Sanders said at the time that he voted for it because it contained an important section about violence against women but he criticized it and said it would disproportionately affect minorities. There's video of him speaking in the senate about it.
-
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.
Sanders defends Killer Mike, Attacks Bill Clinton & Doesn't Want To Be Lectured On CR
- Thread starter NYCmetsfan
- Start date
- Status
Sanders said at the time that he voted for it because it contained an important section about violence against women but he criticized it and said it would disproportionately affect minorities. There's video of him speaking in the senate about it.
And in the end he still voted for it.
Clinton didn't make the law either, the Congress, which Sanders was part of, did.
If you have to blame a law on some part of the government take it to the legislative branch, not the executive.
I would not say that... or rather, I would not say it was her actions causing that, I would say she is adept at weathering attacks most candidates could never even conceive of (11 hour Benghazi clown shows, for example), and that in politics sometimes the only way out of such attacks is to be a bit slippery. It's the nature of politics. I would say her negatives are a symptom of the Republican attacks being so consistent and withering, and that had Bernie faced such scrutiny for the entirety of the last three years, his negatives would be worse since he would be unable to weather them in the same fashion.
It's still going to be Hillary. The narrative that it's somehow a tight race is as valid as people saying it was a tight race between Romney and Obama. Once Super Tuesday comes, there will be no Bernie has a shot narrative except from his most diehard supporters. He might stubbornly stay in the race, but he won't be able to overcome the delegate lead at that point and the narrative will remain firmly in the "Hillary got this" camp for the remainder.
There is some subjectivity built in, but there are certain trademarks that anyone with genuine charisma is sure to display. For example, if you asked yourself who you thought the experts on the subject would say is demonstrably more charismatic, I'm sure you'd admit most average people and most experts would agree that Obama is infinitely more charismatic than Bernie. That you had some sort of reverse effect on you is something more like the exception that proves the rule.
Obama is so charismatic even his worst Republican rivals often admit his talents in those areas (often as an off-handed insult, like the temporarily successful "Obama is a celebrity" attack) before proceeding to tear him apart in every other.
Obama is the type of charismatic personality who can get out of things like "America's chickens have come home to roost" by turning around and giving one of the most aspirational and multilayered speeches on discrimination/racism in modern American history. Bernie simply has not demonstrated that sort of talent, his speaking abilities are average at absolute best, and he has yet to even face the majority of Republican attacks unlike Hillary. This is not the sort of man I'd want having to defend his record on going to the USSR and "Democratic socialism."
For me, he's the type of man who would actually set back the movement to have a real socialist elected for generations: either by being elected and having his supporters furious and dejected when they see the reality that he can get none of his ridiculously lofty promises done, or before that as the Republicans pick him apart by bullying him with their socialist/USSR narrative (a skeleton, btw, that would derail candidates 10x as charismatic as Bernie in a general election) and we have to wait 20 or 30 years before we get a candidate who can adequately explain why those skeletons aren't negatives per say and get elected and actually pass legislation.
Nah too the bushes with Mike
The "SJW" jibe is infantile.
brainchild
Banned
No, charisma is completely subjective. In fact, if you planted Obama in countries/tribes with societal norms that were widely divergent from our own, Obama could end up with all of the charisma of a black hole. Cultural bias has a profound effect on our perception of concepts like attraction and charisma, which is why you'll see different trends and patterns depending on what general population you're looking at. Hell, it could even vary from state to state. But just like there isn't an objective standard for beauty, there isn't one for charisma.
Anyway, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not worried about Bernie in the general. I'm also not worried about Hillary in the general. I think they'd both do fine.
Charisma is not completely subjective, and you probably didn't realize your post supported that argument:
IF charisma was 100% subjective, then you would have no "societal norm" for which to reference charisma. If you're honest with yourself, you know that within American society, Obama is generally considered to be massively charismatic - it was why the "Obama is a celebrity" attack was so successful, once more - and why Republicans love to aim in on that "accomplishment" to set up better attacks. And Bernie is simply not considered that sort of charismatic within the "societal norms" of America.
Things don't exist in a vacuum, and we even have metrics that we can use to determine the type of charisma someone has - the type of person who can draw 90,000 people to see him accept the nomination, for example. We usually can measure something like someone's charismatic competence by the devotion they can actually draw with a general electorate.
So while you are correct charisma has subjectivity built in, if we did not have any reference points for what a person who we'd typically call charismatic was, it would be a useless term. Instead, it is a quite useful term to use when applied correctly.
Bernie's success is one of many signs that Democratic voters are done with so-called centrism. There is a grassroots effort that's been building for more progressivism, one that didn't start with Sanders, nor will it end with him. He just happens to be the candidate with an agenda that better resonates with them at this time. His overwhelming support from the under 45 crowd is a look into the future. It would be a mistake to brush this off as a one time thing, or to cynically link Bernie voters to the astroturfed Tea Party like Bill Clinton is doing.
You can't say he's wrong.Nah too the bushes with Mike
When you say #alllivesmatter, you're also not technically wrong.
Not trying to make a 1:1 comparison, just noting that context does matter.
EatinOlives
Member
Is it really innocuous when it reduces a person and their platform to a single gender-specific part of the anatomy?
I know the argument goes "but he's only saying vote on the record, not on whether she's a female", but said record supports her feminist angle. So we're not left with anything of substance.
Why are people trying to vilify Michael Render and defend corperatist Bill Clinton?
Do they need to see the quotes in context? Not surprising that Clinton's PAC strategist was the first one to tweet it out. What scum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXYBIEc9OTw
Michael basically echoed the same thing Jane Elliot said and which they both and everyone else should agree on. Having policy that is endemic of social justice is paramount for becoming President of the United States, and not your gender, race or whatever else it may be, which Hillary has brought up multiple times in the past to indicate how she would somehow be different than Obama, or anyone else running for President, even against being establishment.
And so the argument comes over semantics like "well he said uterus!" Give me a break.
And yet, when Gloria Steinem ACTUALLY attacks female Bernie Sanders supporters by saying they are only supporting him to get men, that's brushed aside and Hillary can say and i quote "oh golly, people are offended by everything these days! It seems like you can't say anything without anyone being offended!"
Do they need to see the quotes in context? Not surprising that Clinton's PAC strategist was the first one to tweet it out. What scum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXYBIEc9OTw
Michael basically echoed the same thing Jane Elliot said and which they both and everyone else should agree on. Having policy that is endemic of social justice is paramount for becoming President of the United States, and not your gender, race or whatever else it may be, which Hillary has brought up multiple times in the past to indicate how she would somehow be different than Obama, or anyone else running for President, even against being establishment.
And so the argument comes over semantics like "well he said uterus!" Give me a break.
And yet, when Gloria Steinem ACTUALLY attacks female Bernie Sanders supporters by saying they are only supporting him to get men, that's brushed aside and Hillary can say and i quote "oh golly, people are offended by everything these days! It seems like you can't say anything without anyone being offended!"
Are we already at the persecution complex phase of the debate?
excelsiorlef
Member
We've been there since day one.
Already? That was the norm.
Mike actually used the term in his speech - to describe himself.
That video needs to be in the OP.
He was quoting what anti-discrimination activist and feminist, Jane Elliott, told him personally.
He was quoting what anti-discrimination activist and feminist, Jane Elliott, told him personally.
Debate me, don't talk down to me, and that goes for all of you other posters who are the exact same ones in every Bernie Sanders or Hillary thread.
If you want to act like you or anyone else is being persecuted by statements Michael Render made that are factual, what i first suggest you do is actually come up with legitimate points, instead of becoming a circle jerk of the same few posters when people actually disagree with you.
Says who? Against Bernie? Supporters of him would say otherwise in regards to her feminist record. If we're actually going on record, he has probably done more to advance the equity and fair treatment of women in the senate than most congress people who have ever been there based on his voting record and stances on the issues.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Bernie_Sanders.htm
But of course those who don't know that Hillary was on the board of directors with WalMart and stayed silent at a time with their highest discrimination against colored and female workers was at an all time high probably would not know that.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...s-wal-mart-ties-breed-mistrust-amon/?page=all
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509
Battersea Power Station
Member
This is just instigation. If you're too tired to address the same fallacious argument for the thousandth time, don't respond at all.
biggersmaller
Banned
Agree with Killer Mike. Including the SJW jab. Continuing to feel that Bern.
Henchmen21
Banned
They also conveniently forget that Hillary went out of her way to victim blame & smear the women who were harassed or assaulted by Bill.
That as well. My point is not to disparage anybody...
My whole view stems from, if your going to talk on substance, know your shit number one and number two, don't be disingenuous and tie yourself into a pretzel even when you don't believe what your saying just to win an argument.
Its annoying because it doesn't even need that defense! Michael could have said it for himself instead of having Jane tell him that and it would have been the exact same truthful statement!
And Jane Elliot herself rebukes the insanity as well on her own terms. Its no different from Susan Sarandon saying "a vag doesn't automatically qualify you to be president" a few weeks ago herself, or anyone else.
Lets stick to debating policy instead of trying to become surrogate mouthpieces for political campaigns that are inherently disingenuous with the people.
If you want people to take your talking points seriously, you can probably start by not ending your argument with the latest panicked handwaving about how unfair everyone is to Sanders in comparison to Hillary.
We're talking about a world in which Hillary has received a comically disproportionate amount of the attacks from Republicans and Democratic rivals for three years straight now. And you're seriously going to want a rebuttal about how the latest nonsense about the unfair campaigns is just that?
EatinOlives
Member
Against Hillary, not Bernie.
biggersmaller
Banned
Wah. Trump easily brunts the most attacks (not that I care). Also, Sanders defended Clinton when it came to her most vulnerable and oft abused controversies: Benghazi.
Not to mention she isn't exactly laying off Bernie when it comes to scheming and attacking (which she shouldn't, because politics is kill-or-be-killed).
brainchild
Banned
I think we might be making different arguments, so I'm glad that you were able to articulate yourself to the point where I could see the distinction.
If by 'charismatic' you mean, 'the efficacy in exuding charisma', then sure, there can be an objective metric for that; you just look and see how many people have been affected by that charisma. I suspect this is the connotation that you're operating under. Similarly, you could make the same arguments about 'objective beauty'.
If by 'charismatic' you mean, 'possessing the quality of charisma', then no, it's 100% subjective because this has to do with actuality of the existence of charisma, which varies from observer to observer. This was the connotation I was operating under. Similarly, you could make the same arguments about 'subjective beauty'.
Now what's interesting is that even if we acknowledge that Obama is more charismatic, I'd have to say, that is only one factor in the many factors of persuasion, especially when talking about candidates running for president. As an example, in the exit polls for the New Hampshire primary (in which Bernie amassed more votes than anyone else in the history of NH primaries, including Obama, BTW) the most important factor for those who voted for Bernie was not his policies, or even that he'd make a great leader, but his perceived honesty/trustworthiness.
There are certain issues where the right person to talk about them, and truly inspire people to support their message, is not necessarily the most charismatic person, but the most sincere or trustworthy person. When that issue fundamentally has to deal with tackling distrustful relationships and a corrupt political system, the ideal person to spearhead that movement is someone who most people feel that they can trust.
There are a lot of people who have abstained from voting in the past because they felt like there were no good options since every candidate came across as an insincere candidate (despite some being charismatic) making promises that they have no intention on fulfilling. A lot of those same people have come out and said that they're voting for Bernie Sanders because they think that he really means what he says (even if ultimately he won't be able to achieve his goals).
If Bernie wins the nomination, it won't be because of his charisma, but because he was effective in delivering his message through some other means, like his perceived sincerity and trustworthiness.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Regardless of how many democrats- be in 2 or 20, Hillarys track record is anything but democratic, when viewed from a globalized democratic perspective. You're instigating this like, Hillary is off the hook. Unlike presidential candidates and views of blue warhawkish democrats, the fact is, that her record is out there, paved with blood, and that is what matters. Everything else is hypotehtical- particularly when you try to paint her as better than Kennedy, when he governed in a way more hostile era. Unlike the cold war, the war on terror is completely misguided, self serving and paved with lunacy.
I'm not trying to paint all of this on Hillary and Bill, but they certainly have been democratic. Particularly from the views of most democratic countries. Perhaps only the UK- Or England specifically share their strong conservative values. In some cases, Australia and NZ too.
Do I believe that Democrats are more liberal on a number of issues compared to where they have been before? I do, but I still don't think that says much. What is more, the democrats have failed to become more liberal at a pace as the democrats have gone more far- right ( http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...vious_democrats_haven_t_gone_as_far_left.html )
This is anecdotal, and cannot be applied as a guideline for every politician. Furthermore, flipflopping doesn't disclose what I said. There are many instances- not just in America, but all over the world where lawmakers don't follow through. That wasn't the point I was trying to make, and you cannot expect everyone to fall through with everything. The concept of flipflopping is that you flip on issues under the guise that it is popular and will get you elected, not that you're sincerer.
I never said, she wouldn't try to pass what she says she will. I said, her integrity is compromised due to her flipflopping, and that is something that comes up repeatedly with her.
Hillary couldn't come out for 15 USD minimum wage despite having been called on for many years by unions and labor and activists groups for the things that she has championed the most through her career- women and children. Not until summer of 2014 she came forward on that.
On issues like marijuana, she is even less consistent, taking a no-position, by adhering to keeping it illegal but in a lower class drug, which is awful. She is essentially partaking in the untrue war on drugs bullshit she has claimed to remove herself from, but still partaking on it in a less awful capacity, that might actually stilt it from becoming legal down the road.
Furthermore, it's issues like that has given her the label as an opportunist who tries to honk voters from both sides of the aisle, instead of taking a stand and then staying with it.
Nostalgia blinds and misunderstandings are a rift. Short term economic prosper and growth by the free markets in the 90s was due to irresponsible deregulation of wall street that didn't significally undid the shit Reagan pulled with his administration. You talk about how African Americans and Hispanics had wealth grow, but a more apt way to put it; would be how the massive disproportion of wealth continued. Which is also reflected by the mass incarnation exodus, who mostly consisted of poor people of color.
It might have started in the early 80s, but the seeds flourished by clintons administration. Too much growth, and too much corruption paved the way for Bush era.
It instigated a lot of the conditions that allowed the fraud of 08 to occur, and while not directly related Steagall-Glass, the moniker of Clintons "too big to fail" as evident by the disasterous NAFTA law ( http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA-at-20.pdf < http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/nafta-at-20-one-million-u_b_4550207.html )
What is more, you even have people who oversaw TARP under Geitner who originally were defending the Steall-Glass act, who admit that they need to reign in the banks; http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/02/federal-reserve-bank-president-need-break-big-banks.html
In total- Bill Clinton somehow being the pavement dubber of the best economy in decades is false. Short term economic gain, followed by instability and crashes is not good economy. Too aggressive economic policies lead to bubble bursts, and the economic crisis of 08 can easily be traced back to Clinton.
Do I think the 90s were horrible? Depends on where you live and who you were. Was it the last great time of the middle class? Yeah, I'd agree with that. And thew middle class back in the 90s was a sizeable chunk- a significant portion of which today are in poverty, or in some cases, extreme poverty. And as such I understand the sentiment. Furthermore, it's hard to make Clinton look back when you see the guy who was after him and how unqualified he was. It just makes him look terrific by comparison.
In fact just weeks after was sworn into office in early 2011, the economy began to sink again. There was no doubt that republicans who opposed the tax increase were in the wrong, but it is also wrong to ignore a lot of the factors going into the 90s prosperity and productivity which was not a product of Clinton, but of circumstances.
( http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/clinton-and-economic-growth-in-the-90s/ )
That's not to say that Clinton didn't do good, or that Bush Jr wasn't incompetent along with the democrats who went on the charade of starting wars, which many many people from across the political spectrum- from out the fringes candidates like Ron Paul, to Chomsky warned that the guerilla warfare that would come from trying to tame tribal socities would spark new waves of violence and misery.
From what I've seen, it is clear that people will pay more in taxes, on the middle class spectrum. I've understood it as, it is only with regards to the poor mobility compared to single player in Canada where they get more from less. ( http://www.nber.org/bah/fall07/w13429.html ) Partially due to big pharma. I've understood Bernies comments about that his health plan being cheaper has just as much as shutting down the expendure and make-up achievable on your drugs.
You're right that many other countries pay more. US GDP revenue from taxes is almost half of some countries. But you know what- the extreme tax deductibles of the rich would offset that. ( http://fortune.com/2016/02/17/bernie-sanders-taxes-2/ )
It's clear that middle class will pay more. Has Sanders camp not communicated that enough? Maybe not, but it's no secret.
America can pay for it. It is realistic. American is immensely wealth, and so much of it's wealth doesn't go back into the economy. It's a charade that it would be unrealistic policy. A lot of people are seriously not understanding of marginal taxes. (the 90% tax myth)
As I said, I don't know this economist, but I find it hard to believe that this person was the only liberal voice on TV(Joseph E. Stiglitz ( http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/12/bush200712 ), ralph nader( http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/01/03/country-you-destroyed-letter-george-w-bush ), Warren( http://www.wsj.com/articles/elizabeth-warren-takes-aim-at-democrats-republicans-1420642851 ), Sanders himself( Bernie schooling Alan Greenspan; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPh-qGcYruw ). Regardless, doing something good doesn't make you incapable of also doing bad shit. Things don't exist in a vacuum, and you can't use good deeds to vouch off conflict of interest. You insistently tried to argue the US Democratic party as being pure and uncompromised. I then explained to you, that Wall Street obviously had their fishhooks deep into the democratic process, the DNC, and both Clintons and Obamas administration.
So the idea that you would water down all the good fucking deeds about established fat cats as some hail-marry get out of jail card is outrageous.
Re-read what you just quoted: "And really, even if they did- what does being a majority have to do with being credible?
The democratic party in the united states is a proto center party that has been pushed to the right by a far-right republican party. Unlike most other places in the world, the US democratic values within the democratic party, are not very democratic party."
You're talking about elective process. That has NOTHING to do with the concept of being credible. You talked about the democratic party was credible in its numbers, and you back it up with how government officials are elected? Credibility in politics is having credible positions- as in, you have consistent track record, you're not compromised by corruption- Which America doesn't do too well in ( https://www.transparency.org/cpi2013/results )
Furthermore, explaining DNC undemocratic behavior by "thats where the votes are" bullshit, is the quintessential douchey compromised rhetoric and inconsistent lack of consistency that has made so many people lose faith in the democratic party. You don't change your political views because of popularity. That is the definition of an opportunist, and not a politician who you can actually belief in. Sure as hell fuck not, when you're running on shutting down wall street corruption and ends up doubling down, by putting high ranking people who were responsible into your administration to oversee Geitner. Or talking about protecting Americas freedom by taking campaign funds from Sunni funded terrorist monarchs.
Iraq, Iran (hillary!), Syria, Libya, Yemen all attest to a democratic funded invasive policies along with the drone program, and domestically with regards to patriot act, whistleblower, all is unprecedented policies from the democratic party compared to what we have seen before. Regardless of what the democratic party has moved left or right on, it's still not very liberal with the things that it has done.
And as such you really see Clinton personifying this. As you said, particularly on Economic issues (corporate interests);
Link; http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clin...g-differences-despite-claims-contrary-1640810
Interview; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76nfg
We're talking about democratic process, and being on the wrong side of history. The Iraq war is the biggest war crime of the 21th century. Unmotivated, unjustified, and not sanctioned by the UN, it has shaped up to be one of the most grotesque Imperialistic and justifiedable acts in the last 50 years, going back to the vietnam war.
The Iraq war faced major opposition and many polls- along with mass protests (all over the world) argued that the war unjustified. Particularly after the UN inspectors quit. Much like they had done in the mid 90s when the sactions against Iraq caused, what they called a genocide, killing more than half a million Iraqi Children. This was under Clinton ( http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/mar/04/weekend7.weekend9 ).
As to summing this poor rundown of events as the acts of "liberal internationalists" I have to really ponder at this. Like with Saddam, dealing with Gadaffi has NOTHING to do with the interest or well being of the people, and everything to do with US foreign policy interests.
As to letting Libya burn, that makes absolutely no sense, as America is the one who created so many of these problems with their invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. It completely destablized the regions, hitting it with a sledgehammer. Watch this noam chomsky video with a rundown of the events ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1XkceXiAms ) (and against why Libya was a unmotivated disaster; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V61NAS0Fi38 )
Listen; It is not up to the United States to police the world, or enact justice. Its direct military response, as propelled by the military industrial complex is an instigator over common sense or humane decency. Labeling this as a "liberal internationalists" is quite frankly, insulting.
No. It's caused by gridlock. As evident by many American leaders, even going back to the likes of Lincoln who argued that it was apparent that they stopped the two parties from stilting progress.
If you think Bernie Sanders is an extremest, then you're not educated on democratic policy around the rest of the world (and the UK- as you brought up the labour party before).
What is more, the United States has repeatedly, done the same atrocious acts of war and invasion. There are many parallels you can draw from the cold war eras shadow CIA destabilization of regions around the world, to the unjustified war on terror, who- let's be clear, is very much created by the US. By enabling a facist regime, like Netanyahus government, supporting and selling enmass arms (along with the UK) to SA, it has created a new era of sectarian conflict, and now also a whole new wave of xenophobia across the European continent.
This.
Barack Obama, back in September 1995, talking for just under an hour about his new book, "Dreams from My Father"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5JlqDnoqlo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5JlqDnoqlo
22-CityView presents Barack Obama speaking at the Cambridge Public Library. Recorded on September 20,1995, this originally aired on Channel 37 Cambridge Municipal Television as an episode of the show "The Author Series." In this episode Obama discusses his book "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance," which at the time had just been released a few months previously.
Absolutely brilliant footage. The part where he's talking about pussy starts @ 14:43.Michael F. Assbender
Banned
And it's important to remember Obama got the ACA through the Democrat-controlled Congress by the slimmest of margins. There is no way Sanders' plans are going anywhere in a Republican or Democratic Congress, unless literally every seat is blue.
Holy shit, that Sanders hyperbole is now just reaching insane levels. You may want to do some actual research before saying shit like this.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked