|
Will Perez force the dems left? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
33 | 6.38% |
| No |
|
343 | 66.34% |
| Keith Ellison |
|
54 | 10.44% |
| Pete Buttigieg |
|
71 | 13.73% |
| Jehmu Green |
|
16 | 3.09% |
| Total: | 416 votes | ||
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:See below None of what he posted suggested that minorities' issues should be ignored, or that the left shouldn't loudly advocate programs targeted at helping minorities overcome structural inequality. Also I'm still not seeing why raising the minimum wage wouldn't help working class minorities. 
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:09 |
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:You're still throwing the poorest and most vulnerable under the bus while patting yourself on the back. No you aren't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:So the minorities you called dumb for voting Sanders were not wrong on any substantial issue as you so boldly jumped to claim. They just didn't share your faith and optics. I know most posters ITT like to use neoliberal as a boogieman word, but you're all advocating for neoimperialism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
what exactly was bernie's policy on orphaned baby birds? Id like to see it
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:The minorities that rolled sanders were mostly young and had yet to know the oppression of the system and being cast aside for "progress". lmao ARGGH HOW DARE YOU DISCOUNT THE OPINIONS OF PEOPLE OF COLOR except the ones who disagree with me, who are just too ignorant and stupid to live.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:The minorities that rolled sanders were mostly young and had yet to know the oppression of the system and being cast aside for "progress". Oh FFS. Ta-Nehisi Coates doesn't know the oppression of the system? quote:I know most posters ITT like to use neoliberal as a boogieman word, but you're all advocating for neoimperialism. Given how much more hawkish Clinton was than Sanders, probably not the tac you want to take.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:what exactly was bernie's policy on orphaned baby birds? Id like to see it Kill them all. Also lol at wanting uhc being neoimperialism. Ever noticed that neolib and third world maoist rhetoric is indistinguishable?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:See below You're insane. You're the essence of 'but would it solve racism?'. You don't seem to care about actually helping people in need, just the optics. A living wage would improve the lives of many poc families *immensely*. Better schools would improve lives immensely. Reinvesting in cities and infrastructure would improve lives immensely. All those things would benefit actual real human beings. Why is that a thing you hate?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Oh FFS. Ta-Nehisi Coates doesn't know the oppression of the system? I thought his book was really good; it's a shame to find out he was one of the REAL RACISTS.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Oh FFS. Ta-Nehisi Coates doesn't know the oppression of the system? Coates wasn't really a Sanders supporter though, was he?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Coates wasn't really a Sanders supporter though, was he? He voted for him in the primary
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Neither Crunk Feminist Collective? Name dropping then again because if you don't follow then and read their stuff, you really should.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:You're insane. You're the essence of 'but would it solve racism?'. You don't seem to care about actually helping people in need, just the optics. A living wage would improve the lives of many poc families *immensely*. Better schools would improve lives immensely. Reinvesting in cities and infrastructure would improve lives immensely. All those things would benefit actual real human beings. Why is that a thing you hate? It's like a cargo cult of leftism. The poster seems to think the problem with inequality is simply that things are unequal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:He voted for him in the primary Yeah he viewed him as the lesser of two evils
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Coates wasn't really a Sanders supporter though, was he? A quiet one, but yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:Everyone literally loves chocolate too. Will you also do me the favor of listing policies that disproportionately help the white middle to upper middle class with absolutely no regard to minority access? Centrist Democratic policy is already aimed at helping upper class white people you nitwit! Who the gently caress do you think benefits from the destruction of public education and giving hand outs to the banks and wall street! KomradeX fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Apr 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:It's like a cargo cult of leftism. Its extremely weird to me when people focus more on stats than people. I mean, presumably we would achieve equality if more white people were pushed into crushing poverty to even out the quintiles. And for some people I think that would actually be an ok solution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:He voted for him in the primary yeah I know he voted for him, but Coates was like "eh, he's lovely but whatever" while doing so? Which is fine! I'm certainly not one to judge for lesser of two evils voting!
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:The minorities that rolled sanders were mostly young and had yet to know the oppression of the system and being cast aside for "progress". Pretending said oppression doesn't exist and affirming race blind policies as a solution is an affirmation of that oppression. So once again we return to you demanding that all PoC who don't agree with your opinion of what they ought to want should be thrown under the bus. Super progressive, that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:yeah I know he voted for him, but Coates was like "eh, he's lovely but whatever" while doing so? Which is fine! I'm certainly not one to judge for lesser of two evils voting! then why even ask if coates supported him? you already know TNC supported sanders enough to support majorian's argument
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Let's see what an up-and-coming BLM candidate is pushing for? Oh, it's a mix of black youth programs, higher minimum wage, and affordable housing.  Dumb Lefties!! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:Let's see what an up-and-coming BLM candidate is pushing for? Cornel West is an unperson now though, ergo anyone he endorses must be bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:yeah I know he voted for him, but Coates was like "eh, he's lovely but whatever" while doing so? Which is fine! I'm certainly not one to judge for lesser of two evils voting! I think his stated logic was closer to, "Sanders has a racial blind spot, but he's trying, and he's more loudly in favor of strengthening social welfare and helping poor people." Here's part of the transcript: quote:TA-NEHISI COATES: Well, I think, had you told me this like a year ago, I certainly would not have expected, you know, an avowed socialist to be putting up these sorts of numbers and actually be contending for the Democratic Party nomination. But I think it’s awesome. You know, I think it’s great. You know, like a lot of people, I’m very, very concerned about Senator Clinton’s record. I’m very, very concerned about where her positions were in the 1990s, when we had some of the most disgusting legislation in terms of our criminal justice, really, in this country’s history. I get really, really concerned when I see somebody taking $600,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, will not release what they’re actually saying. That’s concerning. And so, having options, not having this be a coronation, I think, is a good thing. So, I’m stunned, but I’m pleasantly stunned.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:So once again we return to you demanding that all PoC who don't agree with your opinion of what they ought to want should be thrown under the bus. Super progressive, that. lol KomradeX posted:Centrist Democratic policy is already aimed at helping upper class white people you nitwit! Sergio the gently caress do you think benefits from the destruction of public education and giving hand outs to the banks and wall street! Not a Step posted:Its extremely weird to me when people focus more on stats than people. I mean, presumably we would achieve equality if more white people were pushed into crushing poverty to even out the quintiles. And for some people I think that would actually be an ok solution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I think his stated logic was closer to, "Sanders has a racial blind spot, but he's trying, and he's more loudly in favor of strengthening social welfare and helping poor people." Here's part of the transcript: fair enough
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:People want to blame "name recognition," but this is how you lose South Carolina -- and Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, Virginia, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and North Carolina. It won't hurt you quite as badly in the general, but it's lethal in the primary. You want a progressive candidate to take the primary, they need those states, and they need a platform that talks to minorities beyond colorblind economic populism. I think this is true and was a significant mistake on Sanders' part, but on the other hand I feel it's extremely dangerous to treat just communicating with the black community as sufficient in and of itself if it's not actually backed up by policy that would change their circumstances. More cynically, it could even be called manipulative to invest heavily in reach-out that costs nothing but some of a politician's time. Systemic racism will never be fully addressed without a significant expenditure of government funds, and mainstream Democrats will never be willing to cross this line. I do not blame older PoC* from responding to the politician who spent the most time directly addressing them, but I absolutely do blame Clinton and the Democratic Party for never actually backing that talk up with policy that would begin to truly solve the problem. So I guess my main point here is that Sanders supporters should not understate the mistake he made by not engaging enough with the black community. It probably makes more sense to attack Clinton/Democrats as essentially taking advantage of the fact that PoC are treated poorly by the political establishment and essentially giving PoC a choice between "person who does little to help us but at least talks to us" and "person who does little to help us but doesn't even talk to us." *since younger PoC did not actually disproportionately support Clinton
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:uhhh a majority of AAs are centrist democrat. Most of them supported a centrist Democrat for the nomination; that doesn't necessarily mean that they support centrist positions on social and economic issues. Clinton has done a good job of reaching out to the black community over the last few decades - better than Sanders, no question. But that doesn't mean that, given a blind choice between their respective positions, they would still go with Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:uhhh a majority of AAs are centrist democrat. I know all you burnouts want to ignore the southern states but you can't, they are your base as much as the mid west or coasts. I don't know why you think it's continually OK to ignore them. Unlike those drat kids, of course. It's really hard to take your wokeness seriously when you're the only one ITT saying that certain minority groups are dumb and should be ignored and when confronted about it you try to brush it off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:The minorities that rolled sanders were mostly young and had yet to know the oppression of the system and being cast aside for "progress". Pretending said oppression doesn't exist and affirming race blind policies as a solution is an affirmation of that oppression. Sanders didn't have color blind policies compared to Clinton, but his social justice platform was unfortunately not as prominent in his rhetoric as it should have been. What HRC did to control the narrative was throw around more platitudes about social injustice with no follow up. Some POC chose to follow the guy with years of credibility as somebody who is an idealist and sticks to his guns, over the least trusted person in America who however at the time adopted an anti-discriminatory rhetoric. Because the former is actually likely to try to turn his pledges - though subdued - into actions, instead of trying to dazzle crowds with lots of carefully selected but empty words and then supporting the status quo when in office. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Apr 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I think his stated logic was closer to, "Sanders has a racial blind spot, but he's trying, and he's more loudly in favor of strengthening social welfare and helping poor people." Here's part of the transcript: and TNC is right
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:christ you need to read, that's when he affirmed economics => 0 racism. In the same way as it is disgusting for people to discount/ignore racism and focus exclusively on the economy, it is equally disgusting to act like economic suffering isn't an important issue. Just as the former reeks of racial privilege (i.e. being white), the latter reeks of economic privilege.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:You're still throwing the poorest and most vulnerable under the bus while patting yourself on the back. Are you talking about Hillary here or Obama?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Like, sure, $15 minimum wage would not be a sufficient measure in a system where law is often disregarded, and the employee doesn't get the minimum of what he is entitled to. Fortunately it wasn't ever the only thing in the progressive toolbox. Add legal protection for the poor, add strengthened labor organization and advocacy, add government programs to help the most disadvantaged communities specifically with actually getting over their unemployment crises and with making employment more widely available and reachable by people in these communities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
But when somebody says "We'll make sure that all jobs are decent jobs, that all jobs are protected, stable and safe jobs, and that no job is out of reach of anybody regardless of their personal background," you can only focus on one part of that sentence to paint them racist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:In the same way as it is disgusting for people to discount/ignore racism and focus exclusively on the economy, it is equally disgusting to act like economic suffering isn't an important issue. Just as the former reeks of racial privilege (i.e. being white), the latter reeks of economic privilege. Which is why its extremely weird and privileged when wokes say they are fine with people continuing to suffer until perfect solutions are found. Being poor loving sucks. Its real bad and fucks a person up for life via brain chemistry and trauma responses, even if they later have more economic security. Alleviating poverty in any measure is a good thing that leaves people more resilient throughout their lives. Helping real humans should *always* be the primary concern.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
"That majority of poor people in this country are white and therefore we can't do anything that's gonna economically help the majority out"
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:
Clearly, as President Clinton illustrates
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:I know all you burnouts want to ignore the southern states but you can't, they are your base as much as the mid west or coasts. I don't know why you think it's continually OK to ignore them. Where are you getting that Bernies want to ignore southern states? It seems to me that Clinton was the one ignoring large portions of her party's base.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Bernie was campaigning in Atlanta a year ago and just this January he was back in Atlanta participating in several events talking about MLK and progressive policies. And that's just one example.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:09 |
|
|
Majorian posted:Where are you getting that Bernies want to ignore southern states? It seems to me that Clinton was the one ignoring large portions of her party's base. Bernie Sanders, in his first real interaction with national politics, didn't begin campaigning in the South until it was entirely too late. Rookie mistake. Hillary Clinton, veteran of two successful campaigns for her husband, her own failed presidential campaign, and supposedly hyper qualified and well seasoned national figure straight up ignored several core Democratic states in favor of a twelfth dimensional chess strategy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:33
|
|