[busterarm]

Isn't this the guy that just said that within a generation white people will be shooting up Asians?

I'm not sure how writing off a demographic of people not even born yet is going to go for his campaign.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWQNiiC0AzA

[class4behavior]

That doesn't sound like him writing off a demographic but criticizing the path the nation is treading on. Unfortunately, he's using fear to do that.

[jlisam13]

Not to disagree with you, I think writing off a certain demographic is a terrible idea specially if you are running an inclusive platform like his, but what he said was clearly taken out of context.

[indigodaddy]

Yang is going to gain steam. Might give Kamala a run for her money. I recommend you check out the Joe Rogan interview.

[dragonwriter]

> Yang is going to gain steam. Might give Kamala a run for her money.

While it's extremely early (though in most recent elections, the eventual primary winner was at this point in first or second place, more often second), Harris is only polling third (consistently, across polls) and is way behind Biden (first) and Sanders (second, so arguably the most likely nominee).

[SlowRobotAhead]

>Sanders (second, so arguably the most likely nominee).

I wonderfully interested that you think the DNC would allow that to happen after just two year of being shown explicitly that they will do whatever is needed to make sure that does not happen.

[dragonwriter]

> I wonderfully interested that you think the DNC would allow that to happen after just two year of being shown explicitly that they will do whatever is needed to make sure that does not happen.

It's not the same DNC. While the Sanders faction didn't gain control after the 2016 election, they essentially got a power-sharing agreement and, more importantly, they've gotten a bunch of reforms, including mostly neutralizing the power of superdelegates. And Sanders is starting 2020 in a much stronger position than 2016, and doing so without an opponent with anywhere close to the establishment power of Clinton, whose partisans also were in charge of the DNC at the time.

[SlowRobotAhead]

I don't at all agree. The DNC had a system to allow rigging, and I'd willing to bet my lunch they still do. If they had a system of rigging - why do you think they would give that up what would their incentive be to do that? They didn't want Bernie then, they don't now, it's the same people in the organization.

But... Because neither of us can possibly prove it. I guess we'll just wait and see. I believe they just won't let him and they'll either do it by rigging more subtly this time, or have Warren there only to split his votes. Either way, it'll be more interesting than the "show" they put on last time with Webb and Chafey bowing before Hillary.

[dragonwriter]

> The DNC had a system to allow rigging,

No, it didn't have a “system to allow rigging”, beyond partisans of one candidate being in near-total control of the DNC.

They did have and leverage a system which helped promote a public inevitability narrative for a candidate that sewed up institutional support early by way of superdelegate voting rights, which led to then being included by media in delegate counts, reinforcing an artificial image of momentum which is demonstrated to drive subsequent voting behavior. This was dismantled when superdelegates voting privileges were reformed.

[djur]

What "system" did the DNC have to allow "rigging"? How did it work? Who operated it? What evidence is there that it existed, much less that it was used?

[pastor_elm]

Didn't a white guy just shoot up a middle eastern church yesterday?

[LMYahooTFY]

What's your point?

I'm not certain of my inferences from your comment, but you seem to be missing the context of what he's saying.

He's leading into that with the underlying (and very valid IMO) assumptions that economic trends can yield predictive power for cultural outcomes, and that China (and thus Chinese people to the more homogeneous populations of the US) will be heavily demonized due to the ongoing economic show down between China and the US.

[isoskeles]

It's an fairly divisive comment to accuse some group of people of the futurecrime of murdering your own people in churches. That's a serious accusation of something that hasn't happened yet.

I don't remember anyone blaming "Asians" for Virginia Tech, and rightfully so.

[Apocryphon]

His general point is that economic inequality leads to social distress leads to violence, often targeting scapegoated groups, such as those belonging to demographics shared by rival foreign powers. Is that so objectionable?