Public Policy polling recently released one of the first polls for the 2020 election. Results below:

Former VP Joe Biden defeats Trump 54% to 39%

Sen. Bernie Sanders defeats Trump 52% to 39%

Sen. Elizabeth Warren defeats Trump 49% to 42%

Sen. Cory Booker defeats Trump 45% to 40%

Sen. Kamala Harris defeats Trump 41% to 40%

Before I get into why the poll is 7.4% skewed towards Democrats, notice the race/ethnicity of the Dem candidates.

The straight white men (Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders) do far better than Elizabeth Warren (white woman) who does far better than Cory Booker (black man) and Kamal Harris (minority woman).

The more intersectional a candidate the worse they do. If the Democrats continue pushing intersectionality they will lose.

Now the poll. 2% of the democratic vote is wasted on the electoral college. The people polled are 2% more left than those who actually voted in 2016. And because polling failed us in the 2016 election we can assume that the margin of error (3.4%) will entirely go to Trump. 2%+2%+3.4%=7.4% bias.

Now the poll looks like this.

Former VP Joe Biden defeats Trump 54% to 46.4%

Sen. Bernie Sanders defeats Trump 52% to 46.4%

Trump defeats Sen. Warren 49% to 49.4%

Trump defeats Sen. Cory Booker 45% to 47.4%

Trump defeats Sen. Kamal Harris 41% to 47.4%

Now we see that only the straight, white, male, non-intersectional candidates can beat Trump.

Edited 7/19/2017 23:04:49

Why are you still posting, Tabby? I thought you said goodbye...

Tabby, your racism is equal to Hitlers racism.

^
You as well said you wanted to leave. Why are you still here?

Tabby you refer to blacks as a "subspecies".

That is about as racist as it gets. What do you call that kind of language? Sweetness and light?

Definition of racism

(1) a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

(2)
(a) a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles

(b) a political or social system founded on racism

(3) racial prejudice or discrimination


You subscribe to the belief that certain groups are inherently superior, as in the first definition.

You have have proposed a new social system based on considerations that are explicitly concerned with race, as in the second definition.

You promote the notion that it is proper to discriminate against certain ethnic groups which you style "subspecies", as in the third definition.

Therefore you are a racist.

QED

Tabby do you deny that there is such a thing as racism?

^ So that I can understand you, would you give an example of what you consider racist?

I didn't read anything past your first post but you realise Bernie does so much better than Harris and Booker because they're corporate neoliberal shills, while he's not?

I have a little trouble with the phrase 'subspecies' also. It seems like you have some kind of agenda by using this word. You knew someone would call you up on it ;)

My issue is from an evolutionary standpoint. It seems to me that the premise of your argument is that our ancestors, originating in Africa and spreading throughout the globe, are less advanced. A subordinate genome. That we are the pinnacle and they are what came before.

Is that not an oversimplification? The deciding factor for me may be access to utilities. Although evolution continued in its slow progression for all humans, the people that had moved away from a hunter-gatherer system (to develop agriculture and 'civilisation') would undoubtedly benefit them in terms of surplus supplies, melting pot of ideas, access to basic things that can be taken for granted. Such things were not so reliable in the small, environmentally unobtrusive tribes people and much was not considered, because it did not need to be.

The 'Nature vs Nurture' argument comes in here, if only to say that it is fairly obsolete at this stage. The truth of psychological development is that it incorporates both systems in an interplay that cannot be dis-entangled easily. I feel that this excerpt of 'The Marshmallow Test' by Walter Mischel is relevant:

"Who we are and what we become reflects the interplay of both genetic and environmental influences in an enormously complex choreography. It is time to put away the 'How much?' question because it can not be answered simply.
As the Canadian psychologist Donald Hebb noted long ago, it's like asking, What the more important determinant of a rectangle's size: its length or its width?"

So what I mean by all of that is that there are many influences at play in the development of a species. (whether they be from out social structures, the personalities and traumas of our parents, the availability of resources, the aptitude and necessity to claim those resources, genes, etc.) These influences continue a fluid dance throughout our lives and activate our brains in different ways.

So they are equally evolved as other ethnicities in the same way that chimpanzees have continued evolving in their own path, while still being an ancestor of our species. The matter of interbreeding with colonising powers, etc. aside, the question on my lips is how soon is too soon to call a certain ethnicity a subspecies?

All of this considered, which species is the most advanced? Is it morally admissible to degrade someone in such a way as to say that their genes are inferior, that they are forever to be a subspecies? This is the kind of stigma that has plagued these communities when dealing with the 'civilised world' and has taken a long time to shake off. There are still some stains in the cotton that are proving troublesome.

I have never been an advocate for censorship due to offence-taking or in the hopes of preventing it, especially when it comes to religion, but one must ask whether the information being put forward is truly important enough to bring into public discourse. I say we should keep any such revelations on the down low in this particular topic. ;)

I suppose it is an accurate description, albeit rather pejorative-sounding.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Edited 7/20/2017 15:40:05

Who we are and what we become reflects the interplay of both genetic and environmental influences in an enormously complex choreography.

Choreography: the sequence of steps and movements in dance or figure skating, especially in a ballet or other staged dance.

>genetic and enviromental influences
>in ballet

topkek

I didnt read everything of Tabby, but I disagree with blacks being a "subspecies". (By the way, you are racist. You cant deny the definition.)

What causes black countries and other 3rd world countries to be so underdeveloped is not genetics, but the goverments. European intervention and corruption hinders progress. People pay taxes, but instead that the goverment invests it in infrastructure (street, hospitals, etc) they rather keep it themselves and use the wealth to cooperate with western cooperations to gain even more money from the natural ressources. People know that they cant count on the goverment and instead form bounds with a group of similar thinking people rather than with society (Tribalism).
When war breaks out (for whatever reason), western countries make it even worse by "intervening" and/or (illegally) sending weapons. This causes a neverending cycle of powerstruggles and violence as various well-funded groups figth each other while the unarmed civilians are dragged into it (Somalia for example).

So how do we solve problems in Africa and other 3rd world countries? The answer is easy: Butt out of it completely. Stop all aid-programms, stop all economic ties, STOP SENDING WEAPONS!
It might take time, but eventually 3rd world countries will recover, because personal security is what everyone wants and in the end people will fight for it.

Why do western countries not do that?
Capitalism is the answer. A developed Africa is no longer exploitable. Simple as that.

Think about this next time you buy a product from a 3rd world country sold by a multinational cooperation. You are part of the misery.

Yes that was part of my meaning. The 'nurture' aspect. Environmental circumstances have a large effect on a race's development. These influences can be social, biological, etc.

Yes, we can discuss Capitalism in another thread ;)

P.S. But one should look at this issue only in its modern context. In the past few million years, incredible changes have occurred over relatively short periods in our species.

Edited 7/20/2017 15:55:28

Tabby, you're ignoring the fact that a lot of African leaders are bribed.

^^Your argument completely ignores the fact that non-European non-black nations can naturally develop.

Mind to elaborate that more?

Wow, that's all you have to say on that, tabby? haha

I thought that went without saying, considering:
So they are equally evolved as other ethnicities

"^^Your argument completely ignores the fact that non-European non-black nations can naturally develop."

leave

This is the first time I'm seeing Tabby threatening Ox. Seems like Tabby has grown even more authoritarian than he used to be.

nah fam i'm just asking ye to leave because you said so.