As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Feeling the Bern: Bernie Sanders 2016

That_GuyThat_Guy I don't wanna be that guyRegistered User regular
edited August 2015 in Debate and/or Discourse
ElJeffe gave us his blessing to make this thread on one condition, it will be ONLY about Bernie Sanders and will not devlove into another 2016 Primary thread. Without further ado, I give you Bernie Sanders.

Bernie_Sanders_2016_logo.png


DEM%202016%20Sanders_Reis%20_OP_2_CP__1432560417478_18819143_ver1.0_640_480.jpg
This man is your friend, he stands for freedom for EVERYONE


Bernie on the issues
Team Bernie sent out this awesome email the other day, outlinging where he stands on the issues and outlining his goals should he be elected.
This country faces more serious problems today than at any time in modern history, and establishment politics will not successfully resolve them.

Corporate greed is rampant, and the very rich keep growing richer while everyone else grows poorer. Despite an explosion in technology and a huge increase in productivity, the middle class continues to disappear, most Americans work longer hours for lower wages, and 45 million live in poverty.

The skyrocketing level of income and wealth inequality is not only grotesque and immoral, it is economically unsustainable. It is unconscionable that 99% of all new income goes to the top 1%. It is absurd that the top one-tenth of 1% own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%, and that one family (the Waltons of Walmart) has more wealth than the bottom 130 million Americans.

As a result of the disastrous Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United, the billionaire class is spending huge amounts of money to buy candidates and elections. We are now witnessing the undermining of American democracy and the rapid movement toward oligarchy where a handful of very wealthy families and their Super PACs will control our government.

The scientific community is virtually unanimous in telling us that climate change is real, is caused by human activity, and is already bringing catastrophic damage to our planet. Yet, the Republican Party is prepared to reject science in order to gain campaign contributions from the Koch brothers, Big Energy companies and others who make billions on fossil fuels. If we do not act boldly on climate change, the planet we leave to our grandchildren may be uninhabitable.

The United States once led the world in terms of the percentage of our young people who had college degrees. Today, in a highly competitive global economy, we are now in 12th place. Hundreds of thousands of bright young people have given up on the dream of higher education, while millions of others leave school with oppressive debt.

Our infrastructure -- roads, bridges, rail, airports, water systems, wastewater plants, levees, dams -- is crumbling, and Congress refuses to appropriate anywhere near the necessary funds to rebuild it. If we do not invest substantially in infrastructure, a bad situation will only become much worse.

Despite substantial gains, we still have a long way to go to achieve equality for minorities. Instead of investing in opportunities, we are locking people up at an incredible rate. We now have the highest incarceration rate in the entire world with over 2 million in prison and millions more on probation or parole. We have a broken immigration system that divides families and keeps millions of hard-working people in the shadows.

Most of the major Wall Street financial institutions that we bailed out because they were "too big to fail," are now bigger than they used to be. The six largest financial institutions now have assets equivalent to nearly 60% of our GDP, issue 35% of the mortgages, and oversee 65% of credit cards.

Our tax system is wildly unfair - rigged to benefit the very rich. Major corporations that earn billions in profits stash their money in tax havens and pay nothing in federal income taxes, while billionaire hedge fund managers pay a lower effective tax rate than nurses or teachers.

Despite growing poverty among seniors, almost all Republicans, and some Democrats, want to cut Social Security and benefits for disabled veterans. They want more austerity for the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor, and more tax breaks for the rich.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost us thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. The United States spends more on the military than the next nine biggest-spending countries combined. Today, there are massive cost over-runs with defense contractors and the Pentagon cannot even pass an independent audit.

We are at a moment of truth. We need to face up to the reality of where we are as a nation, and we need a mass movement of people to change that reality.

Let's be clear. This campaign is not about Bernie Sanders. It's about a grassroots movement of Americans standing up and saying: "Enough is enough. This country and our government belong to all of us, not just a handful of billionaires."

I have discussed some of the major crises that we face. Let me give you the outline of an agenda which addresses these problems.

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs: The truth is that real unemployment in our country is not the "official" and widely-reported 5.4 percent. Counting those who are underemployed and those who have given up looking for work, real unemployment is almost 11 percent. Even more disturbingly, real unemployment for white and Hispanic youth is over 30 percent, while African-American youth unemployment is over 50 percent.

We need a major federal jobs program. The most effective way to do that is to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. To do that, I have introduced legislation which would invest $1 trillion over 5 years to modernize our country's physical infrastructure. This would create and maintain at least 13 million good-paying jobs. It would also make our country more productive, efficient and safe.

As a member of Congress who voted against NAFTA, CAFTA, Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China (PNTR) and is helping to lead the opposition against the TPP, I will continue my opposition to trade policies which have cost us millions of decent paying jobs as corporate America shuts down plants here and moves them to low-wage countries.

Raising Wages: Today, millions of Americans are working for starvation wages and median family income has declined by almost $5,000 since 1999. The current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is totally inadequate. We need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage - $15 an hour over the next few years. Our goal must be that no full-time worker in this country lives in poverty. We must also bring about pay equity for women. There is no rational reason why women should be earning 78 cents on the dollar compared to men who perform the same work.

Further, we need to implement "family values" for American working families. It is unacceptable that the United States is the only major country on earth that does not guarantee family and medical leave, sick time and paid vacations.

Wealth and Income Inequality: Today, the richest 400 Americans own over $2.2 trillion in wealth, more than the bottom 150 million Americans combined. Meanwhile, nearly half of all Americans have less than $10,000 in savings and have no idea how they will be able to retire with dignity.

In order to reverse the massive transfer of wealth and income from the middle class to the very rich that we have seen in recent years, we need real tax reform which makes the wealthy and profitable corporations begin to pay their fair share of taxes. It is fiscally irresponsible that the U.S. Treasury loses about $100 billion a year because corporations and the rich stash their profits in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and other tax havens.

We need a tax system which is fair and progressive. Children should not go hungry in this country while profitable corporations and the wealthy avoid their tax responsibilities.

Reforming Wall Street: I have introduced legislation which would break up the largest financial institutions in the country. In my view, if a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. Wall Street cannot continue to be an island unto itself investing trillions in risky financial instruments. We need banks that invest in the job-creating productive economy. We do not need more speculation and gambling in casino-type activities.

Campaign Finance Reform: We need to return to a one-person, one-vote democracy. It is not acceptable that the Koch brothers and other billionaires are spending endless sums of money to buy elections. I have introduced legislation which would overturn the horrendous Citizens United decision and will only appoint Supreme Court justices who are prepared to do that. We must also demand disclosure of all large campaign contributions. Long term, we need to move to public funding of elections.

Fighting Climate Change: The United States must lead the world in reversing climate change and make certain that this planet is habitable for our children and grandchildren. We must transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and into energy efficiency and sustainable energies. Millions of homes and buildings need to be weatherized, our transportation system needs to be energy efficient and we need to greatly accelerate the progress we are already seeing in wind, solar, geothermal and other forms of sustainable energy. Transforming our energy system will not only protect the environment, it will create good-paying jobs.

Health Care for All: The United States remains the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health care for all as a right. Despite the modest gains of the Affordable Care Act, 35 million Americans continue to lack health insurance and many more are under-insured. Yet, we continue paying far more per capita for health care than any other nation. The United States must move toward a Medicare-for-All single-payer system.

Protecting Our Most Vulnerable: Today, the United States has more people living in poverty than at almost any time in the modern history of our country. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major nation, and millions of seniors and people with disabilities struggle to put food on the table because of insufficient Social Security benefits.

In my view, we have a moral responsibility to make certain that no American goes hungry or sleeps on the street. We must also make certain that seniors and people with disabilities can live in dignity. Not only must we vigorously oppose Republican attacks on the social safety net, we must expand benefits for those most in need. That is why I have recently introduced legislation which would extend the solvency of Social Security until 2065, while increasing benefits for those most in need.

Expanding Opportunity and Equality: We need to stop using prisons as a response to poverty. Our criminal justice system needs to be reformed so that we do not continue to house non-violent offenders at huge expense when that money could be used to rebuild communities and create opportunity. We need federal leadership to reform policing in America, to end racial profiling, and to fight the illegal activities of hate groups. We need comprehensive immigration reform that protects families and leads to a responsible and realistic path to citizenship.

Dismantling Structural Racism: Throughout much of our history, the elite in America has divided people along racial lines in an effort to consolidate wealth and power. We need to simultaneously address the structural and institutional racism which exists in this country while at the same time vigorously attacking the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality which is making the very rich much richer, and everyone else - especially the African-American community - much poorer. Meanwhile, too many people of color in this country find themselves subjected to a system that treats citizens who have not committed crimes like criminals. We have more people locked up in jail than any other country on earth. We need to invest in jobs and education, not jails and incarceration. Finally, no person should have to worry that a routine interaction with law enforcement will end in violence and death. Black lives matter: we must reform our criminal justice system, move away from the militarization of police forces, and invest in community policing.

College for All: The United States must join Germany and many other countries in understanding that investing in our young people's education is investing in the future of our nation. I have introduced legislation to make tuition in public colleges and universities free, as well as substantially lowering interest rates on student loans.

War and Peace: I voted against the war in Iraq, and that was the right vote. We must be vigorous in combatting terrorism, but we can't do it alone. We must be part of an international coalition that includes Muslim nations which not only defeats ISIS but which works hard to create conditions for lasting peace. I will vigorously oppose an endless war in the Middle East.

My approach to campaigning is pretty simple and straight-forward. We hold a lot of public meetings in towns that are big and small. People ask questions and make comments. We discuss the important issues facing our country. And that's it. Nothing very fancy. It's called democracy and I like that approach very much. It's something I've done my whole political life.

Meetup
There is currently a massive meetup planned for July 29th in communities all over the nation. If you want to help team Bernie or just show your support, please find an event and RSVP. There will be a livestream of his speech with group planning on what to do next.
https://go.berniesanders.com/page/event/search_simple

This is the main reason I wanted to make this thread. There are over 20 events happening within 50 miles of me. The event I am attending has over 200 people RSVP'd. This happening in a massive red state with a very conservative voter base.

Together we can make this happen

That_Guy on
«134567100

Posts

  • Options
    SicariiSicarii The Roose is Loose Registered User regular
    I also hail from a Red State but there a quite a few events within 50 miles. Hard to say if I can make any on such short notice.

    This was organized via newsletters?

    gotsig.jpg
  • Options
    That_GuyThat_Guy I don't wanna be that guy Registered User regular
    Sicarii wrote: »
    I also hail from a Red State but there a quite a few events within 50 miles. Hard to say if I can make any on such short notice.

    This was organized via newsletters?

    And social media in general.

  • Options
    TOGSolidTOGSolid Drunk sailor Seattle, WashingtonRegistered User regular
    edited July 2015
    On one hand, holy shit there's actually a meetup happening in Juneau, Alaska.

    On the other hand, it's at a restaurant that always gives me a massive case of the shits.

    On the other other hand, the event is already at max capacity so I guess that solves that problem. I'll still tune into the livestream though.

    TOGSolid on
    wWuzwvJ.png
  • Options
    AstaleAstale Registered User regular
    I think the man has a single-digit chance of winning a presidential election, but it'd be nice to see him as a threat right now so that Hillary might take a clear stand on the issues.

    Because, while I think Hillary is electable, if you asked me what her policies are, I'd have a damn tough time responding with any certainty.

  • Options
    milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    Astale wrote: »
    I think the man has a single-digit chance of winning a presidential election, but it'd be nice to see him as a threat right now so that Hillary might take a clear stand on the issues.

    Because, while I think Hillary is electable, if you asked me what her policies are, I'd have a damn tough time responding with any certainty.

    Single digit chances of victory are much higher than I'd peg him. He's pretty much only in the race to shift Hillary to the left.

    I ate an engineer
  • Options
    Mr KhanMr Khan Not Everyone WAHHHRegistered User regular
    Huh, a meetup right on my grad school's campus. Pity it's 90 minutes after on-campus work ends, though maybe i could swing back around because parking isn't an issue at night.

  • Options
    JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    milski wrote: »
    Astale wrote: »
    I think the man has a single-digit chance of winning a presidential election, but it'd be nice to see him as a threat right now so that Hillary might take a clear stand on the issues.

    Because, while I think Hillary is electable, if you asked me what her policies are, I'd have a damn tough time responding with any certainty.

    Single digit chances of victory are much higher than I'd peg him. He's pretty much only in the race to shift Hillary to the left.

    I dislike this mentality, because it's too defeatist, too early.

    @ElJeffe I'm tagging you so you can infract me if this is getting too close to normal primary stuff instead of focusing on Sanders and leave it at that. I'm not going to comment any further, but I'm going to bring up polling to help face this point.

    In the latest CNN poll, and the latest Gallup poll, Sanders is the only Democrat who has a net positive view amongst people polled, and in the CNN poll when put up against the three Republican front-runners, he beats them all nationally head-to-head (without even getting into the electoral map), albeit by smaller gaps than Clinton. This is an outside shot. Do not dispute that. But it is also not impossible, and having a defeatist attitude up front is only going to hamstring the possibility.

    Like I've said many times in the past: it's time for everyone who's pissed and moaned about there not being an actual liberal candidate available to put up or shut up. Even if he's not the nominee, having a good showing can only produce better things in the future.

    I've donated money, but I will be unable to attend anything tomorrow. Looking around, my town doesn't have one (sadly), but there's 26 events in a 50 mile radius with 986 people who have RSVP'd, so that's not bad.

    I think this mass organization thing is a good idea, but I fear it's too decentralized. Too many small things of 20-30 people who aren't necessarily in communication with others (or with the main campaign) which may move at odds with one another and not have a focused effort. It's great to see that sort of groundswell, but without proper allocation and direction of resources, it's going to lead to a lot of wasted effort.

  • Options
    That_GuyThat_Guy I don't wanna be that guy Registered User regular
    Jragghen wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Astale wrote: »
    I think the man has a single-digit chance of winning a presidential election, but it'd be nice to see him as a threat right now so that Hillary might take a clear stand on the issues.

    Because, while I think Hillary is electable, if you asked me what her policies are, I'd have a damn tough time responding with any certainty.

    Single digit chances of victory are much higher than I'd peg him. He's pretty much only in the race to shift Hillary to the left.

    I dislike this mentality, because it's too defeatist, too early.

    @ElJeffe I'm tagging you so you can infract me if this is getting too close to normal primary stuff instead of focusing on Sanders and leave it at that. I'm not going to comment any further, but I'm going to bring up polling to help face this point.

    In the latest CNN poll, and the latest Gallup poll, Sanders is the only Democrat who has a net positive view amongst people polled, and in the CNN poll when put up against the three Republican front-runners, he beats them all nationally head-to-head (without even getting into the electoral map), albeit by smaller gaps than Clinton. This is an outside shot. Do not dispute that. But it is also not impossible, and having a defeatist attitude up front is only going to hamstring the possibility.

    Like I've said many times in the past: it's time for everyone who's pissed and moaned about there not being an actual liberal candidate available to put up or shut up. Even if he's not the nominee, having a good showing can only produce better things in the future.

    I've donated money, but I will be unable to attend anything tomorrow. Looking around, my town doesn't have one (sadly), but there's 26 events in a 50 mile radius with 986 people who have RSVP'd, so that's not bad.

    I think this mass organization thing is a good idea, but I fear it's too decentralized. Too many small things of 20-30 people who aren't necessarily in communication with others (or with the main campaign) which may move at odds with one another and not have a focused effort. It's great to see that sort of groundswell, but without proper allocation and direction of resources, it's going to lead to a lot of wasted effort.

    84f003e4339d43a75f7566fb5aaca72a.jpg

  • Options
    TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    I couldn't go anyway, but there are exactly 2 events within 50 miles of me, both on the edge of that search radius. 23 people RSVP'd.

    I can't get out East Texas fast enough.

  • Options
    ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    I have 120 events within 100 miles. I'm tempted to go to one.

    Might talk to the wife about it in a bit.

    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Jragghen wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Astale wrote: »
    I think the man has a single-digit chance of winning a presidential election, but it'd be nice to see him as a threat right now so that Hillary might take a clear stand on the issues.

    Because, while I think Hillary is electable, if you asked me what her policies are, I'd have a damn tough time responding with any certainty.

    Single digit chances of victory are much higher than I'd peg him. He's pretty much only in the race to shift Hillary to the left.

    I dislike this mentality, because it's too defeatist, too early.

    @ElJeffe I'm tagging you so you can infract me if this is getting too close to normal primary stuff instead of focusing on Sanders and leave it at that. I'm not going to comment any further, but I'm going to bring up polling to help face this point.

    In the latest CNN poll, and the latest Gallup poll, Sanders is the only Democrat who has a net positive view amongst people polled, and in the CNN poll when put up against the three Republican front-runners, he beats them all nationally head-to-head (without even getting into the electoral map), albeit by smaller gaps than Clinton. This is an outside shot. Do not dispute that. But it is also not impossible, and having a defeatist attitude up front is only going to hamstring the possibility.

    Like I've said many times in the past: it's time for everyone who's pissed and moaned about there not being an actual liberal candidate available to put up or shut up. Even if he's not the nominee, having a good showing can only produce better things in the future.

    I've donated money, but I will be unable to attend anything tomorrow. Looking around, my town doesn't have one (sadly), but there's 26 events in a 50 mile radius with 986 people who have RSVP'd, so that's not bad.

    I think this mass organization thing is a good idea, but I fear it's too decentralized. Too many small things of 20-30 people who aren't necessarily in communication with others (or with the main campaign) which may move at odds with one another and not have a focused effort. It's great to see that sort of groundswell, but without proper allocation and direction of resources, it's going to lead to a lot of wasted effort.

    So, did you see what happened at Netroot Nations? He's pretty much managed to piss off a major part of the Democratic coalition (protip: when you get caught with your pants down, telling activists to go pound sand is the last thing you want to do), and I'm curious how he's going to deal with that.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    Yeah, it was handled very poorly on his part to fumble that. I do feel that in the days thereafter, he made an attempt to right the course on that (he became the first candidate to address the Sandra Bland thing directly), but it also feels that the "moment" was lost.

  • Options
    That_GuyThat_Guy I don't wanna be that guy Registered User regular
    Jragghen wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Astale wrote: »
    I think the man has a single-digit chance of winning a presidential election, but it'd be nice to see him as a threat right now so that Hillary might take a clear stand on the issues.

    Because, while I think Hillary is electable, if you asked me what her policies are, I'd have a damn tough time responding with any certainty.

    Single digit chances of victory are much higher than I'd peg him. He's pretty much only in the race to shift Hillary to the left.

    I dislike this mentality, because it's too defeatist, too early.

    @ElJeffe I'm tagging you so you can infract me if this is getting too close to normal primary stuff instead of focusing on Sanders and leave it at that. I'm not going to comment any further, but I'm going to bring up polling to help face this point.

    In the latest CNN poll, and the latest Gallup poll, Sanders is the only Democrat who has a net positive view amongst people polled, and in the CNN poll when put up against the three Republican front-runners, he beats them all nationally head-to-head (without even getting into the electoral map), albeit by smaller gaps than Clinton. This is an outside shot. Do not dispute that. But it is also not impossible, and having a defeatist attitude up front is only going to hamstring the possibility.

    Like I've said many times in the past: it's time for everyone who's pissed and moaned about there not being an actual liberal candidate available to put up or shut up. Even if he's not the nominee, having a good showing can only produce better things in the future.

    I've donated money, but I will be unable to attend anything tomorrow. Looking around, my town doesn't have one (sadly), but there's 26 events in a 50 mile radius with 986 people who have RSVP'd, so that's not bad.

    I think this mass organization thing is a good idea, but I fear it's too decentralized. Too many small things of 20-30 people who aren't necessarily in communication with others (or with the main campaign) which may move at odds with one another and not have a focused effort. It's great to see that sort of groundswell, but without proper allocation and direction of resources, it's going to lead to a lot of wasted effort.

    So, did you see what happened at Netroot Nations? He's pretty much managed to piss off a major part of the Democratic coalition (protip: when you get caught with your pants down, telling activists to go pound sand is the last thing you want to do), and I'm curious how he's going to deal with that.

    That incident was ridiculous. It was a couple of (rightfully) upset individuals who wanted were demanding these 2 guys repeat a specific phrase over and over again. The people he upset weren't going to be satisfied by anything he could have said. Bernie was directly attacked and, instead of engaging them emotionally, he chose to stick to the issues. Could he have said something more tactful? Yes. Would any other candidate have done any better? I think not. Bernie has been fighting for civil rights for a lot longer than anyone in the 2016 race. He was arrested back in the 60s because he had the crazy idea that black kids should be able to attend the same schools as white kids. He definitely has a longer and more distinguished track record than any of the other candidates.

  • Options
    ShawnaseeShawnasee Registered User regular
    Bernie Sanders is fantastic and he is hitting all my buttons and he gets my vote.

    Wife is voting for him too.

  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited July 2015
    That_Guy wrote: »
    Jragghen wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Astale wrote: »
    I think the man has a single-digit chance of winning a presidential election, but it'd be nice to see him as a threat right now so that Hillary might take a clear stand on the issues.

    Because, while I think Hillary is electable, if you asked me what her policies are, I'd have a damn tough time responding with any certainty.

    Single digit chances of victory are much higher than I'd peg him. He's pretty much only in the race to shift Hillary to the left.

    I dislike this mentality, because it's too defeatist, too early.

    @ElJeffe I'm tagging you so you can infract me if this is getting too close to normal primary stuff instead of focusing on Sanders and leave it at that. I'm not going to comment any further, but I'm going to bring up polling to help face this point.

    In the latest CNN poll, and the latest Gallup poll, Sanders is the only Democrat who has a net positive view amongst people polled, and in the CNN poll when put up against the three Republican front-runners, he beats them all nationally head-to-head (without even getting into the electoral map), albeit by smaller gaps than Clinton. This is an outside shot. Do not dispute that. But it is also not impossible, and having a defeatist attitude up front is only going to hamstring the possibility.

    Like I've said many times in the past: it's time for everyone who's pissed and moaned about there not being an actual liberal candidate available to put up or shut up. Even if he's not the nominee, having a good showing can only produce better things in the future.

    I've donated money, but I will be unable to attend anything tomorrow. Looking around, my town doesn't have one (sadly), but there's 26 events in a 50 mile radius with 986 people who have RSVP'd, so that's not bad.

    I think this mass organization thing is a good idea, but I fear it's too decentralized. Too many small things of 20-30 people who aren't necessarily in communication with others (or with the main campaign) which may move at odds with one another and not have a focused effort. It's great to see that sort of groundswell, but without proper allocation and direction of resources, it's going to lead to a lot of wasted effort.

    So, did you see what happened at Netroot Nations? He's pretty much managed to piss off a major part of the Democratic coalition (protip: when you get caught with your pants down, telling activists to go pound sand is the last thing you want to do), and I'm curious how he's going to deal with that.

    That incident was ridiculous. It was a couple of (rightfully) upset individuals who wanted were demanding these 2 guys repeat a specific phrase over and over again. The people he upset weren't going to be satisfied by anything he could have said. Bernie was directly attacked and, instead of engaging them emotionally, he chose to stick to the issues.

    No, he got preachy, and then cancelled a number of scheduled meetings with minority activists in the wake of the incident. Which, needless to say, didn't help matters. Not to mention that this isn't exactly an isolated incident:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf2cCdgwgoM
    Could he have said something more tactful? Yes. Would any other candidate have done any better? I think not.

    You're joking, right? Because O'Malley did do better there. The Weekly Sift has a pretty good writeup of what the problem was:
    But recall how skillful politicians like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama have handled situations like this. You’re never going to satisfy the kind of people who come prepared to shout you down, but at the same time you want the people who agree with the shouters to feel like you at least heard their concern and want to respond to it.

    Sanders doesn’t communicate that. And that lack of skill is especially going to hurt him when he reaches out to the black and Hispanic communities, as he must if he’s going to mount a serious threat to Hillary Clinton. (It will also hurt him in debates, if an opponent can taunt him into exposing his preachy side.) Blacks in particular will be watching how he interacts, not just listening to what he says. It’s not going to be enough to quote proposals from his platform, no matter how good they might be. He’ll need to get across that he respects the non-white communities and is listening to what they say, even when he disagrees.
    ...
    Here’s an issue (Israel/Palestine) where I disagree with Sanders, and I come away feeling that he didn’t hear the audience concerns at all. Their rudeness made him mad, so he talked louder and talked down. (“As some of you may have noticed, there’s a group called ISIS.” Really, Bernie? That had completely gotten past me. Thanks for pointing that out.)

    A skillful politician understands that he’s not just arguing with the people who are shouting at him; he’s talking to the whole world, including people who agree with the shouters even if they deplore the rudeness. Sanders doesn’t seem to get that.

    So while I agree with Sanders on most issues, and I want somebody to put progressive economics on the 2016 agenda, I question whether he has the skills to run a successful presidential campaign. I’m leaning towards voting for him in the New Hampshire primary, because the early primaries are the time to be idealistic and issue-oriented. But if I were a delegate to the Democratic Convention next summer, I think I’d prefer Clinton, because she’ll run a better general-election campaign. I’m not willing to go down to defeat just to maintain ideological purity. The damage that a Republican president could do in four years — to ObamaCare, to the Iran deal, to immigration reform, to the Supreme Court — is too great.
    Bernie has been fighting for civil rights for a lot longer than anyone in the 2016 race. He was arrested back in the 60s because he had the crazy idea that black kids should be able to attend the same schools as white kids. He definitely has a longer and more distinguished track record than any of the other candidates.

    And this is the sort of comment from Sanders supporters that drives me goosey. First off, if you get to bring up his activism in the 60s,then I get to point out that ultimately, he wound up relocating to one of the whitest states in the US. But more importantly, I think the statement "but what have you done for me lately" comes to mind - and this is the point where I remind you that he outright said that minorities should not vote their race, which is something that I feel a candidate for the Democratic nomination should not say. His continued insistence of trying to frame racial issues as economic ones really misses the point, and is a large part of why his minority support is so weak.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    edited July 2015
    I agree with AngelHedgie here. It's a blind spot for Sanders. I don't necessarily even disagree with Sanders' assertion that the root of a lot of racial problems is economic and that by having better economic policy which helps the poor, African Americans would be disproportionately helped because a larger percent of them are in worse economic shape. But while that helps them, it's also not addressing the elephant in the room (lol) that is modern racism. It's something that needs to be addressed, and he has yet to do it in an adequate manner that reaches out to that segment of the Democratic Party. It's absolutely fantastic that he was right on racism back in the 60s - but a large segment of the voting population wasn't even ALIVE back then, let alone grateful for his efforts back then - the focus is on the here and now, as police shoot and kill people.

    As far as I am aware, this is the only African American celebrity endorsement of Sanders.

    Jragghen on
  • Options
    Mr KhanMr Khan Not Everyone WAHHHRegistered User regular
    To me it feels like the "ivory tower liberalism" that the left often gets accused of but you usually don't see in their politicians, this idea that i've got all the answers and you don't know what the problem is, let me tell you what the problem *really* is.

    Which, as an economic determinist myself, i can very much sympathize with Sanders' views, and economic determinism will probably actually play better to the white middle class voting segment because everyone gets awkward about confront racism head-on and because the non-rich need someone who can really articulate their plight. But in the Democratic primary it will be a huge problem, especially in the South where black voters are even more important to the party. He comes off as elitist and patronizing in regards to black rights, even though his end-point is valid.

  • Options
    KleinKlein Registered User regular
    So, what is supposed to happen at this type of thing? I have been keeping up a bit with the primary and kinda know some of Sanders's positions, but I don't think I'll have a lot of time to do campaigning/not sure if I am dedicated to Sanders

  • Options
    hsuhsu Registered User regular
    edited July 2015
    This reddit thread describes what happened in a recent Boston rally for Sanders supporters:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/boston/comments/3de3o0/how_did_the_bernie_sanders_rally_go_did_anyone/

    hsu on
    iTNdmYl.png
  • Options
    JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    edited July 2015
    hsu wrote: »
    This reddit thread describes what happened in a recent Boston rally for Sanders supporters:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/boston/comments/3de3o0/how_did_the_bernie_sanders_rally_go_did_anyone/

    And that's what I was afraid of. A lot of enthusiasm, but none of it is directed.

    e: Was able to watch a little bit of the stream. That was rather disappointing. It's a very small room with a very small crowd, which doesn't do much for providing an interesting, energetic scene for the stream. Audio only working through left channel.

    Jragghen on
  • Options
    milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    Jragghen wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Astale wrote: »
    I think the man has a single-digit chance of winning a presidential election, but it'd be nice to see him as a threat right now so that Hillary might take a clear stand on the issues.

    Because, while I think Hillary is electable, if you asked me what her policies are, I'd have a damn tough time responding with any certainty.

    Single digit chances of victory are much higher than I'd peg him. He's pretty much only in the race to shift Hillary to the left.

    I dislike this mentality, because it's too defeatist, too early.

    @ElJeffe I'm tagging you so you can infract me if this is getting too close to normal primary stuff instead of focusing on Sanders and leave it at that. I'm not going to comment any further, but I'm going to bring up polling to help face this point.

    In the latest CNN poll, and the latest Gallup poll, Sanders is the only Democrat who has a net positive view amongst people polled, and in the CNN poll when put up against the three Republican front-runners, he beats them all nationally head-to-head (without even getting into the electoral map), albeit by smaller gaps than Clinton. This is an outside shot. Do not dispute that. But it is also not impossible, and having a defeatist attitude up front is only going to hamstring the possibility.

    Like I've said many times in the past: it's time for everyone who's pissed and moaned about there not being an actual liberal candidate available to put up or shut up. Even if he's not the nominee, having a good showing can only produce better things in the future.

    I've donated money, but I will be unable to attend anything tomorrow. Looking around, my town doesn't have one (sadly), but there's 26 events in a 50 mile radius with 986 people who have RSVP'd, so that's not bad.

    I think this mass organization thing is a good idea, but I fear it's too decentralized. Too many small things of 20-30 people who aren't necessarily in communication with others (or with the main campaign) which may move at odds with one another and not have a focused effort. It's great to see that sort of groundswell, but without proper allocation and direction of resources, it's going to lead to a lot of wasted effort.

    Not to be too negative because you seem to dislike that, but the poll actually made me feel worse about Sander's 0.X% chance to win. Bernie Sanders, a candidate almost entirely known due to promotion from hardline supporters, has a worse favorable:unfavorable ratio among Democrats than Clinton, who has basically 100% name recognition. The rhetoric I had heard from supporters was that he wasn't well known, but if his name got out to everybody he'd be able to outpoll Hillary.

    The fact that he can't have a better favorable:unfavorable ratio among Dems than Hillary, even though he's known more by his hardline supporters than the general populace, doesn't bode well for him.

    But again, Sanders knows that. He's running for a party he's never been involved in and getting a (relative) ton of positive press about his far-left positions out there, enough that Hillary and the Democrats, and maybe even the Republicans, will begin to shift slightly left in a good way in the future. That's incredibly valuable, and if you support Bernie Sanders position, I don't think it's defeatist to say "he won't win, but he'll make an impact."

    I ate an engineer
  • Options
    override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    Jragghen wrote: »
    I agree with AngelHedgie here. It's a blind spot for Sanders. I don't necessarily even disagree with Sanders' assertion that the root of a lot of racial problems is economic and that by having better economic policy which helps the poor, African Americans would be disproportionately helped because a larger percent of them are in worse economic shape. But while that helps them, it's also not addressing the elephant in the room (lol) that is modern racism. It's something that needs to be addressed, and he has yet to do it in an adequate manner that reaches out to that segment of the Democratic Party. It's absolutely fantastic that he was right on racism back in the 60s - but a large segment of the voting population wasn't even ALIVE back then, let alone grateful for his efforts back then - the focus is on the here and now, as police shoot and kill people.

    As far as I am aware, this is the only African American celebrity endorsement of Sanders.

    What the heck is the government supposed to do about people being racist?

    You can't legislate people's shitty opinions away

    all you can do is provide a level economic playing field, which is exactly what Sanders wants

    Bringing welfare back would do more good for more black families than almost anything short of completely ending the war on drugs. It would substantially improve inner city educational outcomes and employment, as more demand for consumer products would materialize.

    Bernie isn't wrong that focusing on poverty is the single most effective thing the government can do to help the most african american people in this country.

    After that would be reforming the criminal justice system, something he's also in favor of

  • Options
    milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    edited July 2015
    Jragghen wrote: »
    I agree with AngelHedgie here. It's a blind spot for Sanders. I don't necessarily even disagree with Sanders' assertion that the root of a lot of racial problems is economic and that by having better economic policy which helps the poor, African Americans would be disproportionately helped because a larger percent of them are in worse economic shape. But while that helps them, it's also not addressing the elephant in the room (lol) that is modern racism. It's something that needs to be addressed, and he has yet to do it in an adequate manner that reaches out to that segment of the Democratic Party. It's absolutely fantastic that he was right on racism back in the 60s - but a large segment of the voting population wasn't even ALIVE back then, let alone grateful for his efforts back then - the focus is on the here and now, as police shoot and kill people.

    As far as I am aware, this is the only African American celebrity endorsement of Sanders.

    What the heck is the government supposed to do about people being racist?

    You can't legislate people's shitty opinions away

    all you can do is provide a level economic playing field, which is exactly what Sanders wants

    Bringing welfare back would do more good for more black families than almost anything short of completely ending the war on drugs. It would substantially improve inner city educational outcomes and employment, as more demand for consumer products would materialize.

    Bernie isn't wrong that focusing on poverty is the single most effective thing the government can do to help the most african american people in this country.

    After that would be reforming the criminal justice system, something he's also in favor of

    The point is that this is true, but saying it in almost exactly this tone is still an incredibly bad move. As has been said, people don't want to hear "You don't know why things are bad for you, I do."

    You need to be able to play to those people somewhat, not just shut them out, and Bernie is terrible about that. It doesn't matter if he's right, or if the people shouting at him are wrong and dickish. What matters is that by essentially waving them off, he's waved off everybody who might see things in a similar way, and he can't afford to do that with terrible name recognition.

    milski on
    I ate an engineer
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    and this is the point where I remind you that he outright said that minorities should not vote their race, which is something that I feel a candidate for the Democratic nomination should not say.

    I agree; the average African-American voter would be much better off if Dr. Ben Carson was president.

  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited July 2015
    The point is that this is true, but saying it in almost exactly this tone is still an incredibly bad move. As has been said, people don't want to hear "You don't know why things are bad for you, I do."

    You need to be able to play to those people somewhat, not just shut them out, and Bernie is terrible about that. It doesn't matter if he's right, or if the people shouting at him are wrong and dickish. What matters is that by essentially waving them off, he's waved off everybody who might see things in a similar way, and he can't afford to do that with terrible name recognition.

    Sanders isn't interested in 'playing' his base, which is a large part of why I respect him. If poor African american Democrats would rather vote for Hillary so she can ship them off to more wars because they dislike Sanders' tone, so be it I suppose.

    'Tone' is not going to make or break the primary for Sanders. Whether or not people think that he can win, and casting a ballot for him because they don't think it's a wasted vote, that will be the deciding factor. Unfortunately, I don't think it's possible to move most Democratic voters into that non-defeatist attitude.


    I just hope that Hillary runs her usual Godawful campaign and sinks her own ship.

    EDIT: Also, mandatory viewing for those who perhaps don't know why they would be interested in voting for Mr. Sanders but would like to know more:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLNKNq9soLE

    ...Yes, he speaks for that entire 8 hour segment, wherein he explains in painstaking detail his vision for the future of the United States.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWXrMCGJT4

    Mr. Sanders asking Bernanke what the fuck is wrong with him & asking why the banks were treated so courteously when anyone else so incautious with their money would not have been.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    Just think about how much better the rights of women would've been witch Michelle Bachmann in office.

    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • Options
    That_GuyThat_Guy I don't wanna be that guy Registered User regular
    edited July 2015
    My local event had over 300 people at it. It was honestly more of a party than an activist rally. A bunch of local political figures talked about how excited they were about Bernie. There was a raffle too. Next time I am going to volunteer to manage the AV because whoever was managing it tonight was BAD. The video was super choppy but at least the audio was solid. There was also no AC. Everyone was sweating balls. But there was a bar serving a bunch of local brews so it was all good. I took off after the raffle (11 hour work day), but I am definitely going again.

    The stream itself was shorter than I was expecting. It was very "to the point." Bernie is great when he's on script, but tends to stumble over himself when he gets off script. I'm torn between Obama's long pauses while he thinks about what to say next and Bernie's auditory spaghetti. Bernie's definitely better when he's on script.

    Edit: Stay on topic. I don't want this thread taken away.

    That_Guy on
  • Options
    CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    Like, I get the creeping feeling Sanders will end up as some kind of leftist Ron Paul, but saying not just to vote your race seems like a sensible suggestion, if a blunt one. Like, I'm pretty glad a bunch of non-black people voted for Obama.

    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Like, I get the creeping feeling Sanders will end up as some kind of leftist Ron Paul, but saying not just to vote your race seems like a sensible suggestion, if a blunt one. Like, I'm pretty glad a bunch of non-black people voted for Obama.

    Mr. Sanders will not be the left equivalent of Ron fucking Paul, firstly because most people on the left at least recognize that Sanders's odds aren't good, and that there won't be a magical revolution if he does win.


    I'm not tricking myself into believing that, oh yes, obviously Sanders will totally take New Hampshire despite the not-exactly-optimistic polling: I'm just telling people that they ought to vote for him (parlty because I like his platform, partly because I think he has a proven record in Vermont and partly because fuck Hillary Clinton)

    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus now arrives the hour of actionRegistered User regular
    And this is the sort of comment from Sanders supporters that drives me goosey. First off, if you get to bring up his activism in the 60s,then I get to point out that ultimately, he wound up relocating to one of the whitest states in the US. But more importantly, I think the statement "but what have you done for me lately" comes to mind - and this is the point where I remind you that he outright said that minorities should not vote their race, which is something that I feel a candidate for the Democratic nomination should not say. His continued insistence of trying to frame racial issues as economic ones really misses the point, and is a large part of why his minority support is so weak.

    Preposterous, it is the point. I'm happy that someone finally sees that the African-American community's problem isn't so much modern racism (though that is a problem) as grinding poverty, and that the way to fix that is to bring back good jobs and our safety net. I don't really care what he did fifty years ago; I care what he's doing now and it seems like he's got the right ideas to help.

    Certainly I'm glad that he stuck to his guns and didn't kowtow to some idiots screaming a hashtag at him. "Ooh, it looks bad!" Who gives a shit? That's the Occupy Wall Street brand of "activism", which involves a. yelling at people and b. doesn't accomplish jack. Good for Bernie.

  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited July 2015
    Daedalus wrote: »
    and this is the point where I remind you that he outright said that minorities should not vote their race, which is something that I feel a candidate for the Democratic nomination should not say.

    I agree; the average African-American voter would be much better off if Dr. Ben Carson was president.
    Just think about how much better the rights of women would've been witch Michelle Bachmann in office.

    And people wonder why minority activists don't have a high opinion of "progressives".

    I think that Jamelle Bouie, reporting on the NN incident for Slate, got to the heart of the matter:
    Some might want to dismiss the whole fracas as left-wing infighting, with no relevance for any but a small slice of American voters. Or they might dismiss it as New Left narcissism—the kind of identity politics that alienates ordinary Americans. The latter description is flat out wrong; say what you will on the optics of protests, but the fact remains that there is a genuine and serious problem of police violence against minorities, and blacks in particular.

    As for the former critique, I think this episode was more significant than mere infighting. Regardless of where you stand on the wisdom of the direct action against Sanders and O’Malley, it showed the limits of Sanders’ brand of liberal coalition-building, which hinges on the idea that we could ameliorate serious injustice if we just achieve—or move toward—economic justice. It’s why he touts college education and affordable health care in response to questions on police discrimination and criminal justice reform.

    For Black Lives Matter activists, this is almost an insult. To them, racism is orthogonal to class: They’re two different dimensions of disadvantage, and to improve the picture on one isn’t always to improve the picture for the other. Jim Crow, for instance, coexisted with strong unions, high wages, and an active welfare state. When that heckler said “Public college won’t stop police from killing us,” that person was right. To combat racism, you have to fight it on its own terms. Moreover, there are times when fighting racism in policing and other areas is necessary for headway on economic justice. Ending “stop and frisk” in New York City, for example, lowers the odds young men of color will lose their jobs because of unfair stops. And in Ferguson, Missouri, aggressive policing on small infractions essentially served as an additional tax paid largely by black citizens.

    An effective and broad-based left has to have answers for anti-racist activists. The question is whether Sanders can see this. Is he adaptable enough to build a new platform that tackles these concerns? Can he include other conversations around fair and affordable housing—and employment—that intersect with anti-racist activism? If he can, then Netroots might stand as a valuable learning experience for the remainder of his campaign. And if he can’t—if Sanders is too stubborn to abandon the pitch he’s used for decades and adopt one more suited to today—then we may have seen the beginning of the end of Berniemania. (To his credit, it already appears as though Sanders is learning.)

    A $15/hour minimum wage isn't going to change that right now, being black has the same impact on being hired that being a white felon does. College for everyone isn't going to change that even middle class blacks are at risk for being targeted for police brutality. (In fact, this is one of the reasons the Sandra Bland case was so alarming - she was a college educated, middle class woman who had returned to her alma mater to accept a position.) Economics is not going to make racism go away, and it would be nice if "progressives" wpould stop pretending it will.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    edited July 2015
    Shit @AngelHedgie, forgot you were the Lorax to minority activists.

    I have no skin in this game. I'll vote Democrat, but neither Sanders or Clinton wows me. That said, I'm not sure how trying to help people via economics and commending they vote for the best candidate regardless of skin color makes one a bad progressive.

    Wait. Forgot the sarcastic outstation marks. "Pro""gress""ive."

    CaptainNemo on
    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    A $15/hour minimum wage isn't going to change that right now, being black has the same impact on being hired that being a white felon does. College for everyone isn't going to chage that even middle class blacks are at risk for being targeted for police brutality. (In fact, this is one of the reasons the Sandra Bland case was so alarming - she was a college educated, middle class woman who had returned to her alma mater to accept a position.) Economics is not going to make racism go away, and it would be nice if "progressives" wpuld stop pretending it will.

    Racism is not going to go away, period. You cannot magically erase that blight anymore than you can magically erase crime.

    But you can impose laws that attempt to punish businesses that have unfair hiring practices, you can review the (often external) behaviors & influences that keep black communities locked in poverty and attempt to change them, you can create programs to get young black people on the road to rewarding careers & decent futures, etc, in the same you you can attack crime even if you can't make it all go away.


    Note that Bland - and, say, Rev. Pinckney, who also had a lucrative career - is an outlier. What happened to her was vicious, but her case doesn't represent the majority of black victimization. You seem to be saying that if the floor were raised and most blacks in America had Bland's outlook, the rate of victimization would be the same. I think that's an absurd claim.

    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    Daedalus wrote: »
    and this is the point where I remind you that he outright said that minorities should not vote their race, which is something that I feel a candidate for the Democratic nomination should not say.

    I agree; the average African-American voter would be much better off if Dr. Ben Carson was president.
    Just think about how much better the rights of women would've been witch Michelle Bachmann in office.

    And people wonder why minority activists don't have a high opinion of "progressives".

    I think that Jamelle Bouie, reporting on the NN incident for Slate, got to the heart of the matter:
    Some might want to dismiss the whole fracas as left-wing infighting, with no relevance for any but a small slice of American voters. Or they might dismiss it as New Left narcissism—the kind of identity politics that alienates ordinary Americans. The latter description is flat out wrong; say what you will on the optics of protests, but the fact remains that there is a genuine and serious problem of police violence against minorities, and blacks in particular.

    As for the former critique, I think this episode was more significant than mere infighting. Regardless of where you stand on the wisdom of the direct action against Sanders and O’Malley, it showed the limits of Sanders’ brand of liberal coalition-building, which hinges on the idea that we could ameliorate serious injustice if we just achieve—or move toward—economic justice. It’s why he touts college education and affordable health care in response to questions on police discrimination and criminal justice reform.

    For Black Lives Matter activists, this is almost an insult. To them, racism is orthogonal to class: They’re two different dimensions of disadvantage, and to improve the picture on one isn’t always to improve the picture for the other. Jim Crow, for instance, coexisted with strong unions, high wages, and an active welfare state. When that heckler said “Public college won’t stop police from killing us,” that person was right. To combat racism, you have to fight it on its own terms. Moreover, there are times when fighting racism in policing and other areas is necessary for headway on economic justice. Ending “stop and frisk” in New York City, for example, lowers the odds young men of color will lose their jobs because of unfair stops. And in Ferguson, Missouri, aggressive policing on small infractions essentially served as an additional tax paid largely by black citizens.

    An effective and broad-based left has to have answers for anti-racist activists. The question is whether Sanders can see this. Is he adaptable enough to build a new platform that tackles these concerns? Can he include other conversations around fair and affordable housing—and employment—that intersect with anti-racist activism? If he can, then Netroots might stand as a valuable learning experience for the remainder of his campaign. And if he can’t—if Sanders is too stubborn to abandon the pitch he’s used for decades and adopt one more suited to today—then we may have seen the beginning of the end of Berniemania. (To his credit, it already appears as though Sanders is learning.)

    A $15/hour minimum wage isn't going to change that right now, being black has the same impact on being hired that being a white felon does. College for everyone isn't going to change that even middle class blacks are at risk for being targeted for police brutality. (In fact, this is one of the reasons the Sandra Bland case was so alarming - she was a college educated, middle class woman who had returned to her alma mater to accept a position.) Economics is not going to make racism go away, and it would be nice if "progressives" wpould stop pretending it will.

    Short of nationalizing policing, I don't see what can be done about any of that at the national level.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    A $15/hour minimum wage isn't going to change that right now, being black has the same impact on being hired that being a white felon does. College for everyone isn't going to chage that even middle class blacks are at risk for being targeted for police brutality. (In fact, this is one of the reasons the Sandra Bland case was so alarming - she was a college educated, middle class woman who had returned to her alma mater to accept a position.) Economics is not going to make racism go away, and it would be nice if "progressives" wpuld stop pretending it will.

    Racism is not going to go away, period. You cannot magically erase that blight anymore than you can magically erase crime.

    But you can impose laws that attempt to punish businesses that have unfair hiring practices, you can review the (often external) behaviors & influences that keep black communities locked in poverty and attempt to change them, you can create programs to get young black people on the road to rewarding careers & decent futures, etc, in the same you you can attack crime even if you can't make it all go away.


    Note that Bland - and, say, Rev. Pinckney, who also had a lucrative career - is an outlier. What happened to her was vicious, but her case doesn't represent the majority of black victimization. You seem to be saying that if the floor were raised and most blacks in America had Bland's outlook, the rate of victimization would be the same. I think that's an absurd claim.

    Why do you find that absurd? Minorities of every socioeconomic strata routinely find themselves attacked on the basis of race.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Why do you find that absurd? Minorities of every socioeconomic strata routinely find themselves attacked on the basis of race.

    Yes - but the number of them that are poor are disproportionate compared to those higher up the ladder. Also, I've been in countries where the floor is raised, and the impact is dramatic.


    There will still be racism. Even if the floor is raised, it's fair to say that it will never go as high as an American white man's floor (at least, not in our time). But solving that - a problem that we're not even close to having yet - is a bridge to cross when we actually get there and have a better understand of that kind of racism.


    Also, this is feeling way off topic at this point. So, let's get back to feelin' the Bern:
    "...I wrote you [Chairman Bernanke] a letter, asking, "Who did you lend the money to? What were the terms of those loans? How can my constituents in Vermont get some of that money? Who made that decision? Was it a bunch of guys sitting around in a room? Was it you?" Will you explain to the American people to whom you lent 2.2 trillion of their dollars? Will you tell us who got that money and what the terms are for those agreements?"

    "...We [ahem]... we explain each of our programs... in terms of the terms, we explain the terms exactly, we explain what the collateral requirements are, we explain--"

    "To whom did you explain that?"

    "...It [ahem] ...it's on our website..."

    Ahh, the Bern. It's a good Bern.

    (And no, of course it's not explained anywhere on the Federal Reserve's website what the terms of the loans were or even who the fuck they loaned the money to).

    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    CauldCauld Registered User regular
    I'll also almost certainly vote for whichever democrat gets the nomination. Some of Bernie's stuff doesn't seem appealing to me, but I'll readily admit I haven't invested a lot of time learning about him.

    And this may be off topic, but which loans aren't on the federal reserve website? I just googled and clicked on a few links on the fed website and found a list of bank contracts. There's others for AIG, the car companies, etc. Unless we're talking about something else? I haven't looked through everything, but there's a lot of stuff there.

  • Options
    CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    Now I'm just a simple country submarine captain, but I'm fairly certain if people have better paying jobs that they have more resources to put to use in activism, since they need to work fewer jobs, providing more time, and have an increased income, to fund such activities



    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Cauld wrote: »
    I'll also almost certainly vote for whichever democrat gets the nomination. Some of Bernie's stuff doesn't seem appealing to me, but I'll readily admit I haven't invested a lot of time learning about him.

    And this may be off topic, but which loans aren't on the federal reserve website? I just googled and clicked on a few links on the fed website and found a list of bank contracts. There's others for AIG, the car companies, etc. Unless we're talking about something else? I haven't looked through everything, but there's a lot of stuff there.

    Those are the TARP programs (worth about 700 billion~ dollars). The 2.2 trillion dollar 'backdoor' program, where the majority of the bail-out money was used as economic stimulus, has gone undisclosed. Nobody knows how much of that money went to which parties, when the money is supposed to be paid back by, what the interest rates are, or anything (well, people know, but it's not publicly disclosed. Presumably, say, the executive branch knows).

    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Cauld wrote: »
    I'll also almost certainly vote for whichever democrat gets the nomination. Some of Bernie's stuff doesn't seem appealing to me, but I'll readily admit I haven't invested a lot of time learning about him.

    And this may be off topic, but which loans aren't on the federal reserve website? I just googled and clicked on a few links on the fed website and found a list of bank contracts. There's others for AIG, the car companies, etc. Unless we're talking about something else? I haven't looked through everything, but there's a lot of stuff there.

    Those are the TARP programs (worth about 700 billion~ dollars). The 2.2 trillion dollar 'backdoor' program, where the majority of the bail-out money was used as economic stimulus, has gone undisclosed. Nobody knows how much of that money went to which parties, when the money is supposed to be paid back by, what the interest rates are, or anything (well, people know, but it's not publicly disclosed. Presumably, say, the executive branch knows).

    Seems legit. Nothing like that can ever come back to bite us later.

    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
This discussion has been closed.