Deep Discussion Have a seat at Deep Discussion for in-depth discussions, extended or serious conversations, and current events. From world news to talks on life, growing up, relationships, and issues in society, this is the place to be. Come be a knight.

Ad Content
Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old February 1st, 2019 (5:17 AM).
Tsutarja's Avatar
Tsutarja Tsutarja is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Tampa, Florida
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Nature: Jolly
Posts: 23,902
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/01/676578945/cory-booker-makes-it-official-hes-running-for-president-in-2020

He's definitely a strong candidate for the democratic ticket. If you remember, he was the senator who threatened to release confidential documents about Brett Kavanaugh before confirmation hearings while understanding it risked ousting him from the senate.

This is going to be a fun election cycle, and I really look forward to see who else runs.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old February 1st, 2019 (7:00 PM).
EnglishALT EnglishALT is online now
     
    Join Date: Nov 2018
    Location: Japan
    Gender: Male
    Nature: Relaxed
    Posts: 135
    I really used to like Senator Booker, he seemed like a really good man who worked hard to help people in trouble when he was a mayor. Then it started coming out that some of the stuff was fake, and then the whole thing with the memo, trying to say he was some "Spartacus" hero when the memo was already cleared for release, not to mention the over melodramatic crying. It's gotten kind of sad.
    Reply With Quote
      #3   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
    Old February 1st, 2019 (7:37 PM).
    VisionofMilotic's Avatar
    VisionofMilotic VisionofMilotic is offline
    Lover of Dragons
     
    Join Date: May 2016
    Location: Sootopolis City
    Gender: Female
    Nature: Gentle
    Posts: 2,478
    Let the games begin! So many democrats are in Elizabeth Warren, Tulsi Gabbard, Kamala Harris, several others, and now Booker. This will be fun to watch. I'll be viewing those debates.

    I haven't commited to anyone yet in the primary, but would vote for Booker over Trump no question in the general. I will say also that Cory Booker is quite a speaker.
    __________________
    I got Haxorus on "What Dragon-Type Pokemon are you?" https://quotev.com/quiz/5077163



    Name: Narcissus
    Adopt one yourself! @Pokémon Orphanage

    Reply With Quote
      #4   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
    Old February 1st, 2019 (7:45 PM). Edited February 1st, 2019 by Tsutarja.
    Tsutarja's Avatar
    Tsutarja Tsutarja is online now
     
    Join Date: Mar 2010
    Location: Tampa, Florida
    Age: 24
    Gender: Male
    Nature: Jolly
    Posts: 23,902
    I'm honestly happy to see more democrats rallying for the presidential nomination this go around, which was something that overwhelmingly lacked from 2016.
    __________________
    Reply With Quote
      #5   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
    Old February 2nd, 2019 (6:55 AM).
    gimmepie's Avatar
    gimmepie gimmepie is offline
     
    Join Date: May 2012
    Location: Australia
    Age: 23
    Gender: Male
    Nature: Adamant
    Posts: 19,190
    I don't know that much about Booker, but he does seem like a pretty strong contender. I think though that his openness to working across the aisle could go either way with voters who will be either looking for an end to the overly partisan politics of the Obama and Trump years or extremely weary of working with the Republicans after the fiasco that is Trump.

    For me personally, I do like a lot of his positions and his willingness to part with finances on moral grounds. That being said, something feels off. He feels like a showman playing the crowd to me and that's a bit concerning.

    Overall, if it were up to me (which clearly it isn't lol), I'd take Booker - or any of the Democratic nominees so far frankly - over Trump getting another four years to cause chaos but as it stands Elizabeth Warren is probably my favourite of the group.
    __________________
    Reply With Quote
      #6   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
    Old February 2nd, 2019 (6:28 PM).
    Paige's Avatar
    Paige Paige is offline
     
    Join Date: Jun 2009
    Age: 29
    Posts: 1,001
    I'm hoping Hilary Clinton stays out of it honestly big time and I was disappointed by the lack of action against Bill Clinton who violated the law and campaigned at polling sites during the primaries and I know this because I got multiple emails regarding this matter.

    Though I would also love a dem who will try to push for term limits on the house and senate because I'm seeing a lot of people wanting this on news sites.
    __________________

    Reply With Quote
      #7   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
    Old February 2nd, 2019 (7:56 PM).
    gimmepie's Avatar
    gimmepie gimmepie is offline
     
    Join Date: May 2012
    Location: Australia
    Age: 23
    Gender: Male
    Nature: Adamant
    Posts: 19,190
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Paige View Post
    I'm hoping Hilary Clinton stays out of it honestly big time and I was disappointed by the lack of action against Bill Clinton who violated the law and campaigned at polling sites during the primaries and I know this because I got multiple emails regarding this matter.

    Though I would also love a dem who will try to push for term limits on the house and senate because I'm seeing a lot of people wanting this on news sites.
    Hillary has been pretty open about not planning to run.
    __________________
    Reply With Quote
      #8   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
    Old February 2nd, 2019 (8:34 PM).
    Paige's Avatar
    Paige Paige is offline
     
    Join Date: Jun 2009
    Age: 29
    Posts: 1,001
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gimmepie View Post
    Hillary has been pretty open about not planning to run.
    Well that would be a relief then as I would not vote for her if she did ran. I would have taken Bernie over Hilary in 2016. Though I heard Bernie is considering another run, but I hope not mainly because of his age.
    __________________

    Reply With Quote
      #9   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
    Old February 2nd, 2019 (8:46 PM). Edited February 2nd, 2019 by VisionofMilotic.
    VisionofMilotic's Avatar
    VisionofMilotic VisionofMilotic is offline
    Lover of Dragons
     
    Join Date: May 2016
    Location: Sootopolis City
    Gender: Female
    Nature: Gentle
    Posts: 2,478
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Paige View Post
    I'm hoping Hilary Clinton stays out of it honestly big time and I was disappointed by the lack of action against Bill Clinton who violated the law and campaigned at polling sites during the primaries and I know this because I got multiple emails regarding this matter.

    Though I would also love a dem who will try to push for term limits on the house and senate because I'm seeing a lot of people wanting this on news sites.
    I hear you. The 2016 democratic primaries were full of corruption, and Bill Clinton actually campaigning outside of the Massachusetts polling station is just one example.

    Because the Clintons waged such a dirty campaign (as they did also in 2008 against Barack Obama) frankly it was hard to generate enthusiasm for Hillary as a candidate in the general. There was just a trainwreck of baggage from the Clinton campaign, from receiving questions to the debates in advance from Donna Brazile, to making Debbie Wasserman Shultz the honorary chair after she was forced to step down in disgrace from the DNC.

    I am against Trump emphatically, but Hillary is also an unfit candidate. And I don't want her to make a third presidential run, because I think she would lose again. She is incredibly damaged.

    I'm pretty sure that we will be spared another travesty. Her former campaign chair Podesta said on her behalf more or less that she wasn't running.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/01/30/hillary-clinton-2020-election-1136435

    Some of Hillary's previous donors are also backing Kamala Harris' presidential run, so I think the insiders know that Hillary won't be coming back from the dead again.
    __________________
    I got Haxorus on "What Dragon-Type Pokemon are you?" https://quotev.com/quiz/5077163



    Name: Narcissus
    Adopt one yourself! @Pokémon Orphanage

    Reply With Quote
      #10   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
    Old February 2nd, 2019 (9:14 PM).
    Her's Avatar
    Her Her is offline
     
    Join Date: Jun 2008
    Age: 25
    Posts: 10,831
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic View Post
    Some of Hillary's previous donors are also backing Kamala Harris' presidential run, so I think the insiders know that Hillary won't be coming back from the dead again.
    This is the biggest thing to note - out of anyone who has announced their campaign, Harris is the most similar to Clinton in terms of record and friendliness to establishment politicians/those who favour the establishment, and as such, she's gotten the most support from media and big donors alike. She's the heir to the Democrat plan for regaining the White House, so Clinton likely knows to stay away now.
    __________________
    Reply With Quote
      #11   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
    Old February 3rd, 2019 (1:48 AM).
    gimmepie's Avatar
    gimmepie gimmepie is offline
     
    Join Date: May 2012
    Location: Australia
    Age: 23
    Gender: Male
    Nature: Adamant
    Posts: 19,190
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Her View Post
    This is the biggest thing to note - out of anyone who has announced their campaign, Harris is the most similar to Clinton in terms of record and friendliness to establishment politicians/those who favour the establishment, and as such, she's gotten the most support from media and big donors alike. She's the heir to the Democrat plan for regaining the White House, so Clinton likely knows to stay away now.
    I really hope they don't push her through like they did with Clinton though. All th media coverage in the world won't help Clinton 2.0 gain traction with the US public.
    __________________
    Reply With Quote
      #12   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
    Old February 3rd, 2019 (2:10 AM).
    colours's Avatar
    colours colours is offline
    wandererjustlikeme 🌟
     
    Join Date: Apr 2005
    Location: in an eternal dream
    Gender: Female
    Nature: Jolly
    Posts: 3,381
    Gonna get this out of the way first:

    As much as many progressives many want to see Bernie smoke the competition (if he even decides to run), I cannot help but feel that he's going to have a lot of difficulty trying to connect with black/hispanic/minority voters. Which curiously enough seems to be the same issue had back in 2016, which led to him being destroyed in the south by Clinton.

    I feel that he's going to need to do a lot more than appeal to the young college student/millenial demographic to make any sort of big splash, especially when there are other strong contenders like Harris and Booker in the race. Kirsten Gillibrand also being in the race means that Bernie is also going to be a tough sell to the white soccer mom vote, although how much that really matters, I'm not sure yet. I don't have any statistics on me that shows the general makeup of most dem voters and how many of them are women, but if this CNN article about the midterms is of any indication, it's not an insignificant amount.

    Although far more pressing is whether or not one could earn the vote of rust belt/blue collar workers that went for Trump.
    Reply With Quote
      #13   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
    Old February 3rd, 2019 (2:20 AM).
    Her's Avatar
    Her Her is offline
     
    Join Date: Jun 2008
    Age: 25
    Posts: 10,831
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gimmepie View Post
    I really hope they don't push her through like they did with Clinton though. All the media coverage in the world won't help Clinton 2.0 gain traction with the US public.
    I think the likeliest scenario is the Dems falling back on the Biden + Beto 2020, especially as Beto has rapidly shed any veil of defiant progressivism and is glad to fall in line. However, if Biden doesn't get off the ground, then the Dems will definitely push for Harris by any means possible. That'll likely mean pulling out all the stops in the manner we saw with Hillary and Sanders, and if Sanders runs again, it'll definitely become a situation of 'He's misogynist because he didn't just let Hillary/Kamala do their thing!' and the usual smokescreens. However - Kamala Harris, while still similar to Hillary, is a different cog in the machine. She's more of a Clinton 1.5 - 'psyduck you, I got mine' policy, but with far less 'gotcha' moments for the opposition to hang on. Her record isn't as publicly well-known like Hillary's was, and it'll be a lot harder to pounce on Harris for ratings goldmines like her emails or Benghazi and muk, so the Dems will probably appear to be cleaner based on how it won't be as obvious they're pushing muk uphill.

    Not to mention that uh, y'know, many major contenders on the Democratic side (and the Republican opposition uniting behind Trump) will not genuinely disagree with her stance on the prison pipeline. That is to say, the belief that there shouldn't be any clogging of the taps whatsoever.

    Booker included.
    __________________
    Reply With Quote
      #14   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
    Old February 3rd, 2019 (8:47 AM).
    VisionofMilotic's Avatar
    VisionofMilotic VisionofMilotic is offline
    Lover of Dragons
     
    Join Date: May 2016
    Location: Sootopolis City
    Gender: Female
    Nature: Gentle
    Posts: 2,478
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by colours View Post
    Gonna get this out of the way first:

    As much as many progressives many want to see Bernie smoke the competition (if he even decides to run), I cannot help but feel that he's going to have a lot of difficulty trying to connect with black/hispanic/minority voters. Which curiously enough seems to be the same issue had back in 2016, which led to him being destroyed in the south by Clinton.

    I feel that he's going to need to do a lot more than appeal to the young college student/millenial demographic to make any sort of big splash, especially when there are other strong contenders like Harris and Booker in the race. Kirsten Gillibrand also being in the race means that Bernie is also going to be a tough sell to the white soccer mom vote, although how much that really matters, I'm not sure yet. I don't have any statistics on me that shows the general makeup of most dem voters and how many of them are women, but if this CNN article about the midterms is of any indication, it's not an insignificant amount.

    Although far more pressing is whether or not one could earn the vote of rust belt/blue collar workers that went for Trump.
    I might vote for Tulsi Gabbard this time around as the successor to Bernie Sanders because of her young age, and because she has embraced Bernie Sanders and I think she will also keep us out of unnecessary wars. However, I haven't taken Bernie off of the table, and did vote for him in the primaries. He connected with me and I am a black/ hispanic/ minority voter. I had many family members, classmates and friends who voted for him as well. It is worth noting that Bernie carried Hawaii and Alaska in the primaries, which have a large population of minority voters. The Asian population outnumbers caucasian voters in Hawaii 2 to 1. It was also a pretty close race in New Mexico between Clinton and Sanders, a state where half of the population is Latino.

    I say the following because while Bernie was much more successful in the midwest, russ belt and with independent voters than Hillary, it would seem he does possess at least the potential to connect with minority voters.

    I don't think the south is necessarily a complete portrait of Bernie Sanders relationship with minorities, as this reflects one of the most conservative parts of the country. Hillary is a former republican, and I think this is reflected in many of her positions. She supports the death penalty, lobbied for the crime bill as first lady, is a war hawk, did not get on board with support of marriage equality until 2013, and embraced some conservative economic policies such as the Graham Leach Bliley act. She had inherently more in common with southern democratic voters, particularly older voters, both black and white.

    While Hillary received most of the African-American support in these areas, bear in mind that these are going to be frequently conservative, church-going people, rather than the Keith Ellisons or Nina Turners of the party, African-Americans politicians who did indeed endorse Bernie.

    While in the general election believe that many African-Americans would have supported Sanders over Trump, because African-Americans still vote largely democrat as many polls and studies show, it is not surprisingly that in the south the more moderate candidate would have performed better, and not neccesarily an indicator that Bernie can't pick up minority voters.

    Unfortunately, for us as democrats or left-leaning voters when those deep red states like South Carolina that Hillary did so well in during the primary have to choose between a conversative democratic and a republican, the region as a whole is so conservative it will almost always veer further right and just vote republican, which is what we saw in the general presidential election in 2016 with Hillary was destroyed Donald Trump in the south.

    I also wish to add that Bernie Sanders did have some vocal African-American and Latino supporters, actors, directors, comedians, singers, writers, activists, Spike Lee, George Lopez, Danny Glover, Cornel West, Killer Mike, Rosario Dawson, Zoe Kravitz, Ben Jealous. However they were hardly given media coverage, because it did not fit the narrative that Bernie had no support from minorities. I believe that Bernie was also an inspiration to a then young and unknown Alexandria Ocasio Cortez who helped manage his campaign in the Bronx.

    Ultimately there was a larger political strategy to present Bernie Sanders as a candidate that only represented white people, which the current DNC chair Tom Perez advised the Clinton campaign to use.

    This was so ironic because Hillary was the one with the spotty record on civil rights and racial inequality. African-American writer and activist Michelle Alexander (who also endorsed the Bernie Sanders revolution) wrote a book on this called, 'The New Jim Crow: Why Hillary Clinton Doesn't Deserve the Black Vote.'

    Yet the Clinton campaign was very good at projecting their own shortcomings onto their opponent, and to some extent this worked against Bernie Sanders. It should have been no question which candidate had the better record of helping minorities. It was Hillary's state department not Bernie's that granted waivers to arm child soldiers in the Sudan. It was Hillary who referred to young African-American males as "super-predators" as first lady. It was her husband's adminstration that didn't act fast enough to contain the genocide in Rwanda. It was not Bernie but Hillary who voted along with Bush for the invasion of Iraq as senator. It was Hillary who argued the people of Haiti down to a slave minimum wage of 32 cents an hour as secretary of state. It was she who devestated Latin America with her policies towards Columbia and Honduras in particular. Yet it was Sanders who was put on the defensive about whether he could represent minorities, not unlike George W Bush painted John Kerry as a coward on military issues, despite Kerry being a decorated veteran and Bush being a draft dodger.

    While again, I haven't pledged my support for sure to Sanders should he run next year, I would like to think that if he runs again now that he has received more media coverage people would be better acquainted with him as an ally for people of color, and he could potentially get higher shares of multicultural voters. He was a candidate that many people of all colors, black, white, red, yellow were still learning about in 2016. While Hillary Clinton's record is much more tarnished than many realize when viewed in depth, Bernie's history stands up very well to scrutiny. He marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, called for the end of the private prison system and restoration of the voting rights act, went to Standing Rock to support Native Americans in their hour of need and has pushed back against Trump's immigration policies. The only thing that I am aware of that he ever made a mistake on is voting along with Clinton crime bill, but by in large he's a very good candidate for racial justice and human rights.
    __________________
    I got Haxorus on "What Dragon-Type Pokemon are you?" https://quotev.com/quiz/5077163



    Name: Narcissus
    Adopt one yourself! @Pokémon Orphanage

    Reply With Quote
      #15   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
    Old February 3rd, 2019 (9:45 AM).
    colours's Avatar
    colours colours is offline
    wandererjustlikeme 🌟
     
    Join Date: Apr 2005
    Location: in an eternal dream
    Gender: Female
    Nature: Jolly
    Posts: 3,381
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic View Post
    .
    As an black/hispanic voter myself, I see things differently. Bernie does not connect with me, nor do I see him (at least, so far?) making any real effort to (I mean, he's an old white guy in his 70s, can he really identify with us? I struggle to see how). But that's neither here nor there. I feel that there's an important thing that needs to be distinguished as far as American politics go: candidates that would do well in a primary, and candidates that would do well in a general. Say what you will of Bernie, but he's not exactly the greatest primary candidate. One could pull the "DNC rigged the primaries!!" election all they'd like, but at the end of the day, it was us voters who picked Hillary over Bernie, sometimes with significant margins. The DNC may or may not have tipped the scale, but it was us voters who went to the polls and chose Hillary over Bernie in most of the country, simply because Bernie, while an effective communicator and extremely gifted at holding impressively-sized rallies, didn't bring about the same kind of message that Hillary brought on the trail which was basically being a third time Obama.

    Something to keep in mind is that Bernie already shot himself in the foot -- during the primaries, he definitely made certain of making the DNC his enemy and set the Democratic Party basically on fire -- which therefore killed his support among loyal democrats (meaning the people who have been with the party for years upon years). This whole "I'm running as a Democrat but I'm not really a Democrat" didn't do great in the primaries, and in a congested race like this, it's even more risky for him to pull that same strategy.

    I do want to make this clear, however: Hillary was a bad candidate pretty much because of her godawful record. She's a good primary candidate in the sense that she can win the groups she needs to, and she knows how to make an effective play for the center to win over centrists and perhaps moderate Republicans. Unfortunately, the skeletons in her closet followed her all throughout the campaign trail and up until James Comey condemned her actions publicly, all but basically ensuring her loss. She lost trust and as far as most people were concerned, she was just another shady politician compared to an "outsider" like Trump. Not to mention she does come across as inauthentic.

    Unfortunately, how American politics go is that you have to win black/hispanic voters to win the primary. Bernie failed to do that in 2016 (heck look at the exit polls in places like florida where ilke a quarter of the state is hispanic) which would essentially become his achilles' heel -- if you can't speak directly to black voters, you aren't going to win.

    I feel like last year's AP article about it is a perfect illustration on Bernie's difficult path on winning black voters back -- this part is especially striking:

    Quote:
    “If all I hear about is ‘the working class,’ and it seems he’s talking to just one segment, then it’s easy to feel he’s not talking to me,” said Williams, the Georgia Democrat, explaining that she cannot “separate my blackness” from where she fits in the economy.
    Anyway, that out of the way, I personally have not committed to anyone yet. I'd much rather wait until the debates are underway to see who would make more of a strong case. From preliminary media coverage as well as general impressions, it seems like Kamala Harris is the favourite, but I have my own reservations about her. We'll see.
    Reply With Quote
      #16   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
    Old February 3rd, 2019 (10:19 PM).
    EnglishALT EnglishALT is online now
       
      Join Date: Nov 2018
      Location: Japan
      Gender: Male
      Nature: Relaxed
      Posts: 135
      Maybe I am showing my age here, but Bernie Sanders reminds me of a left wing version of Ron Paul. He gets alot of young people excited, his ideas are a bit outside the main stream of the party, and in the end he gets about 25% of the vote in a large primary.

      Which of course brings me to the question as to what will be the theme for this election. If it's the economy then it certainly benefits Trump at this moment, and would hurt someone like Bernie Sanders as people would be less likely to change course with a booming economy.

      Possibly wage issues? Medicare for all? Both seem to be particularly dangerous issues to run on, especially medicare for all.

      I do agree with colours in that Kamala Harris seems to be the favorite at the moment, maybe that will change if Biden gets in, however his window seems to be closing pretty fast if he does not step in soon.
      Reply With Quote
        #17   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
      Old February 4th, 2019 (5:11 AM).
      Tsutarja's Avatar
      Tsutarja Tsutarja is online now
       
      Join Date: Mar 2010
      Location: Tampa, Florida
      Age: 24
      Gender: Male
      Nature: Jolly
      Posts: 23,902
      I met Vice President Biden a few months ago at a political rally, and he definitely still has the power in him to speak well to an audience and rally them up. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat if he ran, tbh.
      __________________
      Reply With Quote
        #18   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
      Old February 4th, 2019 (5:22 AM).
      EnglishALT EnglishALT is online now
         
        Join Date: Nov 2018
        Location: Japan
        Gender: Male
        Nature: Relaxed
        Posts: 135
        Quote:
        Originally Posted by Tsutarja View Post
        I met Vice President Biden a few months ago at a political rally, and he definitely still has the power in him to speak well to an audience and rally them up. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat if he ran, tbh.
        He does have a down to earth feel, however he does, like Trump, have a habit of saying stupid and racially insensitive things on the campaign trail, for example.

        "In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking."

        "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."

        "[Romney] said in the first hundred days, he's going to let the big banks write their own rules — unchain Wall Street. They're going to put y'all back in chains,"

        The last one being when speaking to a black audience.

        It remains to be seen if he can avoid such gaffs on the campaign trail and if the Democrats will be as tolerable of such comments as Republicans were from Trump.
        Reply With Quote
          #19   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
        Old February 4th, 2019 (7:57 PM).
        Her's Avatar
        Her Her is offline
         
        Join Date: Jun 2008
        Age: 25
        Posts: 10,831
        Upon reflection to a discussion I had with some members on here a while ago, I think that Joe Biden’s reputation as being physically handsy to the point of uncomfortability, and a habit of breaking personal boundaries and coming off as creepy, is going to be what does him in. There’s going to be an explosion of some kind that will sink his ship, so upon reflecting, I agree with the consensus that Kamala is being considered the favourite for the future.

        Repercussions for such things only apply to the Democrats (sometimes), as we all know.
        __________________
        Reply With Quote
          #20   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
        Old February 5th, 2019 (12:05 PM).
        VisionofMilotic's Avatar
        VisionofMilotic VisionofMilotic is offline
        Lover of Dragons
         
        Join Date: May 2016
        Location: Sootopolis City
        Gender: Female
        Nature: Gentle
        Posts: 2,478
        Quote:
        Originally Posted by colours View Post
        from Angie :)
        Interesting! You said several different things that I felt were too important not to discuss in detail. I ate, drank and breathed politics during the 2016 and have a lot of passion about that cycle, so sit back and pass the popcorn, this is going to be a long one.

        You mentioned that Bernie did not appeal to you personally, and I just want to say this is fine if you don't feel the bern. It is your right to vote for who you feel best represents you. However, when you say that you don't see him making an effort to appeal to you, I would like to know what specifically you would want him to do differently. Appeal can be a very subjective quality, and message a a rather abstract concept. Is there a concrete action you saw from Hillary that made you more comfortable voting for her as a minority?

        We are it seems in agreement at least that Hillary Clinton was a horrible candidate with one of the worst records out there, and I am glad that is an area where we have some common ground as sisters. However, let's take a moment to just sit back, and let that absorb. Her record was indeed atrocious. One of the most disturbing features of her record was the effect she and her husband had on the lives of minorities. Since you shared an AP article on how one black voter felt. I wanted to share an article from The Nation about the history of the Clinton family policy to black people.

        https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/

        Ultimately if Hillary's record is this severely damaged then what does this effectively leave us with as her appeal to minorities? While in Bernie Sanders I saw policy, with Hillary all I saw were platitudes, and I don't see how that would be a more effective appeal to any group.

        Hillary walked around with hot sauce in her pocket and did some dancing, Bill Clinton sang the black national anthem and had some offices in Harlem, but I fail to see how they offered any substantive message to minorities, and certainly not one that was stronger than Bernie Sanders. I think the voters that Hillary got had more to do with familiarity and identity politics rather than a tangible message to minorities or anyone for that matter.

        You linked me to a quote by a voter who said, "If all I hear about is ‘the working class,’ and it seems he’s talking to just one segment, then it’s easy to feel he’s not talking to me."

        I want to respond to that by sharing that I volunteered for Bernie Sanders campaign in 2016, and walked up and down the streets passing out literature in neighborhoods filled with my brothers and sisters. The amount of economic disadvantage I saw was very sad. It was a lonely walk, but along the way I did meet people who were interested in minimum wage increases, getting healthcare, schooling and having their social security expanded. Others felt that there was no point in voting, that they would be inevitably left behind no matter who was in office. Often I visited homes and nobody was there, everyone was out working late shifts. Sometimes they were completely empty houses that were foreclosed on or scheduled for demolition.

        Whether the lady from Georgia you quoted falls into this category or not, the reality is that unfortunately many African-Americans and Hispanics do earn lower wages, and there is a higher poverty rate for us. There was a message for people who look like you and me within his campaign.

        We need to look at what our representatives can do for us in terms of policy. That is the way that we make progress for minorities. Economic justice is a relevant issue to our communities, one that was not close to the heart of the Clintons-- who took jobs out of the community via NAFTA, and would have continued to do so with the TPP, meanwhile gutting welfare and locking up people for petty crimes they committed. The few good policies that Hillary had were tacked on only Bernie was in the race

        Bernie was against the war on drugs and against the death penalty, policies which disproportionately punished minorities and the disadvantaged, as well as policies that received Clinton support. He also has condemned the wars that ripped apart many non-western countries throughout the middle east, Asia and South America. Other ways in which he is a champion for people who are different than him would be his progressive record on gay rights. He voted against Bill Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act/ DOMA, and defended gay soldiers in the military at a time where Don't Ask Don't Tell was in effect.

        I think to characterize Sanders as only appealing to one demographic misconstrues his intent. Human and civil rights were a central part of his campaign. What Bernie Sanders believes is that economic reform is a method by which we can obtain equality, an example of this is when he called for an end to the private prison system to effectively stop slave labor.

        Attacking greed is a means to an end with Bernie. Now we can agree or disagree about whether or not his ideas would work, but to say that Bernie did not have a message for minorities is I think not true.

        You mention that Bernie was an old, white man, and asked if he could really identify with us. Yes, he can. I am sad to say that Bernie's family perished in the holocaust because of their Jewish background. He has personal experience living among the world's marginalized groups, that I cannot say for Hillary Clinton.

        The ultimate demonstration that Bernie Sanders identifies with people of color is that he doesn't just talk about them, but put himself in physical danger to march with Dr. Martin Luther King for civil rights at time where people were being shot, mauled by police dogs, arrested and lynched for standing up to demand justice for all. He was also a member of ths Rainbow Coalition. He went to Standing Rock as well when our Native American brother and sisters endured waves of tear gas, were attacked by dogs, had eyes put out and their bones broken for protecting the piprline on their reservation.

        Martin Luther King's dream was to live in a nation where people grow up judged "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

        The statement above applies to all of us. Just because Bernie physically does not look like you or me, does not mean that he is disconnected from our experiences. It should not matter what color Bernie is, or how old he is or if he is a man or woman. Age, color, gender, sexual orientation and religion must come after the policy.

        Kamala Harris is a young woman of African and Indian descent, yet do I see her as a stronger ally for women and people of color than Bernie is? No. At this time I feel her prosecutorial record reflects less empathy for minorities and women than Bernie Sanders does. I say this because she opposed a bill that would have allowed every cop shooting to be investigated by an independent party and force them to wear body cams.

        An area of concern for many African-American and Hispanic people is the possibility that they may suffer police brutality. My own father was arrested and assaulted by the police as a teen for his race, so this is a significant issue to me.

        Kamala Harris also caved on the death penalty despite the numbers of black, Hispanic and poor whites who have been wrongfully convicted and sent to death row and later released. She presents herself as fighting against human trafficking, but the truth is that she jailed the women for working in the sex industy.

        I understand and respect that you have not pledged support for Harris or any candidate as of yet, and I am in the same place. However, it is worth talking about Kamala Harris just as a reminder that being a woman or having a particular heritage does tot necessarily mean that someone will identify with you, and certainly not relevant to how one will govern. We cannot judge a book by its cover.

        I think the only way to identify the content of one's character is not race, age or gender, but to examine a representative's voting record. And at the center of both Bernie's message and record what I saw was fairness and justice. If the positions he espouses and his record are not sufficient to show his support for minorities then I don't know what would be.

        I realize also that you have a larger point, and that this is not meant to be solely a discussion about minorities, but that a candidate for the general is not necessarily a good primary candidate, and vice versa. Ultimately you don't think Bernie you can connect with enough people to get beyond the primaries, and minorities are a representation of this. You defined his candidacy as appealing to the military and young people.

        However, I think we should not underestimate Bernie's potential to connect with a significant number of people. As you acknowledge, Bernie pulled huge crowds that far exceeded the size of Hillary Clinton's, and had more small donation contributors than Hillary.

        I disagree that Hillary had more support from centrists and moderate Republicans overall. It would seem contradictory because Bernie also had the progressive wing of the party that Hillary lacked. However, Bernie had a tendency to do far better than expected when democratic primaries were open as oppsed to closed or semi-closed, meaning these were circumstances in which independent and Republicans voters had the ability to crossover and make their voice heard. An famous example being in the Michigan democratic primary, when Bernie defeated Hillary despite polling 20% behind initially and one of the factors is that he took over 70% of independent voters in this Rust Belt state.

        While this an older article as well, I think it offers fascinating look into how Bernie potentially captures votes across opposite ends of the political spectrum while mantaining democratic socialist policies.
        https://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/08/19/why-surprising-numbers-republicans-vote-bernie-sanders?amp

        Bernie had a wider coalition than he is given credit for, voters in the north, the west, middle, young voters, independents, progressive voters, low-income and high. His campaign had a lot of promise, but unfortunately we did not witness a fair primary in 2016, and his campaign was derailed by the establishment.

        I had not wanted to go there, but since you mentioned that Bernie voters pull a card of thr primary being rigged, I want to clarify that it is not a controversial statement that the primary was rigged against Bernie Sanders.

        Under the circumstances of a rigged primary it is not possible for you nor I to talk with 100% confidence about how the results of the primary reflect the country as a whole and what most people really want.

        The DNC was part of countless illicit activities during the 2016. Some actions, such as Hillary Clinton being allowed to break the Super pac laws with impunity, were very unlikely to impact who the people chose as their nominee. However, one of the more disturbing things we witnessed in the primar was a tactic of voter suppression, which could have impacted who the people ultimately chose as their nominee. I wanted make a statement like without any documentation.

        https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/04/19/politics/new-york-primary-voter-problem-polls-sanders-de-blasio/index.html

        https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9550670/amp

        https://www.gregpalast.com/placebo-ballots-stealing-california-bernie-using-old-gop-vote-snatching-trick/

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democratic-party-and-clinton-campaign-to-sue-arizona-over-voting-rights/2016/04/14/dadc4708-0188-11e6-b823-707c79ce3504_story.html?utm_term=.45e1e3cbbd88

        https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/08/bernie-would-have-won-california/

        https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9780128/amp

        https://www.ricentral.com/news/state/wikileaks-emails-name-ri-secretary-of-state-gorbea/article_dcf9f49c-55dc-11e6-a2a5-c3f9e8be3871.html

        https://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2016/03/23/what-the-hell-happened-in-the-arizona-primary-yesterday?media=AMP+HTML

        I think we are getting ahead of ourselves to say that' "At the end of the day, it was us the voters who picked Hillary over Bernie, sometimes in significant margins," when not every voter who wanted to be heard was heard. It comes across as disingenuous to say that when our voting system failed more than once in 2016.

        During the primary voter rolls were purged in unheard of numbers. Others who were registered democrats had their party affiliations inexpicable switched, making them ineligible to vote in the democratic primary. Indepedent voters who were eligible to vote were given provisional ballots/ placebo ballots that weren't counted. Results went missing from precincts, polling stations were closed down in a coordinated effort to keep people from casting ballots, and data was hidden amid requests for recounts and audits.

        Maybe in spite of all of this corruption at the end of of the day voters would have still picked Hillary as you say, but there is also a possibility that had the waters not been so muddied Bernie could have become the winner. The fact that the DNC rigged the primary against him shows that they feared that he could have at least potentially won the primary, so they were going to make sure that this did not happen.

        However, Bernie's ideas definitely won a victory, and people don't just want a third term of Obama and to remain in the center, because every serious candidate in the democratic primary be it Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Tulsi Gabbard, Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren, is signing onto his ideas because they are overwhelmingly popular with the people, medicare for all, 15 dollar an hour minimum wage, expansion of social security, tuition-free colleges, progressive tax reforms. These are issues that are important enough that democrats wishing to rise had better address them. Bernie may have lost the battle, but he is winning the war.

        Lastly you told me to keep in mind that Bernie made the DNC his enemy and set the democratic party on fire. You are saying that as if it is a statement of the obvious, but I genuinely do not know what you mean by this. All of the evidence that I have seen indicates that Bernie is an ally to the democratic party.

        Bernie has voted alongside democrats, supported their legislation, chaired their committees and campaigned for them for his entire political life, and continues to do so. He is a member of the democratic caucus, was given a thank you card by Hillary Clinton in praise of his commitment to crusading with her for healthcare reform in 1993, was on the committee that wrote the Affordable Care Act, and is currently the chair of the Democratic Outreach committee. He has even come the aid of democrats who were not his supporters, such as Clinton-backer Andrew Gillum to help him gain the nomination in Florida.

        If anything it was was the democrats who shot themselves in the foot, and set their own party on fire with their blatant corruption. Bernie was an independent who joined the democratic party. What is the matter with that? Hillary is a former republican I would like to remind you, as was Lincoln Chaffey who also ran in the 2016 primary. This is so for some of today's contenders. Elizabeth Warren is a former republican, and I believe Tulsi Gabbard is as well. Bernie acknowleding that he is a political outsider should not be an incendiary thing. If anything it was a feature that the public was intrigued by, people like Bernie and Donald Trump who were not the same old establishment players.

        Bernie's real crime was that he wasn't bought off like most of congress, and expressing a desire to get money out of politics. This did not sit well with big money donors. Bernie was not a yes-man for the democratic party, nor was he harming it, what stood for was reforming the democratic party.

        It was the DNC that tried to destroy Bernie, not the other way around, because they wanted to be corrupt. It was the DNC fed anti-Bernie Sanders stories to publish, strategized to smear his religion and even spread false news stories that Bernie sanders supporters threw a violent riot. The Clinton campaign called the white house to even block Bernie's legislation. The DNC funneled away donations to Hillary that should have been distributed evenly with Bernie, other candidates who opposed Hillary and down ticket races. Debbie Wasserman Schultz restricted the debates to keep Bernie from gaining exposure, suspended his access to data without investigation, and even personally threatened Bernie, promising that he would never win. She also cut off funding to democratic representatives who dared to publicly express support for Bernie. And I could go on and on.

        This was not about the people, nor about the party, this was about crowning a queen, and God forbid an eldery, mostly unknown senator from a small state get in the way of the royal chariot with this talk about the peasants.

        Bernie did not set the democratic party fire. Though he would have been justified in doing so with their rampant illegal behavior. He was gentle towards the DNC if you consider what he could have done alternatively if he was really vengeful.

        He kept his campaign against Hillary Clinton issue-based. He did not attack her character or bring up her scandals. He endorsed her at the end of the primary and campaigned for her. He did so even in the face of criticism from his own supporters, as Hillary was viewed (with good reason) as being corrupt and antithetical to his message. If Bernie were to run in 2020 and be attacked on the basis of where his loyalties lay, critics would be better justified attacking him fom from outside of the establishment democratic party than within.

        If he wanted to damagee democratic party he could have brockered the Democratic Convention in a floor fight-- he had the right to do so because in spite of the DNC rigging the primary, Hillary still lacked the 1,237 delegates necessary for her nomination to be uncontested.

        Bernie could have refused to endorse Hillary altogether as Ron Paul did with Romney in 2012. He could have even run as a third party candidate, splitting the liberal vote up and giving Trump an overwhelming landslide. Bernie chose not to do that. He protected the democratic party to point of falling on his sword.

        His conduct is extremely gracious when compared with Hillary Clinton's in the 2008 primary. She ran a racist and bitter campaign against Barack Obama. Her campaign tweeted out photographs of Obama visiting Kenya and wearing traditional African clothes to cast doubt on Obama's citizenship and allegience. It was the very same image that was later used by the birther movement. She also ran the racist 3:00 AM ad, implying that America's children would not be safe if her opponent (Obama) was selected instead of her.

        When Hillary was questioned as to why she remained in the primary when it was no longer possible for her to win, she alluded to the assination of Robert F Kennedy and the California primary. Yes, Hillary Clinton stooped so low that she would throw out clues about her opponent being murdered to get ahead. Yet it was Bernie Sanders' conduct was somehow outrageous?

        Bernie also gave his endorsement to Hillary with no expectation of obtaining anything in return but that Hillary be true to his policies and message. What we saw by contrast in 2008 was not concern for party unity and the American people, but only selfishness. Hillary Clinton endorsed Obama and campaigned for him, but it was for a price. She became Secretary of State, which is I think the biggest mistake Obama ever made--- but I digress.

        Bernie may not be liked by loyal/establishment democrats--he never was, he was not an outsider. He was a scourge. However, saying that he killed his support and basically set the democratic party is something I can't let stand.
        __________________
        I got Haxorus on "What Dragon-Type Pokemon are you?" https://quotev.com/quiz/5077163



        Name: Narcissus
        Adopt one yourself! @Pokémon Orphanage

        Reply With Quote
          #21   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
        Old February 5th, 2019 (1:44 PM). Edited February 6th, 2019 by colours.
        colours's Avatar
        colours colours is offline
        wandererjustlikeme 🌟
         
        Join Date: Apr 2005
        Location: in an eternal dream
        Gender: Female
        Nature: Jolly
        Posts: 3,381
        Quote:
        Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic View Post
        .
        It's all well and good that you put Sanders on a pedestal, but his very actions contradict your words:

        as per Harry Enten, former 538 contributor and current CNN contributor:

        Quote:
        Black women from the south were a MAJOR reason Sanders lost the nomination in 2016. So he decides to give a separate SOTU response, when the Dem response is being given by a black woman from the south.

        6:57 PM - 4 Feb 2019
        Quote:
        And yea, I know Sanders gave a SOTU response in 2018 too... People can do what they want obviously, but it probably isn't a great idea when a major charge against you is that you aren't a Dem... and you're giving a response separate to the Dem response.
        If Sanders is such a champion for us black people, then why doesn't he sit aside and let a black woman deliver the message of the Democratic Party instead of trying to steal her thunder and cast the spotlight for himself? The tone deafness of Sanders' announcement is incredible and I cannot see it be anything but terrible and hurt his standing among black women.

        What Harry means by the second comment here is that Sanders can choose whether or not to be a Democrat when it suits his political interests. He can scream about helping the middle class, raising minimum wage, and whatever, and that's all fine and serves as the backbone of progressives such as Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but Sanders himself is not some sort of poor pariah that got ousted from the DNC like you paint him as. He isolated himself from the Democrats, and he repeatedly threw the Democratic Party under the bus during the primary during his rallies and as a result lost because those sort of ideas only resonated with young millenials who don't turn out as often as older folk who voted in droves for Clinton. That's not how you win a primary no matter how you look at it.

        Also, another thing you keep doing is whataboutism in regards to Clinton a lot in your post. Yes, I voted for Clinton over Sanders. To be honest, they both didn't speak for me. I don't totally believe Clinton has my bests interest in mind as someone in the LGBTQ+ community, and neither does Sanders. However, I realize how the government currently works is that it works through compromise. There was absolutely no way Bernie can wave a magic wand, shout "FREE TUITION" and ram that through the Senate without significant concessions. Let's not forget that Republicans at the time have (and still do) control the Senate. Do you really think that they would sit idly by and allow something like that to pass? Do you legitimate think that Mitch McConnell of all people would allow a vote on that?

        When I voted for Clinton, I voted because I was being a realist, not an idealist. I voted knowing that either one of two things would happen: either she would shift more to the left under pressure of liberal activists, or she would basically become a DINO and push Democratic ideals with Republican compromises. I voted because I honestly don't expect Universal Healthcare to be a thing until Democrats gain like... 60 seats (I think?) in the Senate, and if the mid-terms have said anything, the Senate for the Democrats currently is a longshot. Worst come to worst, even if Clinton lost control of the whole government, we'd still see more of the same, instead of seeing things like we're seeing now what with transgender troops being banned from the military, white supremacy and nationalism being vindicated, and rampant open racism, widespread sexism... you name it really. I voted for her because I wanted to play it safe.

        Quote:
        Attacking greed is a means to an end with Bernie. Now we can agree or disagree about whether or not his ideas would work, but to say that Bernie did not have a message for minorities is I think not true.
        I sincerely apologize for being blunt, I really think you need to take off the rosy bernie goggles because most african-americans and hispanics disagree with you on that. If he truly had a message for us, he would've gotten more of our vote over Hillary. All he did was wave his finger and shout "BUT THE MIDDLE CLASS".

        I mean, take this article here. Another recent example of his tone-deafness. Whenever Sanders makes any sort of comment in regards to black folk, he fumbles and gaffs and just... does not appear sincere or really understand what we go through.

        Especially this last part:

        Quote:
        Despite making efforts to reach out to black voters ― both during the 2016 presidential election and more recently as he weighs a run in 2020 ― Sanders has also tried to avoid “identity politics” as part of his message.

        “My goal is to bring forth a progressive agenda that speaks to the needs of working people, whether they are black, white or Latino, and get people involved in the political process in a way we have not seen in a very long time,” he told The Associated Press in April.
        This sounds fine on the surface, but like... it's just textbook politician-speak. It speaks to everyone yet no one simultaneously.

        Also, we can't forget the whole "white people don't know what it's like to live in the ghetto" complete gaff during his debate with Hillary Clinton. As privileged as Clinton come off, at least her response was passable.

        Also this.

        Quote:
        “Yes. I mean, I think we’ve got to work in two ways,” Sanders answered. “Number one, we have got to take on Trump’s attacks against the environment, against women, against Latinos and blacks and people in the gay community, we’ve got to fight back every day on those issues. But equally important, or more important: We have got to focus on bread-and-butter issues that mean so much to ordinary Americans.”
        Now, this could be just miswording but.... ouch. In essence, he screwed up again by saying "yeah trump's attacks on black people, latinos and gays suck, but yknow, we'll help ordinary Americans first" which.... implies that black people, latinos and gays aren't part of struggling ordinary everyday Americans. x.x

        I can literally go on and on but the point being is that he lost the trust of most African-Americans and they didn't take him seriously. Every time he tried to speak on racial issues, he came off as super stiff as if he's forced to talk about it, and it's noticed. No matter your whataboutism of Hillary Clinton, no matter what you say about her baggage, she won the African-American and Latino vote purely because voters saw she walked the walk instead of looking uncomfortable everytime she speaks about racial issues.

        But enough about that. Let's talk about whether or not Sanders would've won, because for some reason we're beating that horse again.

        This CNN politics article says that probably not, given the amount of superdelegates that Clinton won over Sanders. I bet most Sanders voters would cry foul at this which makes sense but... what if Sanders got the majority of superdelegates instead? Would it still be a fair system to the Sanders voters? Would you guys still have faith in the system if the pledged delegates as well as superdelegates sided with Sanders instead of Clinton? I heavily doubt anyone from the Sanders camp would've uttered as much as a word, but somehow it's different because it's Clinton? Give me a break.

        This Vox article also disagrees with the notion that the DNC rigged the primaries against Clinton:

        Quote:
        Political junkies talk about the “invisible primary,” which Vox’s Andrew Prokop, in an excellent overview, describes as “the attempts by important elements of each major party — mainly elites and interest groups — to anoint a presidential nominee before the voting even begins. ... These insider deliberations take place in private conversations with each other and with the potential candidates, and eventually in public declarations of who they're choosing to endorse, donate to, or work for.”

        Clinton dominated this invisible primary: She locked up the endorsements, the staff, and the funders early. All the way back in 2013, every female Democratic senator — including Warren — signed a letter urging Clinton to run for president. As FiveThirtyEight’s endorsement tracker showed, Clinton even outperformed past vice presidents, like Al Gore, in rolling up party support before the primaries:
        Quote:
        Within a few days, both Brazile and Warren walked their statements all the way back. Brazile now says she found “no evidence” the primary was rigged. Warren now says that though there was “some bias” within the DNC, “the overall 2016 primary process was fair.”

        I have spent much of the past week trying to untangle this story, interviewing people on all sides of the primary and in a variety of positions at the DNC. The core facts are straightforward: As Barack Obama’s presidency drew to a close, the DNC was deep in debt. In return for a bailout, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz gave Hillary Clinton’s campaign more potential control over its operations and hiring decisions than was either ethical or wise. But those operations were mostly irrelevant to the primary and couldn’t have been used to rig the process even if anyone had wanted to use them that way; the primary schedule, debate schedule, and rules were set well in advance of these agreements. “I found nothing to say they were gaming the primary system,” Brazile told me. And while that contradicts the more sensational language she used in her book, it fits the facts she laid out both in her original piece and since.
        WaPo also disagrees.

        Even Politifact says that the notion that Sanders would've won without superdelegates is false.

        I can go on and on about this, but this isn't 2016 and the elections are long over, so there's no point in trying to debate this, I feel. The bigger and more broader point I'm trying to get at is that, while I applaud Bernie Sanders for bringing about a new wind of change in the Democratic Party, it should not be Bernie Sanders who should be the forefront of it. Not anymore. Other progressives such as Elizabeth Warren (who really has her own baggage to deal with as far as the Native American controversy goes), and Kamala Harris ("she's a cop"), have taken on the mantle from Sanders to spread the message in a different way. In a way that isn't contrived, and perhaps a way that can easily connect them to potential voters.

        Bernie however, is a reminder of an era best forgotten. A reminder of a bloodied war between two candidates that led to the split of the Democratic party base. Voters will remember him for what he is: an Independent, not a Democrat. He may vote with the Democrats, but it's only as a means to an end. Voters feel that he does not truly align with democratic interests anymore, and rather only makes appearances to cause strife rather than unity.

        Perhaps this means that it's time for voters to find another figurehead of the Progressive movement, one that would signal change for the future, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Someone that's relatable and shares the goal of upending the system and communicates effectively about it. But... with all due respect to Bernie, I do think his time in the political spotlight is better off given to someone else.
        Reply With Quote
          #22   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
        Old February 9th, 2019 (9:24 AM).
        VisionofMilotic's Avatar
        VisionofMilotic VisionofMilotic is offline
        Lover of Dragons
         
        Join Date: May 2016
        Location: Sootopolis City
        Gender: Female
        Nature: Gentle
        Posts: 2,478
        Quote:
        Originally Posted by colours View Post
        It's all well and good that you put Sanders on a pedestal, but his very actions contradict your words:

        as per Harry Enten, former 538 contributor and current CNN contributor:


        If Sanders is such a champion for us black people, then why doesn't he sit aside and let a black woman deliver the message of the Democratic Party instead of trying to steal her thunder and cast the spotlight for himself? The tone deafness of Sanders' announcement is incredible and I cannot see it be anything but terrible and hurt his standing among black women.
        .
        Rather than putting Bernie on a pedestal or any individual for that matter, what I try to do is put the truth on a pedestal, whether it is about a democat, republican or independent or what not. There are areas where I don't support Bernie, some of his statements on foreign policy, endorsements he has made, even the whole Our Revolution thing I have mixed feelings about, but race relations is not an area where I have criticisms of anything he did. I do not see any aspect of Bernie's campaign or policies that undermines people of other races. I think this is politicized.

        Bernie protected Native American reservations from mining companies and fracking, His actions do support his words. He went into Nicaragua in protest when the US government was secretly funding guerilla warfare there. Not many politicians have been as proactive as Bernie, and certainly not Hillary.

        If you feel you need to be blunt you may do so, I will be upfront as well in the spirit of a healthy, robust debate. I think you are engaging in the kind of identity politics that can hold us back as a people, rather than focusing on policy substance. I don't even know whether or not Stacy Abrams is even going to be a good leader yet. That is what I am concerned with ultimately, not the color of her skin or that she and I share the X chromosomes. If we are triggered down to the core of our identity over a candidate's gender or race or party label then we will drift further apart as a nation, and will also be easily manipulated by interests who want to take advantage by appealing only to our emotion, holding up the race card and offering us nothing in return.

        Bernie, who has complimented and praised Stacy, is not "terrible" for giving a SOTU just because a woman who happens to be a person of color, spoke as well. Likewise people who supported Bernie over Hillary were not sexist for calling out Hillary's record, yet we earned the nickname "the Bernie Bros" even when were women. This kind of division that is not even issue-based is dangerous, and I don't think it has to be the way we wield political power as people of color today.

        We are in the middle of black history month and it is a good time to remember that once people like us weren't allowed to vote- something that Bernie pushed back against. The important message now is that we have candidates of all colors, faiths and countries who can stand for office today in America. People have given their lives for this country, black as well as some white people like Bernie fought for the rights we take for granted today-- the right for Stacy or Barack to be on that stage.

        Immigrants are dying in detention centers as we speak, even children, and we let ourselves get distracted with who speaks when? No, this article is a nothing burger, and I'm not eatting it. It serves as an example of how the media will manufacture drama to their own ends when nothing was done wrong. You can always find a political spin. If Bernie had not given the SOTU, then he would have been portrayed as boycotting the presence of a black woman.


        Quote:
        Originally Posted by colours View Post

        I sincerely apologize for being blunt, I really think you need to take off the rosy bernie goggles because most african-americans and hispanics disagree with you on that. If he truly had a message for us, he would've gotten more of our vote over Hillary. All he did was wave his finger and shout "BUT THE MIDDLE CLASS".

        I mean, take this article here. Another recent example of his tone-deafness. Whenever Sanders makes any sort of comment in regards to black folk, he fumbles and gaffs and just... does not appear sincere or really understand what we go through.

        Especially this last part:

        Quote:
        Despite making efforts to reach out to black voters ― both during the 2016 presidential election and more recently as he weighs a run in 2020 ― Sanders has also tried to avoid “identity politics” as part of his message.

        “My goal is to bring forth a progressive agenda that speaks to the needs of working people, whether they are black, white or Latino, and get people involved in the political process in a way we have not seen in a very long time,” he told The Associated Press in April.
        This sounds fine on the surface, but like... it's just textbook politician-speak. It speaks to everyone yet no one simultaneously.

        Also, we can't forget the whole "white people don't know what it's like to live in the ghetto" complete gaff during his debate with Hillary Clinton. As privileged as Clinton come off, at least her response was passable.

        Also this.

        Quote:
        “Yes. I mean, I think we’ve got to work in two ways,” Sanders answered. “Number one, we have got to take on Trump’s attacks against the environment, against women, against Latinos and blacks and people in the gay community, we’ve got to fight back every day on those issues. But equally important, or more important: We have got to focus on bread-and-butter issues that mean so much to ordinary Americans.”
        Now, this could be just miswording but.... ouch. In essence, he screwed up again by saying "yeah trump's attacks on black people, latinos and gays suck, but yknow, we'll help ordinary Americans first" which.... implies that black people, latinos and gays aren't part of struggling ordinary everyday Americans. x.x

        I can literally go on and on but the point being is that he lost the trust of most African-Americans and they didn't take him seriously. Every time he tried to speak on racial issues, he came off as super stiff as if he's forced to talk about it, and it's noticed. No matter your whataboutism of Hillary Clinton, no matter what you say about her baggage, she won the African-American and Latino vote purely because voters saw she walked the walk instead of looking uncomfortable everytime she speaks about racial issues.

        Politicians have social and economic positions. Bernie is asserting he is against Trump's rhetoric about gays, blacks, latinos and women. That he talks about the economy in the next sentence does not have a hidden meaning. He received far less opportunities in the media promote his message, and will often run a list of issues rapidly together depending on the format. He talks in clear, consistent bullet points for the everyday person. He is not implying that black people, latinos and gays aren't part of struggling working Americans. Bernie also included standing up to Trump on the environment in the first sentence. Does that mean that "ordinary Americans" are not part of the environment and share the same water and air? This is really stretching for a smear.

        It was meaningful for Bernie to add bread-and-butter issues to the discussion. A candidate can be opposed to Trump's social message, and not necessarily share Bernie's economic positions. Case in point libertarian candidate Gary Johnson who was a staunch critic of Trump, supported open borders and same-sex marriages, had a high score from the ACLU as a candidate of social liberties, yet Johnson is a hypercapitalist, and the focus was not bread-and-butter ssues. We could also look at Howard Schultz who has wants to protect the dreamers and supports marriage equality, while simultaneously believing that social security should be cut and is against single payer.

        In regards to speaking in a way that was too general according to the AP, let me tell you this. Just speaking from my personal experience, I find Bernie very good on an individual level. When he talks to people directly like in the barbershop onterviews he did with Killer Mike, he can be pretty chill like your uncle or grandpa. Sure he can be awkward, even comic, but bear in mind the context of the statement you provided is part of a larger debate. Is it meant to be breakdown of his policy on prison reform and inner city communities? No, it doesn't seem that way.

        While Bernie has voted for millions for grants for minorities to use for schooling and for historically-black colleges, you won't hear of this. A tuition-free college where black, white, Asian, Latino is going to understandably be more popular with the people. The policies that receive the most support are ones that anyone can be apart of. For instance, social security is a very popular program because whether you are rich or poor, black or white, you can collect it. It survives even under Donald Trump administration. Whereas a program like welfare was easy to nearly dismantle by the Clintons because it is often written off as the poor people's program. Realistically there is strength in numbers.

        Once Bernie was asked about affirmative action, and questioned what he would say to a white student who is concerned about such a policy and how it would impact his own financial situation, his response was more or less that the black kid deserves to go to college, and we will send you too. Sometimes the best way to improve the struggle of a minority group is also to improve the struggle of everyone, the two don't aren not mutually exclusive.

        You say that Bernie's message was to focussed on the economy, but Hillary's campaign was bereft of any message, beyond being the first woman president. She had no groundbreaking policy. I have had discussions with Hillary supporters before, and while they might reject a particular policy by Bernie Sanders, I have yet to hear anyone tell me what she stood for.

        If feel that Bernie's language is alienating to minorities, how do you feel about these words?

        "They are often the kinds of kids that are called “super-predators”—no conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel." - Hillary Clinton on young black men.

        https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theroot.com/for-the-record-superpredators-is-absolutely-a-racist-t-1790857020/amp

        I did not vote for Trump, and I will not. However, Hillary's statement about half of his supporters being a "basket of deplorables" is another stereotypes that we don't need. I think Hillary and Trump are both wrong and come across as equally prejuduce. This only serves to show how out of touch she is with average Americans, and this patronizing attitude is one of the things that cost her the election.

        “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up." - Hillary Clinton.

        Quote:
        Originally Posted by colours View Post
        "No matter your whataboutism of Hillary Clinton, no matter what you say about her baggage, she won the African-American and Latino vote purely because voters saw she walked the walk instead of looking uncomfortable everytime she speaks about racial issues."
        No matter what I say about her baggage? Hold up, now. What you are describing euphemistically as just her "baggage" is economic, social and foreign policy, everything a candidate stands for, and in all three capacities her policies have been hurting minorities for years. The is effectively saying we voted for her, no matter what she does to us, we vote no matter how bad she will be. She she held accountable, just like we would hold Trump accountable. If it was disrespectful to you simply that Bernie Sanders did not get out of the way for a black lady like Abrams, how are you able to reconcile the fact that dark-skinned are being sold into slavery today because of the Clinton's colonialist-like policy towards the country of Libya, and what she has reduced a once educated and wealthy country to?

        https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/895853001

        You say that she won the African-American and Latino vote because voters saw that she walked the walked. How did she walk the walk? You have not given any examples. Looking comfortable isn't walk. It is a very subjective trait that does not signify anything. I don't believe that she looked comfortable, I think she looked like the next Margaret Thatcher. But even if she was postering like Malcolm X, Benazir Bhutto and Caesar Chavez, your record is what is walking the walk. What Bernie has done is walk the walk, what Hillary has done is talk the talk. When was Hillary ever arrested and chained to African-American lady while fighting for voting rights?

        If you believe that neither Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton have your best interest at heart, then fair enough. We should be skeptical of all politicians. But you are are going a step further in saying that Hillary is "walking the walk" with minorities, when the reality is that she took money from the same lobbyists who build the detention centers for undocumented immigrant. Whatever Bernie's shortcomings, he and Hillary are not the same candidate on race relations. You portay them as similar and they are not, Hillary being a little better and she is not, not in this capacity. If you preferred Hillary because you liked her policy towards Iran or her tax plan on whatever have you then I understand. You have different views than I do and Hillary might have indeed been the candidate better for you. I probably run to the left of you, and that is fine. However, you are making a claim about Bernie being less sensitive to minorities, but you have not given me any facts about what Hillary did to justify minority votes, just saying that she won them so that shows it. It is circular. She won minorities because she was better for them than Bernie, and she was better for them because she won them.

        If you want my honest answer I think the reason many African-Americans and Hispanics voted the DNC/ Clinton camp actively ran a racially-charged campaign against Bernie, articles such as the one you linked me to that are race-baiting. The DNC literally fed anti-Bernie stories to news outlets. Their leaked emails show this. They specifically talk about finding black reporters to attack Bernie. Tom Perez, who has become the DNC chair now promoted a strategy of dividing minorities and he famously wrote, "I also look forward to my appearance on Telemundo tomorrow where I can trumpet her strong support among Latinos and put a fork once and for all in the false narrative about Bernie and Latinos. Congrats."

        The Clinton were proud of the fact they exploited minorities, and got them to go out and vote for them whether it was in their interest or not. The disdain for which the Clinton campaign has for minorities permeates through their emails, such as when Hillary's campaign chair John Podesta talked about how they could gain support from what he called "needy Latinos" and called the same people that he asked support from profanities behind their back.

        Initially the Clinton campaign say in their own emails that they were intimidated by Bernie Sanders having a great background that minorities could potentially identify with. They had no idea how this would play out with the people. The Clintons feared that their own shortcomings would be glaring when running against a civil rights activist, so they spun a false narrative.

        You say that most blacks and Latinos disagree with me, well many people sadly are unaware of the cruelty of the Clintons. This was my experience when I followed the 2016 primary and had debates. When I have discussions about Libya, Rwanda, Haiti, Honduras, Columbia, and more, a lot of people just genuinely did not have these facts.

        The mainstream media however does a great job of keeping people uninformed, the opposite of what they should do. The southern states, which have high African-American populations, were among the first in the primary and many African-Americans had a time disadvantage to learn. It was a situation overwhelmingly more favorable to a well-known person like Hillary Clinton, especially among elderly people who are less likely to use a wide variety or news news sources like the internet, and only have a television set or newspapers. This is coupled with the fact that Bernie did not want to wage a negative campaign in return, which was his mistake.

        I have spoken to neighbors while canvassing who went from pro-Hillary to against her and pro-Bernie when they had more information about her, and more about Bernie.

        CNN is owned by Time Warner, one of the biggest donors that Hillary Clinton had. MSNBC is owned by Comcast, who also gave more money to Hillary than any other candidate. It is not surprising that they would run 24 hour propaganda. Bernie was never covered, when he was it was a consistently negative, and the debates were designed to keep him hidden. He was a grassroots candidate trying to beat off the juggernaut of the establishment, and it is impressive he did as well as as he did in a rigged primary.

        The Clinton campaign/DNC used the media as an extra strong arm. Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, George Stephanopoulos of ABC, Diane Sawyer, and many more reporters literally were going to dinner parties with Clinton Campaign instead of doing their jobs objectively. There are documents showing Debbie Wasserman Schultz personally writing to Chuck Todd. If you read the published emails you know already about the collisionion.

        Ed Schultz was fired from MSNBC for planning to cover a huge rally for Bernie Sanders where he would receive union endorsements. Debbie Wasserman even threatened Joe Scaborough, demanding that he put an end to any negative coverage of Hillary. Mika Brzezinski was called and threatened too. The DNC was actually threatening journalist, telling them what kind of narrative they could promote, as we would respect in Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany. Yet Bernie is the one who tore apart the DNC? No, the DNC is not defendable in the primary, even if you don't like Bernie. Are you comfortable that a political party, even if it is one that we are in, is dictating to the press what they should say? Today it might be okay because it happens to be other democrats, doing it for the candidate that you happened to vote for. But what if tomorrow it is someone you don't want?

        https://www.google.com/amp/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/23/wikileaks-exposes-dnc-strong-arm-tactics-chuck-tod/


        https://www.aim.org/aim-column/wikileaks-reveals-all-the-journalists-who-schmoozed-with-clinton-campaign

        https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.commondreams.org/views/2016/10/11/labor-secretary-advised-clinton-cast-sanders-candidate-whites-turn-minorities%3famp

        https://www.google.com/amp/s/theweek.com/articles-amp/790183/treachery-tom-perez

        https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-wikileaks-emails-clinton-black-voters-20161022-story,amp.html

        https://newspunch.com/wikileaks-dnc-chair-tom-perez-destroy-bernie/amp/


        People who worked within the democratic party who wanted to endorse Bernie similarly had their arms twisted. Congress woman Tulsi Gabbard resigned as vice-chair of the DNC because she saw the rampant corruption Debbie Wasserman Schultz retaliated by taking away all funding from her campaign. When Tom Perez came to power as the DNC chair he purged all supporters of Bernie Sanders and Keith Ellison (a black Muslim who supported Bernie) from their offices, and many of them were women and people of color.

        A narrative was pushed that sounds rather like the one you keep telling me. Hillary is a woman who connects better with minorities, the more balanced candidate that wouldn't rock the boat, the wiser, experienced one that can beat Trump was pushed. This story was told so many times that people took it for granted, despite the fact that everything Hillary did ran contrary to this idea.

        Media helped to shape public opinion because the DNC was controlling it. The criticism of Bernie always is something small that falls into the realm of subjectivity like a quote that might have a hidden meaning, never a concrete instance of injuring minorities like Hillary stealing money from Haiti's earthquake victims-- those things they kept hidden. Just enough to create a discomfort, say a look in his eye that was untrustworthy.

        I think minorities got played by Hillary, similarly I think the working man got played by Trump's trade rhetoric. I hope the American people will have better sense in 2020, and not vote for more wolves in sheep's clothing on the basis of something vague like being more relatable.



        Quote:
        Originally Posted by colours View Post
        I realize how the government currently works is that it works through compromise. There was absolutely no way Bernie can wave a magic wand, shout "FREE TUITION" and ram that through the Senate without significant concessions. Let's not forget that Republicans at the time have (and still do) control the Senate. Do you really think that they would sit idly by and allow something like that to pass? Do you legitimate think that Mitch McConnell of all people would allow a vote on that?

        When I voted for Clinton, I voted because I was being a realist, not an idealist. I voted knowing that either one of two things would happen: either she would shift more to the left under pressure of liberal activists, or she would basically become a DINO and push Democratic ideals with Republican compromises. I voted because I honestly don't expect Universal Healthcare to be a thing until Democrats gain like... 60 seats (I think?) in the Senate, and if the mid-terms have said anything, the Senate for the Democrats currently is a longshot. Worst come to worst, even if Clinton lost control of the whole government, we'd still see more of the same, instead of seeing things like we're seeing now what with transgender troops being banned from the military, white supremacy and nationalism being vindicated, and rampant open racism, widespread sexism... you name it really. I voted for her because I wanted to play it safe.

        I don't agree with you on this one, but I think we are getting somewhere because now we are at least talking policy-- that is what I want, not identity and symbols. We come to the meat of it now.

        Personally I don't think Hillary was the more practical choice. Bernie had a longer, more successful career in the legislative branch of government than Hillary did, going on 30 years now, and always polled better in the general.

        I'm going to quote Bernie's own words from his Colorado rally. His approach to getting the best deal for the American people is illustrated here. That if you demand the full loaf, "At worst, you’re going to get a half loaf. But if you ask for a half loaf, you’re gonna get crumbs.”

        https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/81116776

        You don't need to explain the obvious that politics are about compromise, and I think Bernie understands that as well. By standing further left he is giving himself more room for compromise. By fighting for single payer health care, you may not achieve it, but it puts you in position to get more than if you had asked for nothing and requested just for everything to stay the same. It won't. Go out fighting with your pants pulled up, not your tail between your legs or the Republicans will take what bread you have. You might at least get half of a loaf i.e maybe a Public option or at least Obamacare. By embracing the status quo as Hillary would have it, you not only won't make any progress, but you stand to lose what little bit you had. Bernie is placing himself in a position for defense instead of submission.

        I don't think asking for as little as we can get by on is a smart political strategy. And Hillary Clinton is aware of this because she does not genuinely want any progress. She is bought by so many private interests groups from big oil to investment bankers that she is certainly not going to enact progressive economic policies that would have cost her donors money. She will either say it can't be done, as she already did in the campain trail and say the same line about Mitch McConnell. Or she will construct the bill in a way to deliberately make at fail, as she posed to with free college tution when she agreed. Initially she wanted to have an income cap, which inevitably would have lowered until average people would have been left behind, and voted against it. Then she included a condition that states had to match the funds raised by the feds, knowing it would be D.O.A. Then she can turn around and lie, and pretend she tried.

        Hillary's voting record and personal emails have shown her to be so two-faced that there is no safety in a vote for Hillary, such as when she publicly decried the Colombian Free Trade agreement and vowed to fight against it, while behind the scenes lobbying for that exact agreement. Hillary was not going to be pushed to the left from pressure by liberal activists because she's going to be pushed simultaneously from the right to do the bidding of her corporate masters. She was bought by Citgroup, Goldmann Sachs, Jp Morgan, Bank of America. "Republicans won't let me" is a game of make-belief they play with their base. The reasons. Republicans won't pass it because they get bought by the same people. When Trump was a private citizen he paid off democrats and republicans.

        There was no reason to believe that Hillary would have been pushed to the left. She was the last prominent senator in the country to come out for a higher wage, not even 15. We couldn't even get to 10 out of her. Family advocacy groups and women's organizations were begging her to deaf ears.

        As for D.I.N.O economic policies, perhaps not even that. I personally would characterize Hillary as Neocon. She is very different from Obama, and even from her husband Bill Clinton.

        I am not unsympathetic to your fear over the bigotry we face in today's political climate. This is the reason I think Hillary is the worst democrat ever. The Clintons gave us Trump. I don't just mean that she lost to Trump, nor am I taking about the years of corporate policies that led to a depressed economy that bred a general climate of distrust and anger to be seized upon by demagogues. No, I mean literally, the Clintons gave us Trump! They encouraged Trump to pursue politics. They used to be friends, they took his money, went to the golf course with Trump and his wedding. Bill described Trump as "striking a chord with frustrated conservatives and was a rising force on the right" in a supportive phone call not long before Trump announced his campaign.

        https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/08/donald-trump-and-bill-clinton-collide-best-conspiracy-story-ever/

        If you believe Hillary was still the best way to fight Trump here's your red pill, the Clinton Campaign created Trump. He is their Frankenstein's monster. The media gave Trump million of dollars worth of free coverage, a reality show of what ignorant thing he would do next to create an antagonist. They got what they wished for.

        This was actually a strategy of the Clinton campaign called the "pied piper strategy" to elevate Trump and the most extreme candidates they could find like Cruz and Carson. I suppose they thought it would be an easy coast into the white house if they had someone really bad to run against, and now we are living under the repercussions of her irresponsibility until soneone else can voted in 2020 to clean up the mess.

        https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/


        Quote:
        Originally Posted by colours View Post
        But enough about that. Let's talk about whether or not Sanders would've won, because for some reason we're beating that horse again.

        For some reason we are beating a dead horse again? My friend, your nature should be impish. You mentioned that Bernie Sanders supporters scream about the democratic primary rigged, and that whether it was rigged or not did ultimately make a difference, so I think you remember how we came to this point.

        Originally you said that the DNC rigging the primaries didn't change the fact that the American people overwhelmingly voted for Hillary. This is important because you initially made a statement that Bernie could never appeal to enough people to get out of a primary, and continue to maintain that. Maybe that would still be the case. But the subtelty of what I am saying is that we can't know that for sure because we also saw voter suppression in the primary. I had a wide variety of sources in my the older post, including some of the same websites you visited that document significant irregularities in state after state. The link about the Rhode Island primary is the best example of the deviousness and conclusion between the Clinton campaign and state officials, actually putting in writing in their private conversations how to attract less suspicion than they did in Arizon as they shut down half of the polling stations.

        This has nothing to do with superdelegates, and I think the authors of those articles are aware of that. The web pages you linked me to talk about the DNC rigging the primary are speaking in a very limited context when they say the primary is rigged. They do not address all of the instances of voter suppression we saw during the primary. The scale which the supression affected the primary on is not a question that the Clinton News Network or Vox can give you an answer to because they don't have a way to calculate data that is missing.


        As I have said before, I don't know that Bernie won. But the fact that I can never know, only speculate is what is frustrating. Because we have so many votes that were literally not even counted and people who were turned away. What if he had won? We might not have Trump in the White House.

        Millions of voters were disenfranchised during the democratic primary, and the stories you show me say that Bernie probably wouldn't have won, because he didn't get enough votes from the voters... Um, yeah, that is the point.

        Quote:
        Originally Posted by colours View Post
        Bernie however, is a reminder of an era best forgotten. A reminder of a bloodied war between two candidates that led to the split of the Democratic party base. Voters will remember him for what he is: an Independent, not a Democrat. He may vote with the Democrats, but it's only as a means to an end. Voters feel that he does not truly align with democratic interests anymore, and rather only makes appearances to cause strife rather than unity.

        Perhaps this means that it's time for voters to find another figurehead of the Progressive movement, one that would signal change for the future, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Someone that's relatable and shares the goal of upending the system and communicates effectively about it. But... with all due respect to Bernie, I do think his time in the political spotlight is better off given to someone else.
        I actually think Bernie would be more entertaining to watch if he really was the suicide bomber that the democratic party has demonized him into. Nah, the truth isn't nearly as fun. If Bernie was what you say then instead of setting up a charity after the election to get more young people interested in the political process and running as democrats, then he would have just run third party in 2016. He had the money and a large enough base to start one that would have definitely split the democratic party in two. But that isn't what he wanted, and always said that he would endorse whoever the democratic nominee was because he didn't wan't to cause the election of a right-wing candidate. Bernie ultimately likes the democratic party, he criticizes its excesses like the campaign finance system-- but what he is saying is ultimately true. He doesn't really want to tamper with the structure of the democratic party it if you listen to the entirety of his speeches, and look at the actual positions he adopts. He works within the two-party system, and tries to reform it.

        I think his policies are in many ways that of an old school democrat like FDR or young college democrats of the anti-war movement when we were in Vietnam. He is a democratic socialist because the overton window has moved to the right, which happened during the Clinton era. The positions of Pelosi, Schumer, Clinton are relatively new. President Truman proposed universal healthcare. We used to have a tuition-free college in California until Reagan came to office. Bernie is trying to drag the party back left, now whether that is a winnable battle as we stand knee-deep corruption I'm not sure. I hope to God so, whether it is through Bernie or somebody else entirely I care not.

        Many people DO support progressive policies, it isn't just the narrowest aspect of the party like Cortez as you characterize it. 70% of our country's general population support medicare for all. But we have paid-off representatives in the pocket of the health insurance company, and it isn't all republicans. There are plenty of democrats that will sell out their base to keep the donations rolling in from private interest groups.

        https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/08/28/most-americans-now-support-medicare-for-all-and-free-college-tuition.html

        While I do expect to vote democrat again in 2020 because another 4 years of Trump is the alternative. Sure, I don't see why I wouldn't vote for Booker with Trump over there. But that does not mean that I am unaware of the problems that exist in the democratic party. You have told me to take my rose-colored glasses off about Bernie Sanders, but I think you similarly need to be a less romantic about the fairness of our political system. Democrats are political animals too like their Republican cousins, they gaurd their territory like hungry Doberman and would totally oust Bernie or anyone else for that.

        Heard of Kimberly Ellis? A popular, pretty, well-spoken young progressive who was running for the democratic chair in California. She lost by a tiny margin, just 60 votes. In lieu of spotting numerous voter irregularities she requested recount and audit, the democratic party blocked it, and she was threatened by senior officials who said they would "politically-murder" her.

        https://mobile.twitter.com/jeanettejing/status/877935082819866624

        https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/erika-d-smith/article157076274.html

        Tim Canova who ran against Debbie Wasserman Schultz?
        This isn't his first time he ran against her, due to his suspicions of corruption when he primaried her he previously he requested the ballots be preserved for recount, but they were destroyed in defiance of the law.

        https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fl-sb-broward-elections-supervisor-broke-law-snipes-canova-20180514-story,amp.html

        This is the story Rocky de la Fuente and his experience with corruption with the democratic party. He was a conservative democrat, and not the radical isolationist that you believe Sanders to be. But even he wasn't allowed to join the club because he was too much competition for Hillary. The democratic party DOES out the pariah.

        https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/10273732/amp

        I understand that Bernie does not have your vote and never will, and that is okay. I am posting this info before I sign off and let members get back to Cory Booker and the upcoming cycle, because it needs to be pointed out that there are always two sides to every story.

        I have not pledged my support to Bernie for 2020, he may not even run, and if he does, while I would back him in the general election over Trump, he still has to earn my vote in the primary like everyone else. I could go Bernie in such a primary, but it isn't certain. I could vote Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, maybe even Pete Bottigieg. Who knows? It will all come down to message and intergrity, as it should.
        __________________
        I got Haxorus on "What Dragon-Type Pokemon are you?" https://quotev.com/quiz/5077163



        Name: Narcissus
        Adopt one yourself! @Pokémon Orphanage

        Reply With Quote
          #23   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
        Old February 9th, 2019 (6:36 PM). Edited February 9th, 2019 by colours.
        colours's Avatar
        colours colours is offline
        wandererjustlikeme 🌟
         
        Join Date: Apr 2005
        Location: in an eternal dream
        Gender: Female
        Nature: Jolly
        Posts: 3,381
        Quote:
        and certainly not Hillary.
        and you're saying this as if I'm defending her on this aspect?

        Quote:
        If you feel you need to be blunt you may do so, I will be upfront as well in the spirit of a healthy, robust debate. I think you are engaging in the kind of identity politics that can hold us back as a people, rather than focusing on policy substance.
        It's great that identity politics don't matter to you. It's admirable that you'd rather focus on policy and the meat of where politicians fall than what's on the surface. Unfortunately however, this is the real world, where no matter how you slice it, the general electorate cares to some degree about identity politics. People have hidden biases about who they support as a candidate based on who they feel can relate to their experiences the most, and while I recognize that Bernie may have endured hardships similar in degree and substance to what many people of colour have endured, where the line is drawn is that he has not endured outright endured (as far as I know? Feel free to say I'm wrong here) racism that your everyday POC goes through on a continuous basis. I mean, this is proven every time he tries to talk race relations because that's the kind of stuff that matters.

        What is he going to do about white people constantly calling the police on black people doing everyday things? Perhaps I didn't do enough of my research in this particular area, but I have not heard a shred of a plan about how he's going to tackle the one of the biggest problems this country has in that people of colour, regardless of where we go, are looked at with suspicion as if we're automatically suspected criminals. What is Bernie going to do about that? What is Bernie going to do about the outright racism that Hispanics go through on a frequent basis, as well?

        And before you go towards your whataboutism for Hillary (because you keep doing that for some reason, it's not like I emphatically backed her or anything), it's not like I trust her that much, either. But let's play some reverse devil's advocate and go into the deeper reasons as to why Clinton was popular with Black voters. Is it simply because, as you mentioned in a previous post, that Clinton is simply popular among Church-going black southerners because they lean more on the conservative side?

        Well, I'd hold onto that theory.

        As far as why Clinton is popular with black voters, it's really down to many factors. I think this NPR article sums it up somewhat. It could be attributed to Bill Clinton's success among older black voters that remember his era and his general background making him easier to connect with. Also, he appointed a lot of black members of his cabinet, as stated here:

        Quote:
        And once he was in office, he tried to show he was reaching across color lines.

        "I think that a mixture of his personality and his politics really made him relatable and likable to many in the black community," said Stefanie Brown James, who did African-American outreach for the 2012 Obama campaign. He believed in affirmative action, for example, pushing to "mend it, don't end it" when it came under fire. And he appointed African-Americans to high-profile positions — in 1993, he appointed four black Cabinet secretaries. That "speaks volumes to the black community," Brown James said.
        But it's really not so easy as to pinpoint one particular cause. Keep in mind this only probably resonates with older black voters who remember how amicable he was and how open he was in reaching out towards the black community. Then there's the other side -- the 1994 crime bill -- that really put him under scrutiny. But as this article points out, there are many other policies under the Clinton's that resonated well with black people.

        As for what Hillary herself did for black people? It's partially symbolic, partially literal. A lot of what your posts are categorize Clinton as some sort of selfish monster bound by corporate greed who has done nothing for black folks and does not have their best interests in mind. But actions speak louder than words, and what spoke to the broader black community is where Clinton decided to back Barack Obama after he won the primary against her:

        Quote:
        I still think it is understated, how big a deal that was to Black people. Clinton lost a close and bitter race and had every opportunity to take her ball and go home. She didn’t — she fought to get Obama elected twice by campaigning for him, and she served under him as his Secretary of State. I personally don’t agree with every legislative choice Obama made, but Hillary Clinton’s willingness to stick by him and fight for him after a stinging defeat won Black voters over for 2016. Especially given the unprecedented vitriol and racist attacks against Obama by the opposition.
        .

        I dunno really; I'll agree that Clinton isn't a saint, nor is this trying to paint her as one. There are certainly moments where she made gaffs that hurt her standing in the black community, such as the "superpredators" comment. But to say or imply that she has done nothing of substance or significance for the black community is simply false.

        Take this other WaPo article. It pretty much says what I've mentioned in a previous post already, which is that issues that matter a ton to black voters at the time -- racial inequality, systemic racism and the like -- is something that Clinton has never really been shy to talk about, which resonated with black voters. While Sanders tries to talk about issues regarding race, he comes across as fake, not sincere. Whether you personally believe him is one thing, but the message just does not come across as authentically as Clinton's. You may disagree with this article as you like, and I don't blame you if you do. But the truth of the matter is that identity politics plays a not insignificant part of how and who black voters tend to vote for.

        Quote:
        Bernie, who has complimented and praised Stacy, is not "terrible" for giving a SOTU just because a woman who happens to be a person of color, spoke as well.
        Omitting the rest here because it's not particularly relevant. Yeah sure, he complimented and praised Stacy. Is that somehow supposed to excuse his action in attempting to take the spotlight from her and focus on his own message, instead? The bigger point here is that it's a tone-deaf thing to do. Here we have a woman of colour who has fought valiantly and lost a bitter governor race, and she's being chosen as being the face of the Democratic rebuttal of Trump's SOTU, and Bernie just kind of... goes "hey I'm going to issue my message too" for some reason? Why, though? In the best interest of Democratic unity, why doesn't Bernie stick behind to what Stacy says instead of announcing a poorly-timed separate statement? That's what I don't understand.

        Quote:
        We are in the middle of black history month and it is a good time to remember that once people like us weren't allowed to vote- something that Bernie pushed back against. The important message now is that we have candidates of all colors, faiths and countries who can stand for office today in America. People have given their lives for this country, black as well as some white people like Bernie fought for the rights we take for granted today-- the right for Stacy or Barack to be on that stage.

        Immigrants are dying in detention centers as we speak, even children, and we let ourselves get distracted with who speaks when? No, this article is a nothing burger, and I'm not eatting it. It serves as an example of how the media will manufacture drama to their own ends when nothing was done wrong. You can always find a political spin. If Bernie had not given the SOTU, then he would have been portrayed as boycotting the presence of a black woman.
        You seem to paint Bernie in a pretty admirable light, here. You make good points that he fights for people like us. I suppose actions speak louder than words, but if that was true, he should've gotten a lot more support from black voters in the primaries. But let's move on from the primaries, and see whether or not Sanders has learned from his mistakes and gaffs of the past, and see how he's doing building bridges with black voters.

        If this NYT article is of any indication... it's not going particularly good. Again, something you refuse to acknowledge throughout your posts is that time and time again when Bernie tries to make some sort of outreach towards the black community, he comes across as inauthentic and tone-deaf. That is his problem. It seems some in the black community do not believe he's sincere. But more than just his apparent insincerity and general awkwardness at trying to talk about anything in regards to black folk, he doesn't.... seem to place any sort of emphasis or go the extra mile in trying to connect with black voters beyond a surface level.

        This is not the message that resonates well with black voters. I know you're going to pull up 7 different counter-articles about how the Clinton's are detrimental to black voters as a whole, but that isn't the point. I'm not defending Clinton; I never was. Clinton may perhaps be a massively sketchy individual that has big donors behind her name at every step. She may have had incredible amounts of baggage, so much so that it's fairly difficult to look past. But even despite all of this, black voters are not fools. You keep talking about policy, and that's great. But policy is just one part of what matters to a lot in the black community. If you keep talking about policy and fail to make any other connection, then you're not going to get anywhere. That's the thing with Bernie. When it comes to talking the talk, quite frankly, he falls flat. And that matters.

        Quote:
        He is not implying that black people, latinos and gays aren't part of struggling working Americans. Bernie also included standing up to Trump on the environment in the first sentence. Does that mean that "ordinary Americans" are not part of the environment and share the same water and air? This is really stretching for a smear.
        You are wiser for looking past that. Many people, however, feel that misword was pretty significant since they heard what he said on the surface level of things. Of course he might've meant something sincere, but that's not initially what some interpreted it as.

        Quote:
        I probably run to the left of you, and that is fine.
        Please don't make personal assumptions about my character. You're better than that. I'm pretty solidly left. Solidly left, however, does not mean that I'm drinking the Bernie cool-aid, nor am I obligated to as you seem to be implying.

        Quote:
        Personally I don't think Hillary was the more practical choice. Bernie had a longer, more successful career in the legislative branch of government than Hillary did, going on 30 years now, and always polled better in the general.
        And this matters.... how, exactly?

        You say he polled better in the general, despite his lacking support among black voters, hispanics, and even people in his age-group voted for Hillary over him, who then defected more to Trump. Why would they go for a socialist? Sure, he polled better in the general. Hillary also polled better than Trump during almost the entire campaign. That in itself doesn't mean anything because it's not outside the realm of possibility for politicians to beat their poll numbers, which happens more often than you think.

        You say that Bernie had a longer, more successful career in the legislative branch. Perhaps this would serve to benefit him in the short-term, but if we've learned anything from Obama's total loss of the government in 2014 (which was the result of a then-unpopular Obamacare), then it wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility to assume that Bernie would stumble across the same issue, therefore potentially facing off against a GOP-controlled House and Senate that would block his every move.

        This is going too deep in the hypothetical, though. But let's not pretend it would be sunshine and rainbows for his entire presidency because it can very well go the other way.

        Quote:
        For some reason we are beating a dead horse again? My friend, your nature should be impish.
        Lay off the snarky personal attacks. Attack the argument, not the person.

        Anyway, here is where I get into the real meat of my post.

        I do want to make this as perfectly clear as I possibly can: I am not a big fan of Hillary Clinton. I am aware that she is dodgy, and I am actually more aware (than you give me credit for, actually) of the Clinton's rather sketchy past and how they possibly contributed to the Trump presidency as it stands today. Here is where 80% of your argument falls flat, though: None of any of my post was arguing on behalf of Clinton in support. It's a matter of objective fact that she did better than Sanders in the primaries. He failed to communicate to the black community in the primaries, and while he was experimenting with a run for the presidency, he (mostly, depending on the POV) failed at trying to build a bridge with black voters again. His repeated tone-deafness is making his standing increasingly worse. You can argue all day and night about Bernie Sanders' personal experiences, how that relates to the suffering that black people go through today and how it impacts us, but unless he actually communicates that in an effective way, it's not going to lead anywhere. No one is going to take him seriously, because shockingly, as I mentioned before, identity politics plays a part in how people vote.

        Interestingly enough, Clinton being inauthentic compared to more outspoken "psyduck the system" people like how Trump was during the primaries certainly contributed to her loss. But I'd be fairly cautious in making the claim that Bernie winning the primary would mean no more Trump; that is just about your assumption of the matter as it is anyone else's how that could've gone. Again, Bernie was lacking support among hispanic and black voters as well as older democrats. While you may make the argument that some of those voters would defect to Bernie anyway, it could very well play out just like the election did in that some voters in that demographic would rather vote third-party due to a lack of a message that Bernie was giving them.

        Do not misinterpret this to mean that I'm trying to make some sort of case that identity politics definitively determines how people vote. But it is a factor. How much it is a factor depends on who you speak to, because humans are complex and perhaps there's not one single thing that determines who we support and who we don't support. In the very same vein that Bernie's more adamant black defenders will defend tooth and nail that the meaning behind his words is more important than his gaffs, there are others that will argue that the fact that he didn't put very much emphasis on communicating the issues that black people tend to prioritize. What about white supremacy? What about policy brutality on black folk? It's these sorts of things that many in the black community hold to heart that Bernie either doesn't talk often about (or at all, I'm not sure, feel free to correct me, here), or just kind of glosses over as a segue into a more economic message when many black voters want him to place more emphasis on racial issues.

        I do want to point out what's interesting though: you point out corrupting on the Democratic party itself that tends oust more progressive candidates. I say interesting because there's this article that says that New York Democrats are actually contemplating on whether or not to primary Ocasio-Cortez or simply eliminate her district entirely. I do not defend the Democratic Party's actions in ousting progressive candidates or politicians and in fact I believe that to be a ridiculous endeavour. Such a move against AOC, for example, would end up being pointless because as stated in the article, she could run in a different district and win or just outright demolish whoever her competition tends to be in a landslide.

        Quote:
        it isn't just the narrowest aspect of the party like Cortez as you characterize it.
        Perhaps you're misunderstanding what I said, because I never claimed anywhere that support for progressive ideals was isolated to... the narrowest aspect of the party? Perhaps don't try to put words in my mouth next time. If you're unclear on something I'm saying, feel free to ask me and I'll be more than happy to clarify.

        It is more than clear that support for progressive politics are pretty much at a significant high, I'm more than well aware of this. The elephant in the room example of this is precisely how the Democrats won the midterm in the first place -- the progressive movement of the Democratic party is already demonstrably large --- and the election of AOC herself over one of the higher ranking Democratic officials already speaks volumes into what direction progressives feel the Democratic Party should move towards and what policies are most important to them.

        Of course, we can dream of a more progressive utopian society all we'd like, for that would continue to be a dream as most Democrat and Democrat-leaning registered voters want the party to be more moderate anyway. Interesting how that works, huh?
        Reply With Quote
          #24   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
        Old February 9th, 2019 (7:08 PM).
        gimmepie's Avatar
        gimmepie gimmepie is offline
         
        Join Date: May 2012
        Location: Australia
        Age: 23
        Gender: Male
        Nature: Adamant
        Posts: 19,190
        I didn't see anything particularly snarky beyond a good-natured jab. Let's not make this a personal issue where there's no reason to.
        __________________
        Reply With Quote
          #25   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
        Old 4 Weeks Ago (3:05 PM).
        Noblejanobii's Avatar
        Noblejanobii Noblejanobii is offline
        A bagel... TWO BAGELS!!
           
          Join Date: Jan 2019
          Location: Spain
          Age: 20
          Gender: Female
          Nature: Timid
          Posts: 383
          I don't know enough about Senator Booker to make comments on his stances but he's friends with the senator I interned for this past summer and I heard nothing but good things about him so I think just based on that he'd make a decent contender for the seat. Best of luck to him on his campaign.
          __________________

          Avatar credit to Penpeaches
          Reply With Quote
          Reply

          Quick Reply

          Join the conversation!

          Create an account to post a reply in this thread, participate in other discussions, and more!

          Create a PokéCommunity Account
          Ad Content
          Thread Tools

          Posting Rules
          You may not post new threads
          You may not post replies
          You may not post attachments
          You may not edit your posts

          BB code is On
          Smilies are On
          [IMG] code is On
          HTML code is Off
          Minimum Characters Per Post: 25

          Forum Jump


          All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:28 AM.