At some point you have to ask yourself if you're the one with the incorrect definitions of right and left, not everybody else. When you have to go back 50, 60 years to find a Democrat who you consider liberal maybe it's you who doesn't understand what the American left is.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The South Carolina Primary & Nevada Caucuses |Feb 20, 23, 27| Continuing The Calm
- Thread starter NeoXChaos
- Start date
- Status
At some point you have to ask yourself if you're the one with the incorrect definitions of right and left, not everybody else. When you have to go back 50, 60 years to find a Democrat who you consider liberal maybe it's you who doesn't understand what the American left is.
No true liberal.
Pamplemousse
Member
I'm saying he KEPT the country to the right. What is hilarious is that you're defending a President who did some terrible things to this country, acting like he was someone we should want in office again.
Ogrekiller
Member
The USA is far more left than it was in the 60s with the most obvious exception being the proliferation of wealth amongst the very rich. But of course, civil liberties have never been as repressed as they are now and the conservative movement has succeeded in blocking the ACA, gay marriage, equal rights for women, civil rights for minorities... oh wait.
Pamplemousse
Member
There are leftists in America; we just haven't had one as President in a long time.
And where are the states incarcerating blacks at greater 10 times their representation in the general population?
I think the American left is further to the right than you'd like so you've decided they're not leftists at all, while the majority of Americans, left and right, acknowledge them as being leftists.
Ogrekiller
Member
Not enough to vote them in as well apparently if they decide to run.
Once again, viewing the world in black and white fails to serve reality. Every president has done things we'd likely view as terrible. The question of whether the country moved left, however, is not directly tied to that question. We came from GHWB to Clinton. In many categories we moved left, in many categories we stayed the same. In few categories we moved right.
It's not accurate to say he KEPT the country right. Same is true of Obama.
UltimaPooh
Member
Didn't say I disagree with that.
But let's say everyone was equal racially... that wouldn't cut down on crime, or health, or poor living conditions, or stress. Which are all issues that effect racial inequality and continue the poverty cycle. Which provides less opportunities as well.
Obviously there are people in power who have issues with people of color, I'm not disputing that and you know what, I agree it's probably more important to end that first before we move onto income inequality.
But that doesn't mean the two aren't intertwined. As usual the problem is more nuanced than just ending this or the other.
You might need to take the L, calm down and sit this out for a week or two if you seriously think that Elizabeth Warren is going to primary a sitting Democratic president.
If everyone were equal racialyy, 2 things:
1. Then we would have acheived racial equality, which is what was being discussed.
2. It would still be difficult to rise out of poverty, but no more difficult than it is for anyone else as impoverished as you are.
Some people just don't get it.
Especially considering that Warren was one of the big proponents of Hillary's 2016 run.
That doesn't stop places like Reddit for blaming Warren for the reason why polling is so close in MA, nstead of a big margin for Sanders, 'why doesn't she endorse Bernie'.
Classism is not the origin of racism. I never argued that, and I disagree with leftists who do. But when a group becomes more economically empowered, they have much more bargaining power within society and can better resist racism. The treatment of Henry Louis Gates was awful, but he still lives a much better life than the average black person due to his wealth.
Because Bernie Sanders supports issues that would improve the material conditions of black people while also being more progressive on race than Hillary Clinton, I think he's the better candidate.
The biggest factor in Clinton's favor is electability, but I'm still worried she wouldn't be able to defeat Trump.
But Sanders takes a very fierce stand against police brutality, and he opposed the same "tough on crime" legislation that Clinton lauded and voted for. In addition, extreme poverty affects more black people than police killings do. Why should we only focus on police brutality?
I mean, Pamplemousse is the guy who came into PoliGAF last night deliberately to troll and start a flame war, so it might not be worth going to the mattresses on this.
LegendofJoe
Member
If Hillary does win the Presidency I hope a few people within the party do attempt to primary her. If we want to be in a position to make permanent, meaningful progress when it comes to campaign finance and gerrymandering the Democratic party needs to dominate at the state level in 2020 to take back legislatures in the census year. Then we will be in a position to go on attack when it comes to partisan districting and campaign finance. I'm not sure Hillary will be able to lead that kind of charge, so I'd like for the party to have options.
UltimaPooh
Member
See that's where it's intertwined. Yes, they wont be judged by the color of their skin, but they will be judged for being poor. And currently the black population has huge percentages of people living below the poverty line. Half of black children under the age of 6 live in poverty.
Not to mention... and I can't believe that I didn't bring it up earlier... but poor education occurs when there is income equality as well. How do you propose to teach people about racism and eradicate it when schools and education suffer from income inequality?
Yeah probably but it would still have minorities way behind in percentages in poverty.
Hill will destroy Trump. The shit he's been able to get away with, he won't be able to do in the near future. It's starting and the nomination isn't over.
Ogrekiller
Member
No one except Sanders tried to put up a fight this round. The whole establishment cleared the way for her.
No one who wants to advance within the Democratic party worth their salt will primary her.
Not to mention it would be pretty fucking stupid to primary her in 2020.
But it wouldn't improve the material condition of black people. Just like white women are the biggest beneficiaries of Affirmative Action and blacks with clean records still receive fewer call backs for job interviews than equally qualified whites with a felony, the biggest beneficiary of policies focusing on income equality and no direct address to racial inequality would be poor white people. And all that does is put poor blacks in an even worse situation.
And I continue to see no evidence that Bernie is more progressive on race.
gutter_trash
Banned
Primarying an incumbent who is running for a 2nd term = loser strategy
Ask Jimmy Carter who got shived by Ted Kennedy
LegendofJoe
Member
The leadership bench of the Democratic party being weak right now has a lot to do with that. I'm hoping that won't be the case in 4 years.
eBay Huckster
Member
she hasn't come out in support of the latter, which is okay, because quite frankly there's no consistent argument regarding what its actual importance was in that financial crisis
your constant reductivist and overly simplistic arguments (as well as the post pigeon quoted above) are hilarious (in a bad way), not so much this thread
The post I made to Valhelm just now is also relevant here.
UltimaPooh
Member
I think that is fair.
So would you say both Democratic candidates are even?
And a follow up... Who do you plan to vote for based on their views of racial issues?
I dunno fi you just gloss over things or what. But I have stated that it's a more important issue to have racial equality before we begin on the income inequality. But it does not fix what is already wrong when it comes to minorities in poverty. It doesn't fix poor school districts.
You need money to accomplish things in America... Education costs money, raising awareness costs money, creating programs costs money, putting away racists cops cost money... and when you don't have the money to have your voice heard, you will have an incredibly hard time getting heard whether it's based on your race or not.
If you can't even look at the links I'm sharing (and you even admit to as much earlier) that refute your claims then this conversation is entirely pointless. It tells me you don't want to have a discussion. It tells me you just want to repeat your falsehoods on the rates, what Bernie has done, and just consistently insult anyone who supports the man, regardless of the facts at hand. And regardless of the character/demographic/etc. of those you insult as well.
Which I guess is to be expected at this point in regards to how I've seen some Hillary supporters treat people. I don't care for in-fighting but it truly feels like at every other turn some Hillary supporters want to push Bernie ones into the ground. Even when we simply try to address the falsehoods spread about. And even when we try to present a even field and express our support regarding Hillary as well.
I am not arguing that "AA voters don't get it" nor did I even mention MLK earlier either. Both of those are ridiculous points as they don't address the poor campaigning Bernie has done in some regards. Yes, he hasn't had the best run campaign, I'm not going to deny that. I would very much appreciate not being accused of things I never said but it seems that will continue for some time regardless of my or others who are also accused of saying these things actual words. That also said, I feel like some Hillary supporters are quick to dismiss the existence of those in the AA community who do support him as well which is still some of the most insulting nonsense to me. The continued claims of "you can't belong to x minority" and support Bernie that I've seen in real life, somewhat here and elsewhere online sicken me.
I'm scared about the appeal of personality. Many voters care more about perceived honesty and "being an outsider" than ideology or experience. In addition, Trump is a man and Hillary is a woman. A lot of voters are deeply misogynist, and this could be an issue especially in swing states like Nevada and Florida, where Trump is already popular. He's so good at deflecting criticism from his opponents that I'm worried Clinton can beat him down during the General.
So many liberals seem to want Trump to be the nominee, but I think he's the best shot the GOP has. I'm hoping and praying that Cruz manages to pull through.
Just wow at this list you've put together for causes of racial inequality. Genetics? Really?
Ogrekiller
Member
And if the leadership bench fills up it will be because of Clinton. Meaning she would be overwhelmingly popular and have an iron grip on the party.
Anyone wanting to primary her at that point would become an instant pariah. Why not wait the 8 years and get her endorsement instead?
Crimson_Gold
Member
Being born black is a defect. Why else does the world look down on it. Have you seen Africa? Really? It's terrible.
That's something Trump would say. Now I see the allies have joined in
LegendofJoe
Member
Carter got primaried because he had no chance in heck of winning re-election. If the political winds are against Hillary and a stronger candidate is available then the Democratic party should support them.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
Oh, crap. I'm sorry, your deadpan was impeccable.
On minority issues? Yeah, I would. Neither of them look good, IMO.
Bernie in the primary, despite how much I can't stand most of his online supporters. Washington's probably going to Bernie anyways, and I do like his ideals. I don't think he can realistically accomplish basically any of his campaign promises, but he would absolutely nominate judges for the Supreme Court that are more liberal and less corporatist than Hillary would.
(And yes, I just realized that didn't answer your question, but I'm not picking a nominee based on racial issues as I think it's a wash.)
A living wage would hugely help black people because black voters are disproportionately stuck in low-paying jobs. Employers, even those who are racist, still depend on the labor of African Americans. How does this put black people in a worse situation?
Bernie Sanders opposed the war on drugs and increased incarceration, two causes that Hillary Clinton championed until pretty recently. In addition, he began supporting Black Lives Matter much earlier than Clinton, using that phrase in a debate, even though Clinton would later that night refuse to do so. He's really working hard to bring issues of race into his campaign, which is why I believe him to be more progressive.
Hillary Clinton is progressive when it comes to race, but it seems disingenuous given her earlier conservative stances.
Just like how 'far right Bill' nominated RBG, a not so liberal 'corporatist'?
Chill the fuck out and watch whose words you're assigning to who before you start shit with me.
Posting this again because it is so true and likely will continue to be true for decades to come.
I swear, both Clinton and Sanders supporters have said some dickish things to each other over the past few weeks but I feel its only Sanders supporters/sympathizers (a minority of them to be fair) who consistently post things completely dissociated with reality (not with regards to the candidates but like American politics in general). Like C'mon son
This is from your link. It proves Adder's point.
I am speaking of a comparison to other states regarding the numbers.
I swear, both Clinton and Sanders supporters have said some dickish things to each other over the past few weeks but I feel its only Sanders supporters/sympathizers (a minority of them to be fair) who consistently post things completely dissociated with reality. Like C'mon son
Yeah, I kind of regret making that joke. I wanted to point out that Bill Clinton was actually very centrist on a left-right scale, and thus not exactly progressive, but it was in poor taste.
worked out well for Bernie last night......
It's not a joke when you then bring up Mao, whose policies killed millions of people.
crimsonspider89
Banned
It has to do with the way african american slaves were done. They were breed like animals to increase their productivity and lower their intelligence.
That is where genetics come in.
Actually, on second thought, not letting this go.
Learn the meaning of the words "more" and "less" why don't you?
Stop.
User 463088
Banned
This is sarcasm right? Please for the love of god, this is sarcasm. Or an attempt at humor. Or...or something.
LegendofJoe
Member
I support Hillary this go round, that might not be the case in 2020.
gutter_trash
Banned
Ted Kennedy is the Jeb of the Kennedy family
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked