occur, but if I had to place a bet, I'd place a bet on the latter.

The former affords us the chance to rebuild. The latter...reminds me of George Orwell's prediction: if you want to know the future, just envision a jackboot stamping on a human face forever. Only it won't be a government soldier wearing the boot, it'll be this or that company man.
Click to expand...

If democracy is to die, better for to die in defense of those enlightenment ideals. Yes the system was born from it was flawed, but all human creations are flawed. Isn’t it more important to aspire to live according to the enlightenment ideals and expand upon them?
 
aociswundumho said:
That's simply not true. The far left in the US consists of democratic socialists, many of whom are members of the DSA, which is one of the largest socialist organizations in the world. Right in the DSA constitution it states they support a centralized, planned economy and the elimination of capitalism, just like the USSR or Cuba. That's not "center left" anywhere in the world.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...so first, how much do you want to bet that there are posts on these boards calling both Hillary and Obama "far left"? In fact, conservatives have been calling things like Obamacare (a market-based health care system) "far left" since its inception. So you're attempting to redefine a phrase that already has a common meaning. But I would admit we are talking about Bernie, who does describe himself as a Democratic Socialist.

Second, where does it say any of that in the DSA constitution? The DSA says they support a system based on popular control of resources and economic planning. They do not say anything about "elimination of capitalism, just like the USSR or Cuba," nor do they say that they support a centralized, planned economy with the kind of totality you seem to mean, as they explain here:

What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.

Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.

Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.
Click to expand...

There's nothing about the DSA platform that would eliminate private enterprise. Most members of the DSA I know (in fact, now that I think about it, literally all of them) want to nationalize some industries, and leave others to the private sector. Industries that provide the needs of every person should be placed under popular control, per the DSA platform--thus health care, food, and energy industries would be placed under some form of popular control.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
If democracy is to die, better for to die in defense of those enlightenment ideals. Yes the system was born from it was flawed, but all human creations are flawed. Isn’t it more important to aspire to live according to the enlightenment ideals and expand upon them?
Click to expand...

No. Those ideals are based on false premises--false views of how and what human beings are. They're based on false views about how the universe works. Now that we know all of that, why in the world would anyone want to live up to the ideals based upon those false assumptions?

Also, while the death of democracy may well be coming down the pike, nothing I've said is meant to suggest I think democracy should die.
 
ashurbanipal said:
No. Those ideals are based on false premises--false views of how and what human beings are. They're based on false views about how the universe works. Now that we know all of that, why in the world would anyone want to live up to the ideals based upon those false assumptions?

Also, while the death of democracy may well be coming down the pike, nothing I've said is meant to suggest I think democracy should die.
Click to expand...

For the purposes of discussion, what exactly are these false assumptions?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
For the purposes of discussion, what exactly are these false assumptions?
Click to expand...

1. That human beings are inevitably and always rational (Descartes, Locke, Montesquieu)

2. That human reason can comprehend all things (Descartes, Leibniz, Locke, Boyle)

3. That human beings in an economy all have access to the same information and have the same amount of power in every negotiation (Smith, Rousseau)

4. That human beings will always act rationally in accordance with their own interests (Locke, Pope, Smith, Rousseau)

5. That economic powers will never overcome the power held by government (Smith)

6. That the universe is composed of corpuscles (That'd be pretty much every enlightenment thinker)

7. That those corpuscles behave according to rigid, mathematically describable mechanical laws (ditto, except possibly Leibniz)

8. That in principle the future is always determined by the present state of all corpuscles plus those aforementioned mechanical laws (thus there is no such thing as luck--again, that's pretty much every Enlightenment thinker)

9. That the human mind is supreme while the body is unimportant (Again, pretty much every Enlightenment thinker except Swift and Hume)

10. That there is a telos of human society, leading toward Protestant Christian ideals and ethics (Kant, in particular)
 
Last edited:
ashurbanipal said:
1. That human beings are inevitably and always rational

2. That human reason can comprehend all things

3. That human beings in an economy all have access to the same information and have the same amount of power in every negotiation

4. That human beings will always act rationally in accordance with their own interests

5. That economic powers will never overcome the power held by government

6. That the universe is composed of corpuscles

7. That those corpuscles behave according to rigid, mathematically describable mechanical laws

8. That in principle the future is always determined by the present state of all corpuscles plus those aforementioned mechanical laws

9. That the human mind is supreme while the body is unimportant
Click to expand...

What about the truth that all men are created equal?
 
ashurbanipal said:
Hmmm...so first, how much do you want to bet that there are posts on these boards calling both Hillary and Obama "far left"? In fact, conservatives have been calling things like Obamacare (a market-based health care system) "far left" since its inception.
Click to expand...

Obamacare compelled people by law to buy insurance. That is not "market based".

Second, where does it say any of that in the DSA constitution?
Click to expand...

Right here:

DSA said:
We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, gross inequalities of wealth and power, discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, disability status, age, religion, and national origin, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo. We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships.

DSA Constitution & Bylaws - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)
Click to expand...

No private profit means no capitalism. Economic planning and equitable distribution means a command economy. It can't mean anything else.

There's nothing about the DSA platform that would eliminate private enterprise. Most members of the DSA I know (in fact, now that I think about it, literally all of them) want to nationalize some industries, and leave others to the private sector. Industries that provide the needs of every person should be placed under popular control, per the DSA platform--thus health care, food, and energy industries would be placed under some form of popular control.
Click to expand...

Popular control means nationalization. The amount of nationalization they want puts them "far left" anywhere in the world.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Isn’t that a ideal worth defending?

One better: Shouldn’t that ideal now be “ all humankind are created equal”?
Click to expand...

Well, if you mean that all human beings have the same essential moral worth, then yes. However, that was not exactly an Enlightenment ideal...nor was it exactly not an Enlightenment ideal.

I wonder if you've ever read Immanuel Kant's Religion Within the Bounds of Reason Alone and Jean Cauvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. The notion that all human beings are of equal moral worth arose out of the Protestant Reformation, and probably has its most profound expression in Cauvin's work--I don't recall the exact reference, but he basically says that Christ, and Christianity, command us to recognize all human beings, of all races, and of either sex, to be part of a universal brotherhood of equal esteem in the eyes of God. Unfortunately, his followers latched on to half of his argument about determinism and forgot much of the rest of what he argued, including that part.

Kant mangled this view to mean only that white Christian European men have a duty to Christianize the entire world--and of course, women were to be considered lesser creatures barely better than animals (which is weird, because even the Medieval period didn't have as harsh a view of women).

When Jefferson wrote that it was self-evident that all mean are created equal, he meant it much more in Kant's vein than Cauvin's. You can see that in how the country got its start once the revolution was won: white landowning men got the vote, while women, black slaves, and Indians had no or few legal rights. Clearly, not all human beings were considered equal.

There's a lot more to the history of the concept, but this is to some extent a red herring. Look: if I make an argument with five premises, and one of those premises is false while the other four are true, my conclusion is still not guaranteed to be true, and is in fact very likely false if my reasoning from all my premises is formally valid. That the Enlightenment thinkers I mentioned got a lot wrong doesn't mean they got everything wrong, but by the same token, that they got something right doesn't mean they got everything right. The stuff they got wrong is part of what funds Western Civilization at its very core, and hence the result is something that cannot endure. Gradually, it will unravel.

And yet, what that also means is that Western Civilization, as it currently exists, is not the only way to defend the notion that all human beings are of equal moral worth. Frankly, if you ask me, it looks to me like Bernie would defend that ideal a lot better than Biden will.
 
aociswundumho said:
Obamacare compelled people by law to buy insurance. That is not "market based".
Click to expand...

No, that's not what it did. It taxed people who did not have insurance--as well should be the case, since everyone else picks up the bill for those who go into the emergency room in need of medical attention but who don't have insurance. The law did not jail or execute people for not having insurance.

aociswundumho said:
Right here:
Click to expand...

See my previous post, where I obviously referenced that passage and explained what you seem to be missing. Here, let me do so again, by way of a couple questions: Where, in the passage you quote, do they say they support the "elimination of capitalism, just like the USSR or China"? Where does it say they support the kind of totally planned and centralized economy you seem to be envisioning?

aociswundumho said:
No private profit means no capitalism.
Click to expand...

Yes, your statement here is true, since private profit is a necessary condition for capitalism. However, the DSA Constitution does not say, in the passage you quoted nor anywhere else, that there should be no private profit. See passage I quoted in my last post where they explain what they mean. Here, let me quote it again for you:

Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.


Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.


Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.


Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.
Click to expand...


Analogy: suppose I say I reject a life based on carnal pleasures. Does that mean I must become entirely celibate, eschew good food or any other bodily pleasure? No, of course not--it merely means that carnal pleasures are no longer considered the fundament and telos of life. A life based on learning and service to others, for example, need not utterly banish enjoying a good steak or having sex or watching a cool movie or what-have-you.

aociswundumho said:
Economic planning and equitable distribution means a command economy. It can't mean anything else.
Click to expand...

However, this is obviously false. Economic planning comes in degrees--to have an economic plan does not mean we must have a total economic plan. Equitable distribution, ditto--Democratic Socialists would consider it equitable if an employee-owned corporation voted to give some workers a higher salary than others within the organization, and thus nothing more than local (i.e. within the organization) planning required.

aociswundumho said:
Popular control means nationalization.
Click to expand...

Also false. Read again (if you read it at all) the passage I quoted in my previous post and again above. Popular control can mean worker-owned corporations or cooperatives, or worker/consumer representative-managed corporations, or any number of other possible schemes.

aociswundumho said:
The amount of nationalization they want puts them "far left" anywhere in the world.
Click to expand...

Also obviously false. Most of Europe, Canada, Japan, Russia, Mexico, South Korea, China, India, and much of the Arab world have all placed under popular control or nationalized the health care and energy industries, and to some extent done so with the food industry.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Well, if you mean that all human beings have the same essential moral worth, then yes. However, that was not exactly an Enlightenment ideal...nor was it exactly not an Enlightenment ideal.

I wonder if you've ever read Immanuel Kant's Religion Within the Bounds of Reason Alone and Jean Cauvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. The notion that all human beings are of equal moral worth arose out of the Protestant Reformation, and probably has its most profound expression in Cauvin's work--I don't recall the exact reference, but he basically says that Christ, and Christianity, command us to recognize all human beings, of all races, and of either sex, to be part of a universal brotherhood of equal esteem in the eyes of God. Unfortunately, his followers latched on to half of his argument about determinism and forgot much of the rest of what he argued, including that part.

Kant mangled this view to mean only that white Christian European men have a duty to Christianize the entire world--and of course, women were to be considered lesser creatures barely better than animals (which is weird, because even the Medieval period didn't have as harsh a view of women).

When Jefferson wrote that it was self-evident that all mean are created equal, he meant it much more in Kant's vein than Cauvin's. You can see that in how the country got its start once the revolution was won: white landowning men got the vote, while women, black slaves, and Indians had no or few legal rights. Clearly, not all human beings were considered equal.

There's a lot more to the history of the concept, but this is to some extent a red herring. Look: if I make an argument with five premises, and one of those premises is false while the other four are true, my conclusion is still not guaranteed to be true, and is in fact very likely false if my reasoning from all my premises is formally valid. That the Enlightenment thinkers I mentioned got a lot wrong doesn't mean they got everything wrong, but by the same token, that they got something right doesn't mean they got everything right. The stuff they got wrong is part of what funds Western Civilization at its very core, and hence the result is something that cannot endure. Gradually, it will unravel.

And yet, what that also means is that Western Civilization, as it currently exists, is not the only way to defend the notion that all human beings are of equal moral worth. Frankly, if you ask me, it looks to me like Bernie would defend that ideal a lot better than Biden will.
Click to expand...

I don’t know if Bernie was the right candidate because he was unable or unwilling to expand his appeal beyond his core supporters. South Carolina was a decisive moment in the campaign.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom