|
This thread is alternately the best and the absolute worst. Regarding Bernie Sanders and race, I'm pretty sure the point Obdicut is making is that race is a two part problem: there's an economic component, to be sure, but there's also that systematic racism that he's been talking about. The fact of the matter is that just applying to a job with a black-sounding name makes you significantly less likely to be hired over someone whose name sounds white, even if everything else is identical. You could have done everything lese right, gotten a top-notch education and so on, and still lose out purely because you are black. You can take an economic approach on this--incentivizing diversity hires, for example--but I'm dubious about that being enough to really address the issue as opposed to just covering it up (and maybe even aggravating the issue somewhat, given how hard these things get dogwhistled) Just recently the Confederate flag got taken down in a shitload of places. And while that's kind of a symbolic victory, it still sends a strong message about racism not being acceptable in public discourse. And that does make a difference; not because it'll make racists stop being racist, but because those ideas aren't being communicated and normalized, and slowly we make progress, parable of the racist tree-style. I remember a bunch of people in one of the Europe threads (eastern Europe I think) talking about how one of the really hardcore right-wing parties got control of the educational system for a while, and now you've got a bunch of kids who are espousing racist views because that's what they learned in school. Bernie Sanders is definitely not racist, and he demonstrated in the past that he's aware of both parts of the issue. But the Civil Rights movement was a long time ago, and right now he's sort of neglecting one side of the issue when he could easily address it.
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 08:14 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:Sanders is being exemplary in his calls for unity, especially considering he has not been a Democrat before now. 62nd percentile, well within a std deviation of average of all high school seniors. This is trouble when you're going to a school that has an average ACT composite of 29 for their freshman class.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:i meant of them nominating a born again serial killer BTK/Rubio 2016
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Between the June and July versions of Monmouth's polling, Trump improved his net favorability among Republicans from -35 to -1. Given that Trump is behaving, to me, just like he always has, what was his unfavorability previously based on? I really don't get what's caused the shift.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Hmm, its not like the vast majority of actual people had these same sort of evolution on issues or anything. Nope. Not at all. \/\/ Whether he goes negative or not (and I don't really see what he would gain from going in that direction), Bernie is not running a real campaign though. Bryter fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Bernie isn't running a real campaign until he's willing to go negative. I know there was rhetoric (possibly not even from his actual campaign but just supporters) around Obama not wanting to go negative in the 2008 election, befitting his Hope campaign, but did that pan out?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Brannock posted:It's a lot harder for those things to continue when 13% of lawyers are black than when a tiny percentage of lawyers are black. And how is this state of affairs supposed to change (only 3.9% of lawyers are African America), when if they ever do make it through, they only account for 4% of Big Law attorneys. This is discounting Black male underrepresentation in Law School admissions and graduations, and hte general barriers associated with employment in any field that I'd hope anyone in this thread would already be aware of. This is not an economic issue. There is a deep and unbridgeable divide for the underclass, that no amount of monetary elevation could bridge. To this day, if enough wealthy black families move into a majority white neighborhood, the value of that neighborhood drops. I don't know where Sanders stands on this issue. But his followers resting their hopes on him being entirely economically centered and thinking that would change the lives of blacks in America? That's naive at best.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:It's absolutely absurd to believe that, if elected, Hillary wouldn't work for the middle-class and work on diversity issues. Like, no elected Democrat would abandon those things whole-cloth if they ever wanted to be elected ever again. It demonstrates a smallness about the people attacking her. They can't attack her actual opinions on substance (they could, but they don't.) Taerkar posted:^^^ I have noticed a rather interesting juxtaposition of "Hillary is a flip-flopper" and "Those close-minded people never changing their ways!" BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Hmm, its not like the vast majority of actual people had these same sort of evolution on issues or anything. Nope. Not at all. Individual people usually do not change drastically once they've reached adulthood. American society evolved on the issue as a whole thanks to the demographics of older people dying, and being gradually replaced with new people open to new ideas. America evolved, Hillary just adapted to the new reality. I dont think she was ever specifically against gay marriage, she just doesnt really care and says whatever is expedient at the time. Thats my fundamental problem with her, not that she is some Republican boogeyman fantasy, but that she is ultimately a lot less principled than Sanders. Therefore, given that from what we can see today the next president will either be Hillary or Bernie (unless disaster strikes the a Republican takes the presidency), I as a rational person would prefer Sanders as the more principled and honest candidate. Even if we give Hillary all the benefit of the doubt in the world, I would prefer the next president of the most powerful country on earth to be the one who was right all along rather than the one who was wrong at first and then eventually came around. Mr.48 fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Mr.48 posted:Individual people usually do not change drastically once they've reached adulthood. American society evolved on the issue as a whole thanks to the demographics of older people dying, and being gradually replaced with new people open to new ideas. America evolved, Hillary just adapted to the new reality. I dont think she was ever specifically against gay marriage, she just doesnt really care and says whatever is expedient at the time. Thats my fundamental problem with her, not that she is some Republican boogeyman fantasy, but that she is ultimately a lot less principled than Sanders. Therefore, given that from what we can see today the next president will either be Hillary or Bernie (unless disaster strikes the a Republican takes the presidency), I as a rational person would prefer Sanders as the more principled and honest candidate. Your argument is that she's not principled at all though, not that she's "less" principled. Also, re: gay marriage -- lots of people actually have changed their views on the issue. Particularly people of her age group. You're simply bending facts to fit your constructed narrative about her and that's not really fair. Mr.48 posted:Even if we give Hillary all the benefit of the doubt in the world, I would prefer the next president of the most powerful country on earth to be the one who was right all along rather than the one who was wrong at first and then eventually came around. I think it's likely willingly naive to believe that Bernie Sanders has been right on every issue ever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Mr.48 posted:Individual people usually do not change drastically once they've reached adulthood. I hear this almost as often as the "People get more conservative as they get older" line. Still is a vague and generally unsupported generalization that is then clumsily applied to a single person.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Also, re: gay marriage -- lots of people actually have changed their views on the issue. Particularly people of her age group. You're simply bending facts to fit your constructed narrative about her and that's not really fair. Yeah but those are average people, politicians (especially those aspiring for the presidency) should be leaders on such issues.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Between the June and July versions of Monmouth's polling, Trump improved his net favorability among Republicans from -35 to -1. Honestly, a jump that dramatic makes me wonder about the reliability of the pollster more than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
I want trump in a debate I want him in a debate and for him to use puns based off of his own name I want him to say trump card in a debate
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Your argument is that she's not principled at all though, not that she's "less" principled. Everything is a matter of degree. She might have some issues she is principled on, but I dont believe the ones we are discussing are among them, and they are not minor issues that can be dismissed. As far as people changing I can only judge based on people I know personally. The only ones who were swung in any way on gay marriage were ones that never cared about it that much in the first place, or found out they had a gay child. The rest are still just as bigoted, they just hide it now that its not polite to speak that way in most circles. You might have seen another side to this, but unless someone digs up a decent study, we are just trading anecdotes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Yeah but those are average people, politicians (especially those aspiring for the presidency) should be leaders on such issues. The capacity to admit you were wrong on an issue is a big bonus though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Is it possible that we could separate out the Dem and Rep primary threads eventually? I'm tired of scrolling through 3 pages of "will President Bernie Sanders sufficiently acknowledge blacks?" over and over and over to get to my Trumpchat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:You believe I'm a troll for whatever reason--it's a nearly impossible argument to defend yourself against.All I can say is that what I've written here, and elsewhere,, is completely consistent with me being what I actually am, which is sincere. Preach on, brother.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:Is it possible that we could separate out the Dem and Rep primary threads eventually? I'm tired of scrolling through 3 pages of "will President Bernie Sanders sufficiently acknowledge blacks?" over and over and over to get to my Trumpchat. We need a forum that's Trump-sponsored. LF is back... In Trump form!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I think it's likely willingly naive to believe that Bernie Sanders has been right on every issue ever. He's been right on the ones I believe to be the most important for the United States as a whole, and he's been right on them for as long as I can track his career.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Mr.48 posted:He's been right on the ones I believe to be the most important for the United States as a whole, and he's been right on them for as long as I can track his career. My larger point was, you have said, repeatedly, you don't think Hillary will do anything she's says she will with no demonstrable evidence to that fact. I am challenging you to talk more substantively about what her proposed agenda versus Bernies and we keep coming back to the same tired arguments that boil down to this: "she didn't say she was for gay marriage soon enough!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:We need a forum that's Trump-sponsored. The yoojest, most luxoorious maoist third-worldism
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
I'm beginning to think Bernie can't win because he has really lovely supporters. The worst I can say about Clinton's supporters here is they're a little too realist. I'm kind of appalled at how negative Bernie fans have gone, and I'm someone who's given him $100. I love them both personally, I just love Bernie more. One of my favorite Bernie ideas I read unrelated to public policy, debates should be multiparty. Get a debate with Bernie, Clinton, O'Malley, Trump, Bush, and Walker in the same room, please and thank you. Of course that would never happen but boy would it be nice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Honestly, a jump that dramatic makes me wonder about the reliability of the pollster more than anything else.  To be fair it does have a whiff of a pollster massaging data to not appear to be dramatically out of line with the latest hotness. But this would be the third poll putting Trump in double digits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:My larger point was, you have said, repeatedly, you don't think Hillary will do anything she's says she will with no demonstrable evidence to that fact. I am challenging you to talk more substantively about what her proposed agenda versus Bernies and we keep coming back to the same tired arguments that she's "she didn't say she was for gay marriage soon enough!" I'm not saying that she wont necessarily carry out her promises, but since we are now in an effective binary state as far as the Democratic primary is concerned (the other candidates aren't even on the map and if the Republicans take the general election this is all moot anyway), I trust Sanders more than I trust Hillary thanks to his consistency. Sorry if I wasn't clear earlier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
this_is_hard posted:Yep, this is literally the woman who was present in Walmart executive level anti-union meetings and didn't say a drat thing. lol if you expect HRC to do even as much as Obama has (very little ) w/r/t labor rights  If you keep repeating it, it will become true. this_is_hard posted:
Oh yeah, there it is. That's what I needed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
quote:sucking Clinton dick harder than Lewinsky ever did. Can we cool it with the casual misogyny used as an attack vehicle against Hillary? It's bad enough when Republicans do it, but especially sucks from supposed leftists, who are supposed to be better on issues like this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
While the serious candidates are currently in a race to the left, Jim Webb would like to remind everyone that he exists and really should be running in the GOP again.quote:Former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb (D) slammed the liberal wing of the Democratic Party on Fox News Sunday this week and said that liberals who are against the Confederate Flag sound just as divisive and wrong-headed as Donald Trump’s remarks about Latino immigrants being “criminals” and “racists.” http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/sen-jim-webb-bernie-sanders-and-elizabeth-warren-are-way-far-left-not-my-democratic-party/
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Man he is gonna be so sad when he finds out that the Dixiecrats stopped being a thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:
please point out the factual errors in my post, tia
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
This thread is why Donald Trump will be our next President.  I support Sanders, but man, people on both sides are being pretty horrible in here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Black people who are not financially secure have been able to--and been vital to--the progress of civil rights in this country. A. Phillip Randolph, one of my personal heroes, never got a college degree but was able to become a highly effective labor organizer and one of the driving forces in desegregation. When John Lewis participated in the Civil Rights movement, he was by no means financially secure, though he had gotten a degree at Fisk University--a segregated black university. Many of those involved in the Civil Rights Movement were not well-educated and were not financially secure. Many of the founders of CORE and other civil rights groups were not financially secure. That's great that you can cite some uneducated black leaders. Obviously there are exceptions that exist, but it is incredibly and vastly more likely for educated people to start and to succeed with movements. They are much more likely to become leaders of those movements. This is incontrovertible. The educated are also incredibly more likely to be actually able to not only enter those institutions that you talk about, but also to succeed within those institutions. It's useless to have representation if they're unable to carry their weight, and this in fact leads to another sort of discrimination and prejudice, the idea that someone got somewhere not because of their merit, but because of their skin color. Out one corner of your mouth you say that black people are completely incapable of fixing problems themselves, then out the other corner of your mouth you mandate that we somehow mandate that black people get representation in our political structures and institutions. Just what do you think they're going to do there? Sit on their rear end all day? Equal representation goes a long way towards solving systemic racism all by itself. By saying that black people are incapable of fixing systemic racism, and saying that education and economics won't solve it, you are implicitly saying that the only way to solve systemic racism is through the top down, through an initiative of (considering your other points, presumably) white people wagging their fingers at other white people and telling them to knock that poo poo out. We can fix things like racist polling policies, but how do we prevent those things from happening in the first place? Make sure blacks are represented throughout society and societal institutions. How do we make this happen? Give them educational and financial opportunity. Now, unfortunately, systemic racism doesn't really have a single source, or even multiple sources, that you can attack. It's a confluence of about a thousand different factors that, combined, keep black people from participating on equal footing in American society. Focusing on Solving Systemic Racism is not a winning, nor convincing, position. It reeks of handwringing liberalism, of identity politics and kumbaya. Focusing on specifically substantial and material gains for a disadvantaged class of people will have actual, real, tangible impacts on the lives of many while also providing them the tools necessary to further themselves and help work to reshape society as they see fit instead of how people like you deem to be fit for them. I don't find economic crisis to be a satisfactory argument against this. People are going to have their finances wiped out by an economic crisis -- that's kind of the point of an economic crisis. Yes, black homeowners were disproportionately affected in the recession, in part because they were the ones holding the worst cards. Why did this happen? Because they were targeted. Who targeted them? White bankers. How do we prevent this from happening again? Make sure they're not targeted. How do we do that? Lots of ways, but perhaps the most reliable involves a combination of getting more representation for blacks in finance and banking as well as elevating the overall education of the population so they're not as easy pickings. And how do we do that...? Obdicut posted:That also depends what law firms they're at, what positions they hold on the board, how represented they are as prosecutors, etc. etc. To give you a better idea where I'm coming from, check out this article on Harvard's (successful) emphasis on getting more women into the b-school program and what it didn't actually manage to change. I took the time to read the entire article (which, as an aside, I found to be scattered and lacking a real point. It reads more as a history than an actual piece of journalism) and frankly I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here in response to my post. Less competent and less prestigious lawyers are not as likely to gain access to social clubs? That seems obvious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:While the serious candidates are currently in a race to the left, Jim Webb would like to remind everyone that he exists and really should be running in the GOP again. You know I was super glad when he beat George Allen and having a D instead of an R in the Senate is generally good, but Jim Webb is a big dumb idiot and it is good he retired when he did. Tim Kaine ain't perfect but he isn't a blubbering rear end in a top hat who is a relic of a time long past.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Honestly, a jump that dramatic makes me wonder about the reliability of the pollster more than anything else. Well I mean, it's not like Trump hasn't done anything dramatic and attention-grabbing lately...
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Third World Reggin posted:I want trump in a debate You just activated my Trump card. I'd vote for that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
When is Hillary's economic reveal?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
BurntCornMuffin posted:Maybe it's time for two threads? Having to filter through pages of premature and increasingly pedantic slapfights over Bernie's chances in order to laugh at the GOP Retard Roundup is getting old. I'm Richardfun and I approve this message.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
McDowell posted:When is Hillary's economic reveal? Already happened this morning http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clinton-pitches-plan-growth-fairness-economy-n391121
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
this_is_hard posted:Already happened this morning quote:She did not call for breaking up large banks on Wall Street, making college tuition free, increasing Social Security benefits or restoring banking regulations known as Glass-Steagall that were mostly repealed by her husband.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Veskit posted:You just activated my Trump card. My opinions on china trump all of the other candidates opinions combined.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 08:14 |
|
|
But what could she have possibly done? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:57
|
|