Support NeoGAF

[User 463088]

Whats crazy is this shit was predicted last spring, and him and his team did nothing to head it off.

Exactly. And anyone who pointed it out was simply refusing to appreciate Bernie or the revolution. That was never the case Just...there was writing on the wall. It was easy to see. I'm legit surprised his campaign didn't move the needle at all in SC. The race has shifted demographically, and his campaign is ill equipped (for whatever reason) to deal with it.

 

[plagiarize]

Plenty of Americans are ready for a far left candidate. It's just that a certain segment of the population isn't "ready."

If America was ready for Sanders they'd be turning out for him. They aren't. The segment that isn't ready, is more than 50% of people who actually vote.

 

[ampere]

I like Bernie's healthcare plan better than Hillary's, but I admit it's completely idealistic and unrealistic to say we'll go single payer in the next 8 years. That's sort of the problem, he's not really compromising with more realistic plans and for a lot of people that's a no-go (reasonably so)

 

[sephi22]

Guys please, leave the genetics thing alone, there's not going to be any good way to defend it

Not defending what he said, but I can see how people like him are led astray and become ignorant. One of my best friends in Dubai despised gay people because he thought his little brother will emulate their mannerisms and eventually their orientation by observing them on the streets. Reason? His parents told him such as a child and their word is gospel to him. Won't even try to research. Some of my relatives in India have even dumber notions and they hold them religiously despite the fact that it's 2016 and they have the internet to do their research. A friend thought screenings of Transformers 2 have Megan Fox in a bikini if you watch it with 3D glasses because he saw a satirical video without realizing it is satire. Some people just believe what they're told or something they read.

 

[Dai101]

What the flying fuck is going on in here ..........................?

 

[brainchild]

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST THIS THREAD O_O



Why does Sanders thinks he'll do better in other states with the AA community? He didn't put forth a rational or reason in this article that you linked. Is he just doing wishful thinking?



Sure but what's different about them that might make them favor Sanders? If he has a hypothesis he should put it forth. I'm genuinely curious.

There's nothing inherently different about any black person except for the fact that they're individuals with their own autonomy.

As for why they could support him more, it could simply be due to Clinton not having established as strong of a relationship/connection with African-Americans voters in the north compared to the south. It could simply come down socio-political influences at the state and local level that are fundamentally different in the north than in the south, and that having an effect on the priorities of the African-American voters. There could be lots of reasons, but they wouldn't have anything to do with blacks BEING different from one another, though their circumstances might be different.

Anyway, Bernie's already stated his reasoning; polling data. Whether it's true or not is another story, but it's not like he didn't say why he believes it.

 

[plagiarize]

I like Bernie's healthcare plan better than Hillary's, but I admit it's completely idealistic and unrealistic to say we'll go single payer in the next 8 years. That's sort of the problem, he's not really compromising with more realistic plans and for a lot of people that's a no-go (reasonably so)

What I'm getting really tired of is the rhetoric that if you're even slightly to Sander's right that somehow your are RINO or not progressive or you are right of center.

 

[Kyosaiga]

I like Bernie's healthcare plan better than Hillary's, but I admit it's completely idealistic and unrealistic to say we'll go single payer in the next 8 years. That's sort of the problem, he's not really compromising with more realistic plans and for a lot of people that's a no-go (reasonably so)

Not to mention that the government, potentially, would have to purchase the entire Health Insurance Industry for $900 billion just so it would survive any court challenges.

This isn't even taking into account the cost of the program itself!

 

[Slayven]

Exactly. And anyone who pointed it out was simply refusing to appreciate Bernie or the revolution. That was never the case Just...there was writing on the wall. It was easy to see. I'm legit surprised his campaign didn't move the needle at all in SC. The race has shifted demographically, and his campaign is ill equipped (for whatever reason) to deal with it.

I wonder if his team will go on and work in other campaigns? Why didn't he scoop up Obama's 2008 people?

 

[brainchild]

I wonder if his team will go on and work in other campaigns? Why didn't he scoop up Obama's 2008 people?

Because Hillary already scooped them up.

 

[Crocodile]

There's nothing inherently different about any black person except for the fact that they're individuals with their own autonomy.

As for why they could support him more, it could simply be due to Clinton not having established as strong of a relationship/connection with African-Americans voters in the north compared to the south. It could simply come down socio-political influences at the state and local level that are fundamentally different in the north than in the south, and that having an effect on the priorities of the African-American voters. There could be lots of reasons, but they wouldn't have anything to do with blacks BEING different from one another, though their circumstances might be different.

Anyway, Bernie's already stated his reasoning; polling data. Whether it's true or not is another story, but it's not like he didn't say why he believes it.

I don't disagree with any of the potential reasons you've said here. I just wondered if Sanders had like a logic argument(s), like you presented, or was indeed just going of polling data. That is to say "we'll do better because of reasonable reasons X" rather than "we'll do better because the data says we are already doing better". I was just curious is all

 

[Trouble]

Because Hillary already scooped them up.

Yep. This was apparently part of the Obama/Clinton reconciliation deal that had Bill stumping for his reelection.

 

[brainchild]

I don't disagree with any of the potential reasons you've said here. I just wondered if Sanders had like a logic argument(s), like you presented, or was indeed just going of polling data. That is to say "we'll do better because of reasonable reasons X" rather than "we'll do better because the data says we are already doing better". I was just curious is all

OK, that's understandable.

I'm curious as well what other reasons there may be for him believing this outside of polling data. Hopefully he can elaborate on his comments about this in the future.

 

[Kyosaiga]

Yep. This was apparently part of the Obama/Clinton reconciliation deal that had Bill stumping for his reelection.

Obama's team has been preparing for Hillary's 2016 run since 2012. It shows.

 

[Quixzlizx]

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.

You are arguing about absolute differences when others are arguing about relative differences.

If State A has 100,000 people, 90,000 who are white and and 10,000 who are black, and 1000 white people and 1000 black people are in prison, that means that the overall incarceration rate is 2%, the white incarceration rate is roughly 1.1%, and the black incarceration rate is 10%.

If State B has 1,000,000 people, 900,000 who are white and 100,000 who are black, and 50,000 white people and 20,000 black people are in prison, that means that the overall incarceration rate is 7%, the white incarceration rate is roughly 5.5%, and the black incarceration rate is 20%.

You're basically arguing that state B is twice "as bad" towards black people, because it has double the black incarceration rate.

However, state B's black incarceration rate is less than 3 times the average for all people, and less than 4 times the average for white people.

While in state A, the black incarceration rate is 5 times the average for all people, and 9 times the average for white people.

Despite State A having half the black incarceration rate of State B, the incarceration rate is weighed against black people worse than it is in State B. The difference is that State B had over 3 times the baseline incarceration rate before correcting for race.

So while we can praise state A for putting a smaller percentage of all races in prison, as that is a very good thing, black people get incarcerated in state A at a higher ratio when compared against the incarceration rate for white people.

This wasn't meant to be condescending, but to show you where your disconnect is with the people arguing with you.

 

[Wall]

Not to mention that the government, potentially, would have to purchase the entire Health Insurance Industry for $900 billion just so it would survive any court challenges.

This isn't even taking into account the cost of the program itself!

Single payer might be difficult politically to implement in this country, but if it were implemented it would definitely save money in the long run because of reduced health care costs.

 

[bishoptl]

ye gods

 

[User 463088]

I wonder if his team will go on and work in other campaigns? Why didn't he scoop up Obama's 2008 people?

Anyone good was already swallowed up by Hillary. He was literally left with Tad Devine and Weaver. If you do a quick Google search, you'll see what a bunch of idiots these two are. This is not me hating on Bernie. I think with a better team he would have done better. Devine is just awful. Just absolutely terrible.

 

[Pryce]

I like Bernie's healthcare plan better than Hillary's, but I admit it's completely idealistic and unrealistic to say we'll go single payer in the next 8 years. That's sort of the problem, he's not really compromising with more realistic plans and for a lot of people that's a no-go (reasonably so)

Right, because Bernie would just scrap it all if he didn't get what he wants.

Spoiler: He would expand ACA.

 

[User 463088]

Right, because Bernie would just scrap it all if he didn't get what he wants.

Spoiler: He would expand ACA.

Sure. Fine. But he hasn't laid out any plans on what he would do with the ACA. He wants single payer. So, he's offering me a plan that we all know has a 0% chance of being implemented. So, I'm left in a position where I have no idea what he would actually do after spending a bunch of capital (for sake of argument I'll pretend he has the capital to even get single payer out of committee unlike every other time he's tried) on a failed attempt at single payer.

 

[pigeon]

Right, because Bernie would just scrap it all if he didn't get what he wants.

Spoiler: He would expand ACA.

I mean, this is actually an interesting point, though.

In 2008 Obama and Hillary clashed on the individual mandate. Hillary said we'd need a mandate for everybody and Obama said that would be unreasonable.

Obama won, got elected -- and implemented the individual mandate for everybody. Because Hillary was right! That was the right policy choice even though it wasn't necessarily a popular one.

Now it's 2016. Hillary's running on protecting and expanding the ACA. Sanders is running on single-payer.

You say that, sure, Sanders might not be able to get single-payer, but in that case he'd just protect and expand the ACA.

Because Hillary is right! Protecting and expanding the ACA is the right choice, politically and policy-wise, even though it isn't necessarily the option most popular among the left.

How come Hillary doesn't get any credit here for being right every time?

 

[typist]

Guys please, leave the genetics thing alone, there's not going to be any good way to defend it

What that banned poster said on the previous page is indefensible. But genetics is related to racial inequality, just not the way he was saying. One (very dubious) way to combat racial inequality would be to use genetic modification to give everyone the same skin colour - people couldn't discriminate if everyone looked the same. That is what I meant when I said genetics is a cause of racial inequality, maybe it would have been better to say genetics is related to racial inequality

 

[Pryce]

Sure. Fine. But he hasn't laid out any plans on what he would do with the ACA. He wants single payer. So, he's offering me a plan that we all know has a 0% chance of being implemented. So, I'm left in a position where I have no idea what he would actually do after spending a bunch of capital (for sake of argument I'll pretend he has the capital to even get single payer out of committee unlike every other time he's tried) on a failed attempt at single payer.

Alright, yeah. I wish he would expand more on other options after single payer fails, free college fails, and higher taxes on the rich. Maybe he has.

But the idea I see around here that Bernie will scrap ACA (Hilliary has the same thing, I believe) is completely insane and absurd.

 

[sphagnum]

What that banned poster said on the previous page is indefensible. But genetics is related to racial inequality, just not the way he was saying. One (very dubious) way to combat racial inequality would be to use genetic modification to give everyone the same skin colour - people couldn't discriminate if everyone looked the same. That is what I meant when I said genetics is a cause of racial inequality, maybe it would have been better to say genetics is related to racial inequality

Skin color isn't the only way to determine race, since race is a social construct. Remember how the Irish used to be treated as non-white? These days they're the whitest of white.

 

[ShironRedshift]

Why does Sanders thinks he'll do better in other states with the AA community? He didn't put forth a9p rational or reason in this article that you linked. Is he just doing wishful thinking?/

...That they have smaller AA populations than SC and the deep south, and therefore he can just worry about them less and ignore them? Just giving up the black vote entirely? Can't really read anything else into that unless the guy really is just delusional and thinks things will be different from SC for no particular reason.

...Then again, if he seriously thinks he has any type of a chance in New York of all states, the state that HRC was a senator eithout even touching on that point at all and how he'll counter that and do better than her specifically, then well...

 

[pigeon]

What that banned poster said on the previous page is indefensible. But genetics is related to racial inequality, just not the way he was saying. One (very dubious) way to combat racial inequality would be to use genetic modification to give everyone the same skin colour - people couldn't discriminate if everyone looked the same. That is what I meant when I said genetics is a cause of racial inequality, maybe it would have been better to say genetics is related to racial inequality

Look into the Rwandan genocide sometime.

Discrimination isn't about skin color, it's about discrimination.

 

[User 463088]

Alright, yeah. I wish he would expand more on other options after single payer fails, free college fails, and higher taxes on the rich. Maybe he has.

But the idea I see around here that Bernie will scrap ACA (Hilliary has the same thing, I believe) is completely insane and absurd.

The problem is, he really can't tell us what he's going to do when his plans all fail. That would acknowledge the reality that he's promising things that he can't deliver. So, that's been my biggest issue with him. He's offering things he can't hope to deliver, and I have to hope that what he can actually deliver is better than what Hillary is offering. As a pragmatist, for better or worse, that's an issue with me. That's always been one of my issues with Bernie. I have no problems with campaigning in poetry, but you have to have some prose somewhere along the way.

 

[stupei]

What that banned poster said on the previous page is indefensible. But genetics is related to racial inequality, just not the way he was saying. One (very dubious) way to combat racial inequality would be to use genetic modification to give everyone the same skin colour - people couldn't discriminate if everyone looked the same. That is what I meant when I said genetics is a cause of racial inequality, maybe it would have been better to say genetics is related to racial inequality

It would be better to stop discussing genetics in a thread that has already set a very bad precedent for it.

This isn't really on topic anymore unless the candidates have proposed policies that I'm not aware of.

 

[typist]

Skin color isn't the only way to determine race, since race is a social construct. Remember how the Irish used to be treated as non-white? These days they're the whitest of white.

True. Thus why I said it would be a dubious method - people would still be discriminated against for their heritage or ethnic group. Though at least some racist crimes would disappear if everyone had the same skin colour

It would be better to stop discussing genetics in a thread that has already set a very bad precedent for it.

This isn't really on topic anymore unless the candidates have proposed policies that I'm not aware of.

Okay, just wanted to clarify my position, time for a change of topic

 

[Wall]

I don't think I've ever heard of a politician talk about what they would do if their plans would fail to pass to congress. I think its just assumed that some sort of compromise would take place.

The "unrealistic" nature of Sanders plans just isn't a big deal to me, especially considering the refusal of Republicans to work with Democrats on almost everything.

 

[Valhelm]

I never said we should focus only on police brutality. In fact, I specifically mentioned Trayvon Martin and Renisha McBride, who were not murdered by police.

You asked how Sanders' economic strategy would benefit white people more than black people. I was responding. White people with wealth have more privilege and power in America than black people with the same wealth -- up to a certain threshold where celebrity becomes a factor. Therefor raising the economic status of all people will benefit white people more than it benefits black people. This is why it might not be the most important issue in America to all people, as you suggested.

You said that the tenants of white supremacy are in some way based on the economic status of black people. Are we under the impression that Dylann Roof murdered a state Senator because he thought he seemed poor? White supremacy, I think it would be much more accurate to say, is at least partially rooted in white poverty. That I would agree with. White supremacy is at least partially derived from a competitive atmosphere perpetuated by those in positions of power to find the other equally fucked over person to blame for your situation instead of the ones genuinely responsible. That I could agree with.

But simply focusing on economic disparity will not solve these culturally ingrained issues. How will raising everyone's economic status help gentrification, for example?

And to your point about Sanders: I find it troubling that, while he does speak about racial inequality, I can't recall a single time where he responded to such a question at a town hall or debate without then pivoting back to the same line about more people in jail because of weed than Wall Street.

The problem isn't that he talks about things other than police brutality, but rather that he feels all things must somehow connect back to economic inequality, as though it were the essential root to all that ails our country. This isn't to say that economic disparity isn't important. But to suggest that it must be equally important to everyone -- or that it will benefit everyone equally -- is either supremely disingenuous or comes from a fairly limited perspective.

edit: Jesus christ, I just looked up thread.

This post is perplexing. Sanders' economic policies wouldn't benefit all people -- they would benefit the poor. Because the poor are disproportionately black, black people would benefit disproportionately. It would be amazingly beneficial if black Americans could enjoy a similar income pyramid to their white counterpart. I don't see how anybody could disagree.

I'm also not a huge fan of using extreme examples of white supremacy (Dylann Roof, etc) in cases like this. Because the vast majority of white supremacist action is much more subtle and insidious. And most institutions of white supremacy are directly intended to keep black people in poverty, because a wealthier black population is much harder to subjugate.

And onto gentrification, that's actually a great example of how black people will stand to benefit. If black Americans are less comparatively impoverished, gentrification and rent hikes will not be as devastating.

 

[brainchild]

Because the poor are disproportionately black, black people would benefit disproportionately. It would be amazingly beneficial if black Americans could enjoy a similar income pyramid to their white counterpart. I don't see how anybody could disagree.

Honestly, this can even be said about all minorities. By definition, all minority groups would disproportionately benefit from economic equality, so addressing this issue is an extremely important component to combating the negative consequences of oppression and discrimination of minority groups.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Bernie invested hugely in South Carolina. He had over ten times the numbers of staffers that Clinton had. I know that now that he's lost the narrative is that he never tried that hard, but make no mistake, Bernie put an enormous effort into winning South Carolina. The problem isn't that people just hadn't heard of him. They didn't like him.

He spent money and hired staffers but from a lot of reports he himself never really put his own boots on the ground. Which I find funny given he's supposed to be the grassroots candidate. Clinton outright out grassrooted him in SC.

 

[plagiarize]

This post is perplexing. Sanders' economic policies wouldn't benefit all people -- they would benefit the poor. Because the poor are disproportionately black, black people would benefit disproportionately. It would be amazingly beneficial if black Americans could enjoy a similar income pyramid to their white counterpart. I don't see how anybody could disagree.

I'm also not a huge fan of using extreme examples of white supremacy (Dylann Roof, etc) in cases like this. Because the vast majority of white supremacist action is much more subtle and insidious. And most institutions of white supremacy are directly intended to keep black people in poverty, because a wealthier black population is much harder to subjugate.

And onto gentrification, that's actually a great example of how black people will stand to benefit. If black Americans are less comparatively impoverished, gentrification and rent hikes will not be as devastating.

Telling a minority what's best for them when they disagree, is not a great look for a white male. I'm sorry if that seems unfair. Black people tell me they've had enough of being told what they *should* want by white people. I'm not going to disagree with them.

Look, you might be right, and I have no reason to doubt that you aren't saying all this with the best interest of minorities in mind, but the truth is you aren't going to do any good with this sort of messaging.

I'm sure that's not what you want to hear. I'm sure that's infuriating... but minorities see you as someone with great privileges that they don't have. So they aren't going to give you the privilege of their open ears and minds when voicing your thoughts of what they *should* want.

 

[Crimson_Gold]

They're smarter?


Oh..and I thought Crimson_Gold had gone nuts for a minute lol. Just keep reading "Crimson" and didn't realize it was another poster.

Lol not this time. I had to break for a bit. I came back and saw that hell had broken loose. Some people are legitimately insane. That bright boy speech from Django lives on

 

[excelsiorlef]

Well he's not necessarily wrong. Black people in the southern states don't necessarily speak for all black people in the United States.

Let him dream.

Reuters poll has him trailing nation wide by 33.5 nation wide and that jumps to 50 when you look only at people who plan to actually vote in the Primary.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Plenty of Americans are ready for a far left candidate. It's just that a certain segment of the population isn't "ready."

You're right, plenty of Americans are, problem is those same Americans tend to not vote.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

I'm gone for a few hours and WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED HERE!?

 

[Poodlestrike]

I'm gone for a few hours and WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED HERE!?

Eugenics-GAF decided to pop in.
It's a little like a pop-GAF invasion, except less confusing and more horrible.

 

[brainchild]

Reuters poll has him trailing nation wide by 33.5 nation wide and that jumps to 50 when you look only at people who plan to actually vote in the Primary.

Reuters is one poll; presumably one that Bernie isn't referring to. Furthermore, national statistical averages and state-specific statistics are not comparable. After all, he specifically excluded the southern states in his reference to polling data; states that would otherwise be included in a national poll.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Catching up this morning and...wow.

Might be time to leave

 

[gutter_trash]

People have lost their minds.

I said it yesterday. I will say today :

Democrats in Deep Red States tend to rally behind the Democratic Candidate with the most winnability instead of ideology.

Especially minorities in Deep Red States governed by Republican Governors.

The electoral college gets lost in the general.

Primaries are probably the only outlet where they can pick a Democrat who is more Winnable

 

[excelsiorlef]

Reuters is one poll; presumably one that Bernie isn't referring to. Furthermore, national statistical averages and state-specific statistics are not comparable. After all, he specifically excluded the southern states in his reference to polling data; states that would otherwise be included in a national poll.

I filtered the Reuters poll, he still loses in Northern states by like 21.

There is nothing to indicate anywhere that he will have a shot at coming close to winning the black community vote anywhere. He'll do better in as much as he won't get completely slaughtered but when you factor in who actually votes, that community will go Clinton just about everywhere if not flat out everywhere.

Nothing backs up his contention at all.

 

[danm999]

I do hope this thread isn't a preview for Super Tuesday.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

Eugenics-GAF decided to pop in.
It's a little like a pop-GAF invasion, except less confusing and more horrible.

I lol'd.

 

[brainchild]

I filtered the Reuters poll, he still loses in Northern states by like 21.

There is nothing to indicate anywhere that he will have a shot at coming close to winning the black community vote anywhere. He'll do better in as much as he won't get completely slaughtered but when you factor in who actually votes, that community will go Clinton just about everywhere if not flat out everywhere.

Nothing backs up his contention at all.

He never said that he believed that he would win the black vote in any state. He said that he believed that he'd do better than SC and other southern states with African American voters, and even going by your own evidence would be enough to 'back up his contention' because it's not a significant argument in the first place, and it's still just one poll. We still don't know what polling data he's referring to.

Also, different states have different population sizes of African-Americans, so the potential impact of their votes will vary from state to state.

 

[Kyosaiga]

I do hope this thread isn't a preview for Super Tuesday.

It's gonna get worse.

Wait till Sanders concedes

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I do hope this thread isn't a preview for Super Tuesday.

If the way the last day has gone is any indication we'll have people advocating for the return of Jim Crow and forced sterilization

 

[pigeon]

Reuters poll has him trailing nation wide by 33.5 nation wide and that jumps to 50 when you look only at people who plan to actually vote in the Primary.

I mean, "the polls say we'll win" is unfalsifiable. Bernie has internal polls that we don't have. It's possible he has data we don't. It's also possible he's just saying so because "to be honest, we're fucked" isn't a great sound bite. But there's no way to really know.

 

[brainchild]

I mean, "the polls say we'll win" is unfalsifiable. Bernie has internal polls that we don't have. It's possible he has data we don't. It's also possible he's just saying so because "to be honest, we're fucked" isn't a great sound bite. But there's no way to really know.

This is also a good point. In fact, it would be awesome if someone asked him to print the receipts in the next debate, lol.