SolicitorPirate
Member
It's the usual hypocrisy of so called progressives
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Charles Blow: Stop Berniesplaining to Black Voters
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
It's the usual hypocrisy of so called progressives
Crimson_Gold
Member
The issue here comes from people saying that $15 a hour will change the issues that have existed for hundreds of years. Some people aren't as concerned with economics as they are with other aspects of the political system. Sanders' focus on economics as a panacea can be off putting to someone that gets stopped for having too "nice" of a car. You gotta look at this from an angle other than money being the sole issue. To some, they see Hillary as being more aware of that.
I direct you to Shaun King's entire timeline.
metalslimer
Member
Yep my friend last night told me how shocked he was that black people were supporting Hilary Clinton and reasoned that they just didn't know any better. He apologized when I explained to him how insulting that comes across as.
Primary fights are always nasty. Anyone claiming otherwise is just too young to know better.
The internet just makes things louder.
It's one of GAF's double standards. For the most part, many on GAF have no problem shitting all over poor people so long as they are white and vote republican. There was a recent "Poor People Vote GOP" thread where this behavior was on display.
You learn to just roll with it.
But they are campaigning on women's rights. So it's nearly the same.
GreenTornadoX
Member
Man, I am so sorry you are going through this shit.
A Link to the Past
Banned
For as much as people claim it's hypocritical to condemn Bernie supporters for suggesting that black people are ignorant of Sanders' value to them, remember that the comparison to black people is "poor whites". Here, Sanders supporters aren't lodging these accusations against specifically poor and/or uneducated black people. A lot of the stuff I've seen has been very general and, as if to prove my point, Civil Rights activist John Lewis is getting shit on by these people. This patronizing attitude defaults to the idea that black people are uninformed or have a poor perspective.
excelsiorlef
Member
Clinton's women's rights part is largely based on what she did in the Senate including what legislation she personally helped draft and introduce that's a lot more concrete than I marched with MLK 50 years ago.
What exactly did Clinton get passed in the Senate?
googleplex
Member
Cult of personality.
SolarPowered
Member
Word
The NH primary thread was insane. We know about overzealous Bernie supporters, but Hillary supporters are going all in on anyone and everyone associated with Bernie. It's like a closed loop of increasing hostility between the two camps now. If Trump or Cruz weren't running I'd probably just stop browsing all political threads on GAF altogether.
MHWilliams
Member
I typed "John Lewis" into Twitter search, turned it to "live" and checked it occasionally while writing a review.
It's the internet and discourse will generally go that way about anything, so let's not try to argue it's not happening in this case, ok? Cool. Oh, and in that Elon James White with some logic:
Lewis not seeing Sanders, does not mean Sanders didn't put in the work. It just means that he was one face among many.
There's always room for nuanced discussion and honestly, I'd prefer it if the thread trended in that direction more often. Less snide comments and drivebys would be great, because honestly, you all are better than this.
To your question, it's very hard to educate someone or offer up information without coming across like you're talking from a position of authority, because for most of us, educating means we're in possession of information that the other party is missing. It puts us on one platform and the other person on a lower one. It's very easy to go "If you had all the facts, you would think like I do," (it's called the false-concensus effect) when in reality that's not the case. That's true of a lot of us and it's a pretty normal psychological bias.
Understanding why people may vote or choose the way they do requires empathy and not everyone is prepared for that. In their enthusiasm for Sen. Sanders, it's easy to go a bit strong and come across as overzealous, aggressive, and condescending. (And if you believe Sanders has little chance at the Presidency or passing his legislation if he becomes President, the condescending nature also appears.) It's probably better to not bring up Sanders' previous Civil Rights marching or attacking the choice of Clinton, which some see as a pragmatic option. Instead, point out way you believe Sanders' potential legislation could help the person you're talking to.
And if they disagree for their own reasons, let it lie.
it sucks because it causes rational posters to ignore threads that they would be interested in and contribute positively to which then proliferates the negativity coming from both sides.
in short, BLEH
I keep seeing this argument about Sanders: "there's no way he can accomplish what he promises, it's too unrealistic" due to Republican opposition.
Do you really think Hillary will have any better chance? They're both going to be cock blocked repeatedly until the end of their term regardless of who gets into the white house. Knowing this, why the hell wouldn't you want to vote for someone who has the superior philosophies and intentions for the majority of Americans? They'll both face the same opposition but I'd rather have the "wildcard" of the two in there to shake things up as much as possible in this shitty joke of a political atmosphere.
Do you really think Hillary will have any better chance? They're both going to be cock blocked repeatedly until the end of their term regardless of who gets into the white house. Knowing this, why the hell wouldn't you want to vote for someone who has the superior philosophies and intentions for the majority of Americans? They'll both face the same opposition but I'd rather have the "wildcard" of the two in there to shake things up as much as possible in this shitty joke of a political atmosphere.
uncelestial
Member
Did John Lewis say he *never* met Bernie? Because this is going around.
Note: It's from 2014
Note: It's from 2014
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
At the very least, Clinton has political clout that Sanders doesn't have and would be able to use that to get more done.
I like Sanders in principle though.
Was under the assumption he meant back in the day.
I didn't hear anything beyond the soundbite though so I could be wrong.
Would imagine they'd at least be minor acquaintances at some point if only through careers crossing one another since.
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
The context is the same but the baggage carried by each demographic is different. In both cases it's insulting, and I get real fucking tired of hearing around here how much better this country would be if the south just got nuked from orbit, but the fact of the matter is telling a black person they need someone to lift them up has a different connotation than it does telling that to a white person. The insult is not equivalent.
freethoughtbubble
Member
Haha, oh man... I like Bernie, but supporters like that can fuck right off.
What clout? Republicans hate her even more. Bernie has been in congress, both the House and Senate longer than Hillary ever was. He likely has a far more developed and long lasting working relationship with members of both than her.
Not that I think that matters and I don't see either passing any real legislation, but the idea that Hillary has some kind of advantage that you speak of completely baffles me.
uncelestial
Member
So is he saying "it's all just coincidence?" If that's his point, why does he pointedly end his press conference on "I did see Hillary. I did meet President Clinton" and walk off to applause? He was most definitely questioning Bernie's involvement and praising the involvement from the Clintons that he saw first-hand.
Lewis not seeing Sanders, does not mean Sanders didn't put in the work. It just means that he was one face among many.
Edit: Sorry, some idiot on my FB feed had posted Goldwater was pro-segregation, which had stuck in my mind. It seemed weird Hillary would be *that* far to the right and also marching with MLK, so I just fact-checked to find out the opposite. He was, however, against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. So Hillary working for him really sucks; that's where she was at that time, despite Lewis's recollections.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Ok
maabus1999
Member
They both will have a hard time so that leaves the primary job of the presidency is foreign policy and CnC.
JesseEwiak
Member
Do you make other decisions about peoples political opinions based on their political decisions when they were 15? I mean, Saint Warren of Taxachusetts was a Republican until 1996.
sums up my feelings. Bernie supporters need to stay in their lane.
I think the idea is that Clinton would bring more downticket support to other democrats and be more pragmatic in here approach.
uncelestial
Member
Well, to me, Hillary working for a campaign that opposed the Civil RIghts Act in 1964, then rising to prominence and opposing marriage equality as late as 2013 fits a pattern of starting on the wrong side and joining the bandwagon later. She also has been pro-NAFTA, was for the horrible Clinton crime bill that Black Americans are still suffering from today, and doesn't have a real plan to tackle campaign finance or Wall Street regulation -- and probably won't until once again, the bandwagon leads her elsewhere, as it has always had to in order to get her to come along.
That's what happens when you describe yourself as a "Centrist" and take both sides of all kinds of issues -- people form impressions of you like the one I have of Hillary.
MHWilliams
Member
Did John Lewis say he *never* met Bernie? Because this is going around.
Note: It's from 2014
I assume you didn't watch the clip yourself. He's talking about the previous civil rights events.
"I never saw him. I never met him," Lewis said. "I was chair of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee for three years, from 1963 to 1966. I was involved with the sit-ins, the Freedom Rides, the March on Washington, the march from Selma to Montgomery and directed (the) voter education project for six years."
He never met a young Bernie Sanders. Simple enough. John Lewis wouldn't meet everyone not involved in the leadership.
My assumption is further that "But I met Hillary Clinton. I met President (Bill) Clinton." is not talking about those civil rights events, but later on, given he refers to Bill as President. If he's talking about meeting them during Civil Right marches, I doubt that's likely, but *shrug*.
Again, Bernie Sanders was one of many. He marched, but at the events Lewis was a part of, he was one of many. A face in the crowd. Most of his real work was for his local campus chapter of Congress on Racial Equality (CORE).
Clinton is HATED by republicans and many moderates. Bernie is an independent senator that is well liked by members of both parties in Congress.
I posted back a few pages, but basically Goldwater was the "Rand Paul", libertarian candidate. He opposed two provisions of the Civil Rights act that he thought were government overreach, and he felt that civil rights was a state's issue, but he wasn't personally a bigot, according to him. Sounds familiar, right?
Though that's less bad for Hillary being a volunteer for Goldwater than it may sound at first.
Hillary at least had met MLK Jr. and other civil rights leaders through Goldwater, so it's actually possible that Hillary met Lewis in the early 60's?
uncelestial
Member
Why would you assume I didn't watch the clip? I described it pretty specifically.
Him saying "I never met him" to the stunned reaction of "uh oh" in the crowd, then ending with "but I did meet [the Clintons]" to applause is a pretty clear cut thing. Care to peruse the headlines of how those statements are being covered? John Lewis is "not impressed with" and "disses" Bernie's civil rights record, etc. I don't think I'm crazy here.
Now I'm even more confused; you think that in the case of Bernie he's saying that he "never saw him" during the six years of MLK's prominence, but in the case of the Clintons, he met Bill as a president, some 30 years later, and he just switches context like that? Yeah, don't think so.
excelsiorlef
Member
https://www.plannedparenthoodaction...ton-and-bernie-sanders-compare-womens-health/
This outlines what she's done for women.
Sanders is fantastic but Clinton has been more pro-active.
I've drawn this conclusion as well after hearing both sides of the Democratic debates on gaf.
Tranqueris
Banned
I don't know, I think we've reached the point where people just want to buy into whatever narrative they like the best. In this case it's the "Hillary is not a liberal, she's not one of us" narrative and no amount of stating facts like "11th most liberal senator, 93% similar voting record" is going to change that.
Officerrob
Banned
The John Lewis stuff on twitter is horrendous
MHWilliams
Member
Possible.
Sanders' policies won't fly with Republican leadership, regardless of how many like him. But Sanders is also not, as you point out, a Democrat. The current Democrats in office have no real ties to him whatsoever, because he's been independent all these years.
The issue is largely one of changing the Congress, which requires significant mid-term voting from Democrats.
I like Bernie, but if Hillary clenches the nomination, I'll vote for her. If he does, I'll vote for him. Either would be a fine candidate that wouldn't light everything on fire. What I dislike is the idea completely opting out. You're allowed to do that with your vote, but there's so much at stake with a Presidency. And there's so much enthusiasm in Bernie's camp that I'm afraid many of those folks will abstain if he doesn't win the nomination and given that he's not a Democrat, I don't even know if he would concede and ask his followers to vote for Clinton.
That is a very worrying situation.
He's clearly talking about Bernie during the civil rights marches. As I said above, if he's talking about meeting the Clintons then as well, I find that doubtful. And "President" sticks out very much. I gave you the full quote, word for word.
Note, the applause comes after he steps off the podium.
excelsiorlef
Member
It's also why Sanders doesn't need to run a negative campaign, many of his supporters do it for him.
nah, Bernie has made clear many many times (most recently in his NH speech) that his supporters need to vote for the democratic candidate no matter who it is
the worrying situation is that Hillary might not inspire those voters to turn out even if Bernie backs her after losing
uncelestial
Member
I don't like the tone of this bitchy-ass picture made by a Sanders supporter, but:
John Lewis only needed to look a little to his left.
Edit: Ah -- Snopes is saying that it might not be him in that picture.
http://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-mlk-selma-march/
John Lewis only needed to look a little to his left.
Edit: Ah -- Snopes is saying that it might not be him in that picture.
http://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-mlk-selma-march/
Jeevesmeister
Banned
And neither can Hillary by these same absurd standards. This is fact, because she has been the literal fucking devil to the Republicans for literally decades. Hell, the enthusiasm gap is through the roof between Bernie and Hillary, which is a lot stronger electability argument that isn't being heard.
It's one tweet. It sucks, but it isn't indicative of anything. To be clear, Lewis was speaking for the Congressional Black Caucus PAC, which is a big business funded special interest group separate from the Congressional Black Caucus, which has not made an endorsement. This is a point that has been overlooked in this thread.
Because that's the other option in the Democratic primary. And her record is devastating when it comes to destroying the lives of people of color both here and abroad. We're literally talking in the millions here.
That's how bad the Democratic party is right now, I'm sorry to say. You don't like it, vote PSL or something.
Yes I'm going to spend my whole day looking up supposed tweets to affirm your beliefs - of course, Twitter is an aggregated comments section and literally everybody in a country of 300+ million people have terrible views. It doesn't mean anything and you're full of crap if this is your argument.
People in this thread trying to make it sound like BernieBros came over and personally fucked your wife to the degree they're taking it.
Now that is a very good and valid point. Unlike the previous claims that Clinton simply has more clout as if that is automatically a positive thing. These people pretty much forget she at the minimum has more clout with corporate types and that's not really beneficial for us. For all her faults she actually is interested in boosting up Democratic political allies while Bernie desires a revolution.
Considering how poorly defined the specifics to bring about Sander's revolution is voting Clinton I can see as more desirable if you don't think she can deliver on flipping house seats because she at least clearly cares to try it.
thehypocrite
Member
This is a very interesting topic, I agree that explaining his policies isn't the path. It's about listening to them, their hardships and their needs, asking about what they think should be done and with a recognition of the history of disappointment join their fight. Empower them and be honest about it, no need to sell them a dream or hopes that you have no intention to deliver.
MHWilliams
Member
She did the same with Obama, I see no reason why she would do otherwise. She is nothing if not a party candidate. If Sanders takes it, she'll support him.
I don't like the tone of this bitchy-ass picture made by a Sanders supporter, but:
John Lewis only needed to look a little to his left.
Do you notice every person you go to a concert with? Every single one? You know their names and faces? Sanders is 3-4 rows back.
I'm unsure why "I didn't see him" is hard for people to grasp. It's literally what I pointed out with White's tweet above. This is the kind of thing some find abrasive.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Be abrasive to counteract allegations of being unnecessarily abrasive brehs
excelsiorlef
Member
I don't like the tone of this bitchy-ass picture made by a Sanders supporter, but:
John Lewis only needed to look a little to his left.
So now the assumption is how dare this important figure in the civil rights movement not have remembered random white college kid in the crowd?
No one is saying he wasn't there, just that he was a face in he crowd and that as a major leader he never worked with or met Sanders.
no I mean in the scenario that Bernie loses, backs Hillary, and then Hillary herself doesn't inspire voters to turn out and vote for her in the general. that's worrying.
- Status