• 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 Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Sanders defends Killer Mike, Attacks Bill Clinton & Doesn't Want To Be Lectured On CR

Status
Not open for further replies.

Staccat0

Fail out bailed
Apr 13, 2007
13,695
2
0
Austin, TX
A woman said "Cue #SJW freakout"?

SMH at the way Bernie tried to compare voting for a woman because she's a woman to voting for a man because he's a man. Tone deaf.
You're right. People don't wanna hear him make the argument, and especially not with those words and directed at someone more qualified than that.

Voting for a woman because she is a woman IS fucking stupid.
That leads to scenario where you voted for Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman or Carly Fiorina. Which is essentially voting against women's rights.

Still, even if he had drawn that parrallel with say Ben Carson or Herman Caine it woulda been shitty becuase Hilary IS qualified unlike those jokers. So really, he had no reason to invoke that quote.

It's long past time we had a female president. That perspectice had a ton of value, but I wouldn't go "single issue" over that. What would sway me is a tone dead dip talking down to me.

The bullshit about "not being lectured" is the more troublesome quote. What a tool.

The SJW thing is just a guy retweeting a thing. Whatever.
 

1.21Gigawatts

Banned
Nov 24, 2012
8,436
234
675
munich
You're right. People don't wanna hear him make the argument, and especially not with those words and directed at someone more qualified than that.

Voting for a woman because she is a woman IS fucking stupid.
That leads to scenario where you voted for Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman or Carly Fiorina. Which is essentially voting against women's rights.

Still, even if he had drawn that parrallel with say Ben Carson or Herman Caine it woulda been shitty becuase Hilary IS qualified unlike those jokers. So really, he had no reason to invoke that quote.

It's long past time we had a female president. That perspectice had a ton of value, but I wouldn't go "single issue" over that. What would sway me is a tone dead dip talking down to me.

The bullshit about "not being lectured" is the more troublesome quote. What a tool.

The SJW thing is just a guy retweeting a thing. Whatever.

But this is a debate among democratic voters. So any female republican candidates don't really matter here.
The question is how people decide between Sanders and Clinton.

As I wrote in my previous post I got the impression that the fact that Clinton would be the first female president carries a lot more weight for the older generation of women than the younger. Probably because they grew up in a wildly different environment while the younger generation grew up in an environment where they already benefitted a great deal off of the work of the feminist movement.
The younger generation is actually more focussed on the issues and political positions, and the older generation doesn't quite understand why the younger generation doesn't value the prospect of the first female president as much as they do. That leads to situations like the controversies around Gloria Steinems and Madeleine Albrights recent comments.
 

andthebeatgoeson

Junior Member
Jun 7, 2004
23,028
0
0
43
It's really stupid to suggest that someone can't utilize their minority status as a selling point, considering that the minority status fucks them over in nearly every other facet of society. It's not like anyone's suggesting that her being female is the one and only, end all be all selling point of her candidacy.
People constantly pick based on being the male sex. Bernie doesn't have to ask. It's already given. He's a white guy in a suit, so he gets credit. Now he's a white guy with wild hair.

Bottom line, he's a fuck boy for suggesting Clinton stop being proud of being a woman running for president when his support is ingrained, never second guessed and hard to penetrate. I see Clinton as being proud, not being for female votes. He's too tone deaf to be progressive.

His comment on not wanting to be lectured on civil rights. Like, really? That's what you decide to put out there? Stubborn or really confident, I can't pick. Considering his missteps, I'm thinking the former.
 

Chie Satonaka

Member
May 19, 2011
11,928
0
0
Bonecrusher would know better

Laughed way too much at this.

Was coming in here to ask about the whole Killer Mike debacle and why people are upset, but come on now KM. You should know better than to EVER fucking retweet the National Review, especially when they're talking about ess jay double ewes.
 

johnsmith

remember me
Jan 5, 2005
14,934
0
1,690
Why's killer mike being such a fuckboi ;) jk love that dude don't really care about politics even tho I should. I just no trump shouldn't win.

Bottom line, he's a fuck boy for suggesting Clinton stop being proud of being a woman running for president when his support is ingrained, never second guessed and hard to penetrate. I see Clinton as being proud, not being for female votes. He's too tone deaf to be progressive.

What does this word even mean, and why do people keep using it against Bernie. It sounds homophobic, but urbanspoon has a dozen definitions and they're all different.
 

Crimson_Gold

Member
Feb 7, 2013
11,107
0
0
Bonecrusher would know better



Ain't never scared


People vote for people they think they could have a beer with, but voting for someone you can identify with as a fellow minority is wrong somehow? Interesting
 

IJoel

Member
Jun 6, 2004
6,644
0
0
It's a stupid senseless comment because Clinton is tremendously accomplished in the political realm and have been in public service for many many years. Simply put, there's absolutely no reason for anyone that hasn't lived in a cave for the past two decades to question her credentials. Of course, unless they're being mysoginistic jerks.
 

TarNaru33

Banned
Dec 13, 2013
1,596
64
395
AW YISSS

I love the part of these sorts of threads where the "plight" of non-marginalized, opt-in groups is compared to the struggle Black people have endured in this country for centuries. Such and apt and appropriate comparison!

/s

Such an insightful reply!

It is the same basic principle.
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
37,882
4,871
1,905
Are you trying to say no one is going to vote Hillary because she is a woman? Because I have a few young cousins who are voting her for just that reason lol.

It is an "emotional" way to vote in my view, since it isn't based on policies of the candidate.



People aren't defaming all Blacks when they say "thugs" just a specific subset of incredibly violent ones. See where I am going with this? Especially since plenty use it to label all Bernie supporters. You want to sound reasonable? How about using more responsible reasoning in challenging a person's argument rather than labeling them. This isn't specifically at you, since I don't know if you call people Berniebros.

The condescension is on both sides and it is pathetic in my view.

I stand with Bernie on this, though he must be more aware of how/who he supports with his wording.

I love Nichijou btw

But Thug is dog whistling.

They called Richard Sherman a thug and he's smart as fuck and I haven't seen him get into any physical altercations outside of his job in the NFL.
 

Volimar

Member
Jun 11, 2011
34,722
3
685
steamcommunity.com
At least we know where creepyGAF stands.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/chloe-grace-moretz-stumping-for-hillary-in-024419479.html

Chloe Grace Moretz, a 19-year-old actress best known for starring in the romantic film “If I Stay,” entered a coffee shop in a Las Vegas strip mall to greet about 25 Hillary Clinton supporters Thursday, most of them young college students. She stood in front of Hillary signs and addressed the small group briefly, urging them to caucus for Clinton on Saturday.


Really? A dumb Nicholas Sparksish movie is her best known performance? Never heard of Hit Girl?
 
Nov 16, 2007
16,625
4
0
33
Such an insightful reply!

It is the same basic principle.

It really isn't the same at all, and if you really can't see that then I'm not sure what else to tell you.

Look, I consider myself a supporter of Sanders (although threads like these are increasingly making me frustrated with a lot of other supporters of him), so let me just say that if you honestly think that comments about "Bernie bros" are in any way comparable to dog-whistle terms used against black people in America, you are out of your goddamn mind. The politicians you support are a matter of personal choice. You can change that at any time, and you're not even obligated to be honest about it with other people if you don't want to. At work, I can just choose to avoid talking about politics entirely to keep from getting into arguments. The color of your skin is not something you can opt out of. And people have faced oppression for this over centuries.

When you try to compare the two of these, you only wind up proving the people talking about "Bernie bros" right. That's not doing any good for the cause you want to be supporting.
 

JesseEwiak

Member
May 9, 2013
5,839
0
0
Really? A dumb Nicholas Sparksish movie is her best known performance? Never heard of Hit Girl?

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people...=chloemoretz.htm&sort=gross&order=DESC&p=.htm

If I Stay was a bigger hit, is more recent, and she was the actual star of it, as opposed to the 3rd lead. Nerds may know her for Kick Ass, but 15 year old girls know her because of that ripoff of Nicholas Sparks. I saw the line for her at my local mall when she came to visit a few weeks before the movie came out.
 

brainchild

Banned
May 12, 2015
4,116
0
0
It really isn't the same at all, and if you really can't see that then I'm not sure what else to tell you.

Look, I consider myself a supporter of Sanders (although threads like these are increasingly making me frustrated with a lot of other supporters of him), so let me just say that if you honestly think that comments about "Bernie bros" are in any way comparable to dog-whistle terms used against black people in America, you are out of your goddamn mind. The politicians you support are a matter of personal choice. You can change that at any time, and you're not even obligated to be honest about it with other people if you don't want to. At work, I can just choose to avoid talking about politics entirely to keep from getting into arguments. The color of your skin is not something you can opt out of. And people have faced oppression for this over centuries.

When you try to compare the two of these, you only wind up proving the people talking about "Bernie bros" right. That's not doing any good for the cause you want to be supporting.


No, no amount of stupidity from ONE PERSON will ever prove them right because the term is a horrible generalization of all Bernie supporters who criticize Hillary or defend statements from Bernie that they don't agree with.

They will never be right about that.
 
Nov 16, 2007
16,625
4
0
33
No, no amount of stupidity from ONE PERSON will ever prove them right because the term is a horrible generalization of all Bernie supporters who criticize Hillary or defend statements from Bernie that they don't agree with.

They will never be right about that.

Sure, it's a generalization. But when the response to a discussion about "Bernie bros" is to say "well, that's no different than calling black kids 'thugs'", it just goes to re-enforce the narrative and give people one more example of it in action.

I'm not saying it makes it right; but it certainly is about the least effective way to counteract an argument. Instead of getting upset about people talking about "Bernie bros" we should go about trying to be good, compassionate people (as everyone should try to be), who happen to support a particular candidate. If everyone did that, the narrative would start to dissipate.
 

TarNaru33

Banned
Dec 13, 2013
1,596
64
395
It really isn't the same at all, and if you really can't see that then I'm not sure what else to tell you.

Look, I consider myself a supporter of Sanders (although threads like these are increasingly making me frustrated with a lot of other supporters of him), so let me just say that if you honestly think that comments about "Bernie bros" are in any way comparable to dog-whistle terms used against black people in America, you are out of your goddamn mind. The politicians you support are a matter of personal choice. You can change that at any time, and you're not even obligated to be honest about it with other people if you don't want to. At work, I can just choose to avoid talking about politics entirely to keep from getting into arguments. The color of your skin is not something you can opt out of. And people have faced oppression for this over centuries.

When you try to compare the two of these, you only wind up proving the people talking about "Bernie bros" right. That's not doing any good for the cause you want to be supporting.

I love Nichijou btw

But Thug is dog whistling.

They called Richard Sherman a thug and he's smart as fuck and I haven't seen him get into any physical altercations outside of his job in the NFL.

We will agree to disagree, I only see the extremity of it as the only real difference.
 

brainchild

Banned
May 12, 2015
4,116
0
0
Sure, it's a generalization. But when the response to a discussion about "Bernie bros" is to say "well, that's no different than calling black kids 'thugs'", it just goes to re-enforce the narrative and give people one more example of it in action.

I'm not saying it makes it right; but it certainly is about the least effective way to counteract an argument. Instead of getting upset about people talking about "Bernie bros" we should go about trying to be good, compassionate people (as everyone should try to be), who happen to support a particular candidate. If everyone did that, the narrative would start to dissipate.

I agree with what you're saying about the narrative being reinforced, but I can tell you from first hand experience, you don't tear down prejudiced barriers, stereotypes, and generalizations by holding hands and singing kumbayah.

Do you think that if there were enough good, compassionate minorities that there wouldn't be generalizations rooted in sexism, racism, and homophobia? This stuff doesn't go away by being passive, but it can diminish when you call people out on their bullshit.
 

JesseEwiak

Member
May 9, 2013
5,839
0
0
I agree with what you're saying about the narrative being reinforced, but I can tell you from first hand experience, you don't tear down prejudiced barriers, stereotypes, and generalizations by holding hands and singing kumbayah.

Do you think that if there were enough good, compassionate minorities that there wouldn't be generalizations rooted in sexism, racism, and homophobia? This stuff doesn't go away by being passive, but it can diminish when you call people out on their bullshit.

Here's a hint - Bernie Bros aren't actually an oppressed class, no matte how much you want to make it so.
 

BudokaiMR2

Member
Dec 18, 2005
11,063
0
0
Osaka
Sure, it's a generalization. But when the response to a discussion about "Bernie bros" is to say "well, that's no different than calling black kids 'thugs'", it just goes to re-enforce the narrative and give people one more example of it in action.

I'm not saying it makes it right; but it certainly is about the least effective way to counteract an argument. Instead of getting upset about people talking about "Bernie bros" we should go about trying to be good, compassionate people (as everyone should try to be), who happen to support a particular candidate. If everyone did that, the narrative would start to dissipate.

Can't speak for everyone on this topic, but in my case the entire point wasn't to compare these things directly but just to show that generalizations like that added nothing to any discussion. Anyone who does that and tries to paint an entire group with a broad brush just makes themselves look foolish.

The bolded part also feels completely naive in my opinion. That is a great way to live life and I fully support the idea but that's not how these things work and the people who are using it as a generalization obviously have an agenda in mind and will probably hunt around for anything they can use to fuel the fire. Everyone is of course free to believe and support whoever they want, but I am also free to completely discount their opinion if their main argument is to fall back on a generalization based on Facebook posts.

I mean this is a quote from another article from the person who I guess coined the phrase.

The tragic Hillary voter, the truly pitiable figure, is the Democrat who would love to line up behind Bernie’s sunny ideals but knows that he just isn’t electable. I speak, of course, of the Hillarealist.

Yup, I am sure this person has no real agenda behind coining such a condescending term.
 
Oct 27, 2005
13,455
34
1,375
It's certainly not helping.
It might be, statistically :p

I'm only half joking, since there's some data to suggest that his economic policies are boosting his numbers lately among minorities like South Carolina.

But at the same time, his economic policies as an answer to racial inequality can be seen as tone-deafness.
 
Nov 16, 2007
16,625
4
0
33
I agree with what you're saying about the narrative being reinforced, but I can tell you from first hand experience, you don't tear down prejudiced barriers, stereotypes, and generalizations by holding hands and singing kumbayah.

Do you think that if there were enough good, compassionate minorities that there wouldn't be generalizations rooted in sexism, racism, and homophobia? This stuff doesn't go away by being passive, but it can diminish when you call people on their bullshit.

No, I don't think so. But I don't think that "Sanders supporter" is any way analogous to a minority group, which is a key difference there. People have generations of deep rooted feelings towards various minority groups of people. No one had any feelings about "Sanders supporters" prior to about six months or so ago.

You're right that it won't all go away regardless of what people do. But everyone can do their part to make sure that the people who keep saying it won't actually have any ammunition. My general reading of the situation is that while there are a few real Sanders haters out there, most of the people talking about "Bernie bros" are being persuaded as much by first-hand examples they've been around for as much as anything. So if everyone stopped being dicks for no reason, those people would stop seeing examples of people comparing being called a "Bernie bro" to racist terminology or people harassing various groups because they didn't know that Bernie marched with Dr. King.

And if there aren't any legitimate examples like that, then the people who continue to peddle the narrative could be called on their bullshit.
 

brainchild

Banned
May 12, 2015
4,116
0
0
Here's a hint - Bernie Bros aren't actually an oppressed class, no matte how much you want to make it so.

Here's a hint, I never said or even implied as much, no matter how much you want to make it so.

It does not change the fact that you wont get rid of generalizations by being 'nice'.
 

FunkyMunkey

Banned
Aug 26, 2006
6,937
0
0
wait "bernie bro" is offensive now? LOL i've heard bernie supporters even call themselves that in a light-hearted manner. i've never heard it used in a derogatory sense in a way even remotely-remotely close to "thugs" and minorities. what a steaming crap comparison

some of you, holy shit
 
Oct 8, 2009
16,977
4
0
are people and sanders really saying it's not ok for a woman to vote for clinton because she is a woman? who gives a shit? some people voted for obama because he was black and some people (many) have been voting for old white guys throughout history because they are white themselves.

identifying with a candidate on multiple levels is ok, including their gender/ethnicity. what's wrong with a woman thinking that clinton might actually understand their plights more due to her being a woman?

absurdity

Nobody is saying it isn't ok or that you don't have a right. It's an appeal to elect someone based on the politics. You cite Obama and people only wanting to for white men in the past- That too is a mistake.


You as a individual do not exist in a oppressive Olympics, and you do not have to be a marginalized person to understand, and fight for the rights of marginalized people.
It's painting a doctrine that because you've experienced or lived something, you're a monolithic voice for all within your group.
It's not necessarily wrong either, but voting for someone because of their gender, and ignoring her hurtful politics is not good. It's treating politics like a reality show, electing the person, and not what they stand for, which is what matters.
PR, charisma, and their "cool factor" are some of the things that also matters way too much, for too many people.
You elect someone to represents the wishes of the entire country.

You want the first woman president to mean something. What does it say, if it elects one of the most warhawkish aggressive neoliberal candidates ever?

I live in a country with a relative high balanced ratio for men and women in the workforce (except for the very highest CEO positions) and we recently had a female prime minister for the first time- And it wasn't a big deal.
It isn't because your genitalia, race, sexuality or religion doesn't have an influence on your ability to govern the interests of over 300 million people. Implementing good policy is not about emotional reactions, but logical ones.




Here's a hint - Bernie Bros aren't actually an oppressed class, no matte how much you want to make it so.

You're misunderstanding what he is saying. He is not saying that Bernie Bros are an oppressed class. He is saying that it is misdirected if you think political activism will solve anything by laying down.

You, specifically had that stand in many BLM threads. So you should be able to see the general idea here.
That doesn't mean you have to like the methods, but you can have an understanding of radical methods being used.
Bernie wouldn't have gone this far without "Berniebros" as he was mostly mocked and laughed at in the beginning. Thanks to his internet campaign he was able to grow with the large young vote, who are heavily users of the internet.
I understand that people say; "I'm tired of Bernie Bros and their endorsement. they make me like him less" but it's essentially saying "stop trying to make it happen". Can't you see that this is the EXACT same semantic argument being used to belittle political activists of other movements, due to knee jerk reactions and inconveniences?

Again, it's understandable to be annoyed with them, and it's annoying to have people be pushy, but you should know why they are doing it, in the vacuum of largely apathetic politically unengaged and unmotivated nation with a large non-voter turnout.
It actually makes sense to fight instead of adhering too some tired lame ass meme, that isn't held together by a gender, but by beliefs of a lot of people- from even outside the US.
 

brainchild

Banned
May 12, 2015
4,116
0
0
Nobody is saying it isn't ok or that you don't have a right. It's an appeal to elect someone based on the politics. You cite Obama and people only wanting to for white men in the past- That too is a mistake.


You as a individual do not exist in a oppressive Olympics, and you do not have to be a marginalized person to understand, and fight for the rights of marginalized people.
It's painting a doctrine that because you've experienced or lived something, you're a monolithic voice for all within your group.
It's not necessarily wrong either, but voting for someone because of their gender, and ignoring her hurtful politics is not good. It's treating politics like a reality show, electing the person, and not what they stand for, which is what matters.
PR, charisma, and their "cool factor" are some of the things that also matters way too much, for too many people.
You elect someone to represents the wishes of the entire country.

You want the first woman president to mean something. What does it say, if it elects one of the most warhawkish aggressive neoliberal candidates ever?

I live in a country with a relative high balanced ratio for men and women in the workforce (except for the very highest CEO positions) and we recently had a female prime minister for the first time- And it wasn't a big deal.
It isn't because your genitalia, race, sexuality or religion doesn't have an influence on your ability to govern the interests of over 300 million people. Implementing good policy is not about emotional reactions, but logical ones.






You're misunderstanding what he is saying. He is not saying that Bernie Bros are an oppressed class. He is saying that it is misdirected if you think political activism will solve anything by laying down.

You, specifically had that stand in many BLM threads. So you should be able to see the general idea here.
That doesn't mean you have to like the methods, but you can have an understanding of radical methods being used.
Bernie wouldn't have gone this far without "Berniebros" as he was mostly mocked and laughed at in the beginning. Thanks to his internet campaign he was able to grow with the large young vote, who are heavily users of the internet.
I understand that people say; "I'm tired of Bernie Bros and their endorsement. they make me like him less" but it's essentially saying "stop trying to make it happen". Can't you see that this is the EXACT same semantic argument being used to belittle political activists of other movements, due to knee jerk reactions and inconveniences?

Again, it's understandable to be annoyed with them, and it's annoying to have people be pushy, but you should know why they are doing it, in the vacuum of largely apathetic politically unengaged and unmotivated nation with a large non-voter turnout.
It actually makes sense to fight instead of adhering too some tired lame ass meme, that isn't held together by a gender, but by beliefs of a lot of people- from even outside the US.

Great post. Couldn't have said it better myself.


EDIT:


And just generally speaking, it's very unfortunate that a significant portion of GAF (in my experience) tends look down on enthusiastic Bernie supporters. It's unfortunate because we really need to be able to come together as a community and build each other up and fight for what we believe in.

When you're fighting for a political revolution and you're surrounded by a bunch of people making fun of you, you're eventually going to have the energy sapped out of you.

Furthermore, there are actually people part of an oppressed class who are not satisfied with mildly significant incremental change. Many of these people support Sanders because he's calling for dramatic change and reform. As unlikely as it is for these dreams to become a reality, it gives minorities something to believe in; something to be excited about, and that kind of political engagement will be completely inhibited if it's surrounded by cynicism.
 

BudokaiMR2

Member
Dec 18, 2005
11,063
0
0
Osaka
wait "bernie bro" is offensive now? LOL i've heard bernie supporters even call themselves that in a light-hearted manner. i've never heard it used in a derogatory sense in a way even remotely-remotely close to "thugs" and minorities. what a steaming crap comparison

some of you, holy shit

Totally missing the forest for the trees.

Unless I missed something I haven't seen anyone try to actively compare those two thing and say its the same problem. It is a larger discussion of how generalizing an entire group of people for any reason is just ignorant and harmful. Of course the toxicity of each term is completely different, and cannot be compared but I don't think anyone has done that.

This is a larger discussion about harmful generalization and has nothing to do with trying to paint Bernie supporters as some sort of victim. It's just stupid discourse that no one should buy into. The article that coined the term is based on political discourse on facebook.

Politcal discourse. On facebook. Let that sink in. If you really think that level of discourse adds anything to the discussion, I don't know what to say. The article that coined the term is basically an entire page of strawman arguments.

Of course there are gonna be some asshole supporters of any candidate when it comes to the internet. Bernie supporters aren't doing anything special, and I don't think any anecdotal facebook evidence will convince me to the contrary.
 

JesseEwiak

Member
May 9, 2013
5,839
0
0
You want the first woman president to mean something. What does it say, if it elects one of the most warhawkish aggressive neoliberal candidates ever?

I'm not going to get into the "hey, let's debate people on the merits and be colorbind" argument but if you think 2016 Hillary is one of the most warhawkish neoliberal candidates ever, I'd like to introduce you to 2000 Al Gore and Bill Bradley, every candidate in the 2004 Democratic Primary outside of Kucinich and Carol Mosley Braun, every candidate in the 2008 Democratic Primary outside of John Edwards, Mike Gravel, and Kucinich again, and of course, the vast majority of every Democratic House and Senate Caucus for the past 30 years.

OK, don't trust Hillary that she's being truthful despite the reams of evidence that politicians once in office try to pass what they've promised. But, Hillary is not some person on the right wing of the modern Democratic party.

I understand that people say; "I'm tired of Bernie Bros and their endorsement. they make me like him less" but it's essentially saying "stop trying to make it happen". Can't you see that this is the EXACT same semantic argument being used to belittle political activists of other movements, due to knee jerk reactions and inconveniences?

Again, it's understandable to be annoyed with them, and it's annoying to have people be pushy, but you should know why they are doing it, in the vacuum of largely apathetic politically unengaged and unmotivated nation with a large non-voter turnout.
It actually makes sense to fight instead of adhering too some tired lame ass meme, that isn't held together by a gender, but by beliefs of a lot of people- from even outside the US.

I've got no problems with the movement to move the DNC to the left. I support that. But yes, once you start slamming Alan Krueger, Paul Krugman, and every economist to the right of one of the few Marxist economics programs in the US (U Mass Amherst) as being paid off shills of the evil Establishment, then yeah, I can call you out for acting like idiots.

The main reason why Democrats have had any credibility for the past 30 years is we depend on the actual numbers - or as the evil neoliberal shill who saved Obama's campaign in 2012 would say - arithmetic. Once we abandon that and start believing every economist who says we can have pizza, soda, and ice cream every night for dinner and we'll end up with a six pack, we're no better than the idiotic Republican's who believe tax cuts can pay for themselves and taking social programs away from poor people will make them get great jobs.
 

hawk2025

Member
Jan 20, 2013
15,488
0
0
I'm not going to get into the "hey, let's debate people on the merits and be colorbind" argument but if you think 2016 Hillary is one of the most warhawkish neoliberal candidates ever, I'd like to introduce you to 2000 Al Gore and Bill Bradley, every candidate in the 2004 Democratic Primary outside of Kucinich and Carol Mosley Braun, every candidate in the 2008 Democratic Primary outside of John Edwards, Mike Gravel, and Kucinich again, and of course, the vast majority of every Democratic House and Senate Caucus for the past 30 years.

OK, don't trust Hillary that she's being truthful despite the reams of evidence that politicians once in office try to pass what they've promised. But, Hillary is not some person on the right wing of the modern Democratic party.



I've got no problems with the movement to move the DNC to the left. I support that. But yes, once you start slamming Alan Krueger, Paul Krugman, and every economist to the right of one of the few Marxist economics programs in the US (U Mass Amherst) as being paid off shills of the evil Establishment, then yeah, I can call you out for acting like idiots.

The main reason why Democrats have had any credibility for the past 30 years is we depend on the actual numbers - or as the evil neoliberal shill who saved Obama's campaign in 2012 would say - arithmetic. Once we abandon that and start believing every economist who says we can have pizza, soda, and ice cream every night for dinner and we'll end up with a six pack, we're no better than the idiotic Republican's who believe tax cuts can pay for themselves and taking social programs away from poor people will make them get great jobs.


Well put.

The dismissal of great thinkers and the knee-jerk reaction to include any disagreement under an ill-defined "establishment" agenda is an alarming and disappointing recent development of this primary. This became crystal clear as soon as the Krueger et al letter was released.
 

brainchild

Banned
May 12, 2015
4,116
0
0
wait "bernie bro" is offensive now? LOL i've heard bernie supporters even call themselves that in a light-hearted manner. i've never heard it used in a derogatory sense in a way even remotely-remotely close to "thugs" and minorities. what a steaming crap comparison

some of you, holy shit

Hell yes it's offensive. It's effectively calling all Bernie supporters a bunch of sexist/misogynist nut jobs. How is that not offensive?!
 

Amir0x

Banned
Oct 27, 2004
103,709
3
0
36
Nowhere, PA
That's what Bernie Bros means? I've never used the term before, but I definitely did not think it implied all that weighted stuff. I sorta think it might be a bit of over sensitivity at play there.
 
Dec 18, 2014
4,815
0
0
Well put.

The dismissal of great thinkers and the knee-jerk reaction to include any disagreement under an ill-defined "establishment" agenda is an alarming and disappointing recent development of this primary. This became crystal clear as soon as the Krueger et al letter was released.

Only the Establishment would say that!
 

brainchild

Banned
May 12, 2015
4,116
0
0
Status
Not open for further replies.