buddha

does his age worry you?

i think they put him there to showcase him. he's seen as a future prez candidate, imo. and certain elements of the internet will complain that he's not a "person of color" no matter whether he's gay or not. they complained about it a lot when he was running for prez the last time. i suppose warren will run again. bernie wont, he's too old. i'm wondering if this is aoc's time? probably too early.

i havent watched it. the press coverage hasnt been very flattering to the prosecution.

i think obama was a unicorn. he's a really good politician and struck all the right cords. i dont see another obama out there right now for the democrats. but buttigieg has potential, its why he's in the cabinet. i had hopes for kloubachar too. the biggest thing for the next democrat is that the economy has to pick up and trump has to run again. trump running again will motivate the democrats like nothing else.

i have a hard time believing she will be. she isnt a very good politician. or at least she wasnt when she ran the first time. maybe they can fix up her image?

none of them, because they were all wiped out because of disease. japan did ok for itself. so did china until drug addiction, disease, and weak leadership and infighting did them in.

yes.

the last two times the democrats had a ticket with a "person of color" on it, they won. the only time they didnt, they lost. the democrats have some time. buttigieg seems like a good candidate.

i hope the democrats can do better than biden. i think they can.

i hope biden doesnt run again. he is too old. he did his job for his country and beat trump. time to retire.

when disease wipes out 90% of your enemy, its much easier to win. especially when the enemy is surrounded by enemies internally and externally who want to help you win. the fact that the spanish had guns and horses provided them with military advantage, but still didnt prevent them from almost being wiped out on multiple occasions. pure luck (and chutzpah) did that. if 100 spaniards had guns against 10 million aztecs, the spanish lose. 100 spainards against 1 million divided aztecs gives the spaniards a shot. they took it and won. youre looking at history backwards because you know what ultimately happens. if you look at it in the moment, and not as an inevitability, you'll see that other factors were more important than the spanish having a bunch of bad rifles. its entirely possible that if smallpox doesnt wipe out 90% of them that the spanish simply become trading partners with the aztecs. or that if the surrounding tribes realize that the spanish are their enemy and not themselves, the unite against them. nothing in history was inevitable.

entertain us.

i'm not sure youre completely versed in the facts. "climate change" is the cause celebre at the moment, but even if the aztecs wete feeling more challenged because of population decrease, they still outnumbered cortez by thousands. more important to cortez were the tribes who were NOT aztecs, who allied with cortex because they all hated the aztecs because the (peaceful, brown) aztecs spent their time brutally killing and massacering their fellow local americans. by aligning with them cortez was able to use them to help him defeat a divided aztec empire. the incas were another example of this. so were the english colonists in america. again, tech plays a role, but the more important role was disease and luck. the aztecs, incas, american indians took our tech amd mastered it quickly. what they couldnt overcome was their own internal politics which splintered their ability to combat the new threat, and their inability to fight off smallpox.

when cortez arrived in mexico disease had yet to inflict its toll. but even after smallpox began to do so, cortex was outnumbered by thousands. how could he still win? they had a marginal tech advantage, but they were still outnunbered by thousands to one. so what happened? luck, hutzpah, and luck. not tech. not superior morals (or inferior morals), but luck and cortez having the balls the size or sevilla. that should be noted and appreciated, not listed down to "you had guns and they didnt." that explanation reduces the achievements of cortez and the other conquistadores to an inevitability seen from 21st century eyes rather than seeing their achievements through a more proper 15th-16th century one (not to mention the monumental effects it had on world history).

agreed. one could argue that it was only after the european led "enlightenment" and emphasis on human rights - however imperfect - that the movement away from slavery and conquest because of moral reasons truly began in earnest.

if by "our" nature, you mean "human" nature, then i agree. to say this impulse implicates one particular "race" or culture over others is a problem, imo. it was a problem when it was suggested that native cultures lost to superior moral europeans and it is a problem to say europeans were less moral because of the results of their conquests.

pick one: seager: 10 years 320 million correa: 10 years 300 million semien: 5 years 148 million story: 7 years 204 million beaz: 6 years 172 million i'll take correa. i think he's a star.

youre placing way too much emphasis on technology as to what actually happened. disease and luck and internal political disputes mattered more, especially in the beginning. by the end, demography had taken over.

the conquest of the americas (and really, the world) is an accomplishment of the west. painting it as a MORAL conquest is as flase as painting it as a moral failure. the conquest of the americas by europeans is a series of events that happened that should be viewed as such, not as a moral failure or a triumph or moral or righteous superiority based on ethnic makeup. nuance.

none of which was exclusive to columbus or europeans.

but that's always been the case (more or less, i would quibble that technology is brought into it and maybe too much. disease is just as important and not discussed as much. luck too). in fact, i would argue that the native people in many respects adapted to european technology fairly quickly and in some cases, brilliantly. what the problem was was disease and internal squabbling/fighting that prevented them from defeating their enemies. and not necessarily knowing they were enemies. my comment is that the tone has shifted from one of celebration of the "wests" victories to making them out to be genocidal maniacs bent only on destruction. and IMMORAL destruction. that the people they conquered were somehow passive victims with no agency who were put to the sword by bloodthirsty european monsters. that is a sea change in how the history of the world is seen. that europe and america no longer see their greatest accomplishments as accomplishments.

there are people all over the map who are going to believe in conspiracies and all sorts of stuff. but again, that doesnt mean you stop trying to teach them the best way you know how. i'm not sure how this is remotely controversial.

i suspect rodgers and the packers will both be fined and the pack will lose a low round draft pick. the same fines they handed out last year. maybe a little worse.

yeah, sure. people think crazy things, that doesnt mean you stop trying to teach their kids in the best, most effective way you know how.

no.