Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
I've seen people call him racist for not dropping out after he lost the south because to continue to run even after Blacks rejected him amounts to him not caring about the wishes of black people.Thanas wrote:Bullshit.The Romulan Republic wrote:Let's be honest- the moment he lost the black vote, he was going to be branded a racist for it whatever he did.
I know, I'm just fucking with you.The Romulan Republic wrote:Not at all. I get that you find it annoying, but honestly, its such an ingrained habit (not sure why, to be honest, as my spelling is decent in most other respects, typos/keyboard glitches notwithstanding), that unless I'm consciously thinking about it I'll probably do it without realizing it.
She reminds me of our dear old current Prime Minister Cameron. He's a chameleon, he will be whatever he needs to be to appeal to whatever demographic he happens to be targeting. He's good at it as well, and it appears Clinton has a similar gift. Sanders will not win, because he is inflexible - Clinton will twist into any shape to appease the masses.Raw Shark wrote:I know, I'm just fucking with you.The Romulan Republic wrote:Not at all. I get that you find it annoying, but honestly, its such an ingrained habit (not sure why, to be honest, as my spelling is decent in most other respects, typos/keyboard glitches notwithstanding), that unless I'm consciously thinking about it I'll probably do it without realizing it.
On-Topic, it really wouldn't surprise me to discover hard evidence that Clinton's own people are pouring their Wall Street money into pushing the racism / sexism meme themselves as a deliberate strategy, which would be some striking irony considering how racist her 2008 campaign was. She played dirty last time, she's playing dirty this time, and she'll play dirty every time. I'd love to see a woman in the White House, but I'd rather that she not be a crass opportunist beholden to corporate interests. The willingness to say anything necessary to secure a win is an insult to the voters. She thinks we're a bunch of gullible dupes, and in large part she's depressingly correct.
He and his supporters are also constantly being called sexist for having the temerity to not automatically support Clinton, much in the same way Clinton surrogates kept throwing sexism accusations at Obama's supporters back in 2008.Lord MJ wrote:I've seen people call him racist for not dropping out after he lost the south because to continue to run even after Blacks rejected him amounts to him not caring about the wishes of black people.
Candidate didn't say "we lost there". Candidate and staff tried to say "it didn't count" and "it wasn't important" and holy shit people pounced.Terralthra wrote:He "wrote off" a region by saying "we lost there, but at least there aren't any more states in that region left to vote"? Man, amazing how Sec. Clinton's campaign gets to dismiss states where she lost without getting tarnished by having "written those states off". Kinda like how election coverage is talking about how Sen. Sanders' campaign is being negative and how divisive that is and how much it hurts Sec. Clinton, but not a peep about her campaign's negativity and attack ads.
Oh, can you just fuck off with this stupid strawman, already? You've repeated it multiple times, but the article you posted doesn't even quote Bernie saying what you claim he did! He NEVER once said that the South didn't matter, didn't count, or wasn't important. If he did I expect you to actually provide an article that quotes him as directly saying that. His only fucking comments were that he lost there but those losses weren't necessarily indicative of his future success in other parts of the country, which you may recognize as a reasonable and evidence-backed viewpoint. So please stop cluttering this thread up with your bizarre screeching about fictional Bernie quotes, would you?Gaidin wrote: Candidate didn't say "we lost there". Candidate and staff tried to say "it didn't count" and "it wasn't important" and holy shit people pounced.
Yea and ever since the Deep South is voted Bernie fans in this thread have been jury-rigging their math by leaving them out of the picture to pretend that Bernie is doing a lot better than he really is so don't try to pretend it's really not systematic. They'd all just love to pretend that region isn't there or that it's not proportionally big enough to have the delegates he does. Because, you know, he might have a shot otherwise. Your complaints? Meaningless.Ziggy Stardust wrote:Oh, can you just fuck off with this stupid strawman, already? You've repeated it multiple times, but the article you posted doesn't even quote Bernie saying what you claim he did! He NEVER once said that the South didn't matter, didn't count, or wasn't important. If he did I expect you to actually provide an article that quotes him as directly saying that. His only fucking comments were that he lost there but those losses weren't necessarily indicative of his future success in other parts of the country, which you may recognize as a reasonable and evidence-backed viewpoint. So please stop cluttering this thread up with your bizarre screeching about fictional Bernie quotes, would you?Gaidin wrote: Candidate didn't say "we lost there". Candidate and staff tried to say "it didn't count" and "it wasn't important" and holy shit people pounced.
I'll concede whatever you want to interpret Bernie's statement as. One thing you're not going to be able to get anything back from is how the black communities are interpreting the statement because Clinton won 7 in 10 black voters and is back nearly to her Deep South numbers after that statement. They're interpreting something from it.The Romulan Republic wrote:So now we're goal-post shifting from "Bernie said it" to "some of his supporters said it" (still with no proof of either claim)?
Yeah, I'm going to echo Ziggy's "fuck off".
No, what he's said is that the deep south is a "pretty conservative part of the country", Transcript of interview but that's not the explanation of why he did poorly there, because although the southern states as a whole might be more conservative, Democratic primary voters in those states are not necessarily so.Ziggy Stardust wrote:Oh, can you just fuck off with this stupid strawman, already? You've repeated it multiple times, but the article you posted doesn't even quote Bernie saying what you claim he did! He NEVER once said that the South didn't matter, didn't count, or wasn't important. If he did I expect you to actually provide an article that quotes him as directly saying that. His only fucking comments were that he lost there but those losses weren't necessarily indicative of his future success in other parts of the country, which you may recognize as a reasonable and evidence-backed viewpoint. So please stop cluttering this thread up with your bizarre screeching about fictional Bernie quotes, would you?Gaidin wrote: Candidate didn't say "we lost there". Candidate and staff tried to say "it didn't count" and "it wasn't important" and holy shit people pounced.
I really enjoy well-written fiction. Unfortunately, what actually happened when Sen. Sanders was interrupted at a Seattle rally by BLM protestors is that he gave them the stage and the microphone and let them address the crowd uninterrupted. I guess that doesn't fit your desired narrative, though.Vendetta wrote:No, what he's said is that the deep south is a "pretty conservative part of the country", Transcript of interview but that's not the explanation of why he did poorly there, because although the southern states as a whole might be more conservative, Democratic primary voters in those states are not necessarily so.Ziggy Stardust wrote:Oh, can you just fuck off with this stupid strawman, already? You've repeated it multiple times, but the article you posted doesn't even quote Bernie saying what you claim he did! He NEVER once said that the South didn't matter, didn't count, or wasn't important. If he did I expect you to actually provide an article that quotes him as directly saying that. His only fucking comments were that he lost there but those losses weren't necessarily indicative of his future success in other parts of the country, which you may recognize as a reasonable and evidence-backed viewpoint. So please stop cluttering this thread up with your bizarre screeching about fictional Bernie quotes, would you?Gaidin wrote: Candidate didn't say "we lost there". Candidate and staff tried to say "it didn't count" and "it wasn't important" and holy shit people pounced.
He also said that the placement of southern states early in the Democratic race "distort reality" to make it appear that he was doing less well than he would overall, and whilst he said this in a different interview (Nightly Show, Jan 5th) he again cited the more liberal and progressive northwest as a place he expected to do better.
The sum of these interview statements is that Sanders has effectively said that southern Democratic voters aren't properly representative of the party. He might actually be saying it for reasons of ideology, believing that the south isn't open to his progressive Socialist message because it's the south, but it so happens that he's actually talking about, and de facto dismissing, a vast swathe of black Democrat voters.
This is at the heart of why Sanders' campaign has had trouble convincing black voters that he would act in their interest, because he's transparently not bothering to engage with their interests and assuming that his ideology will carry him through and they'll just see they were wrong in hindsight.
And you know what, he really had a chance. In Seattle when he was interrupted on stage by that Black Lives Matter protester, he could have gone off script right then and there and engaged with that person, and reassured a tenth of a nation that yes he actually was interested in the way the country affects their lives, instead of letting it develop into a shouting match.
Personally, I'd love for the first female president to be one whose foreign policy history to not strongly resemble Ronald Reagan's. Arms deals, toppling democratically elected governments, intervening with civil war in the Middle East and just making things worse... Unless Bernie miraculously pulls off a win, I'm almost definitely going for Jill Stein at this point. Unless all signs point to Utah being a swing state in November, I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who's already a fucking war criminal.Raw Shark wrote:I know, I'm just fucking with you.The Romulan Republic wrote:Not at all. I get that you find it annoying, but honestly, its such an ingrained habit (not sure why, to be honest, as my spelling is decent in most other respects, typos/keyboard glitches notwithstanding), that unless I'm consciously thinking about it I'll probably do it without realizing it.
On-Topic, it really wouldn't surprise me to discover hard evidence that Clinton's own people are pouring their Wall Street money into pushing the racism / sexism meme themselves as a deliberate strategy, which would be some striking irony considering how racist her 2008 campaign was. She played dirty last time, she's playing dirty this time, and she'll play dirty every time. I'd love to see a woman in the White House, but I'd rather that she not be a crass opportunist beholden to corporate interests. The willingness to say anything necessary to secure a win is an insult to the voters. She thinks we're a bunch of gullible dupes, and in large part she's depressingly correct.
People keep trying to frame it as Bernie's problem, that he can't connect to them, with the implication that Bernie is somehow hostile to black people and their interests. But maybe there's something more to it than that.Gaidin wrote:I'll concede whatever you want to interpret Bernie's statement as. One thing you're not going to be able to get anything back from is how the black communities are interpreting the statement because Clinton won 7 in 10 black voters and is back nearly to her Deep South numbers after that statement. They're interpreting something from it.The Romulan Republic wrote:So now we're goal-post shifting from "Bernie said it" to "some of his supporters said it" (still with no proof of either claim)?
Yeah, I'm going to echo Ziggy's "fuck off".
Now, since you've already falsely insinuated that I am racist in this thread, I want to be very clear that I am not saying all black people are anti-semitic, or that that's the only reason so many black voters favour Clinton over Sanders.According this article, ADL surveys show that “approximately 12 percent of Americans hold deeply entrenched anti-Semitic views.” However, over 30% of African Americans and Latinos hold such views. Given that they are almost 30% of the population, this suggests that of the 12% of Americans who hold deeply entrenched anti-Semitic views, 9% or so are African Americans or Latinos. This means, in turn, of the 70% or so of the population that is not African American or Latino, only 3% hold deeply entrenched anti-Semitic views. Put another way, less than 5% of whites, Asians, and “others” (including Native Americans) combined hold deeply entrenched anti-Semitic views, compared to over 30% of African Americans and Latinos–or at least that’s the difference in percentages of those willing to express anti-Semitic attitudes to pollsters. Regardless, it seems odd given these numbers that Jews seem especially concerned about mostly phantom anti-Semitism emanating from white evangelical Christians, while being less concerned about anti-Semitism in core Democratic constituencies. But, as Ilya pointed out a few years back, “many studies show that people tend to devalue or ignore any information that makes their political adversaries look good, while overvaluing anything that looks bad.”
The article adds: “[Retiring ADL President Abe] Foxman attributes the persistence of anti-Semitism among African-Americans to denial of the problem and a dearth of black leaders speaking out against anti-Semitism. Among Latinos, the attitudes are seen as a holdover from Latin America, where traditional Catholic anti-Semitism persists and anti-Semitic attitudes are higher than in America. Once they acculturate to the United States, Latino anti-Semitism declines: Among first-generation immigrants, about 40 percent hold anti-Semitic attitudes; among those born here, the number falls to 20 percent. ”
UPDATE: A reader points me to the most recent ADL survey, from 2013, which shows a lower rate of black (22%) and Latino (36% foreign-born, 14% native-born) anti-Semitism than the article states. The 2011 data comes closer to matching the author’s assertion, but the overall figure there was not 12% but 15% overall, and 29% (not over 30%) for African Americans and 42 and 20% for foreign and native-born Latinos, respectively. The rates for whites were 8% and 9% in 2013 and 2011. So I’m not sure if the author is looking at different data, or just got his facts wrong. Nevertheless, the basic point, that “entrenched anti-Semitic views” are far more common among African Americans and Latinos than among others, still holds.
No, there's an even more basic reason why Bernie doesn't connect well among Black voters, namely that he's never had to actively campaign for their votes. Vermont is among the whitest states in the nation, if not the whitest. Black voters make up an absolutely tiny share of the overall vote and is basically nothing relative to, say, Progressive Party voters who make up a much bigger share of Bernie's hometown political base. That doesn't make him racist per se; just clueless when it comes to campaigning among Black voters. He probably doesn't personally know the major Black political leaders, and he very obviously doesn't know how to campaign among Black voters. See his clumsy, though not particularly racist, comments on "ghettos" for instance. Bernie has apparently never been great at understanding racism in a modern political sense, and sounds a lot more like the old-line socialists (that he clearly is) on race than Obama-era liberals.The Romulan Republic wrote:People keep trying to frame it as Bernie's problem, that he can't connect to them, with the implication that Bernie is somehow hostile to black people and their interests. But maybe there's something more to it than that.Gaidin wrote:I'll concede whatever you want to interpret Bernie's statement as. One thing you're not going to be able to get anything back from is how the black communities are interpreting the statement because Clinton won 7 in 10 black voters and is back nearly to her Deep South numbers after that statement. They're interpreting something from it.The Romulan Republic wrote:So now we're goal-post shifting from "Bernie said it" to "some of his supporters said it" (still with no proof of either claim)?
Yeah, I'm going to echo Ziggy's "fuck off".
Every individual has their own reasons for how they vote, of course, and their are legitimate reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton, but if we're talking overall trends, here's one that I think doesn't get nearly enough attention because its not considered polite to bring up:
[...]
But their's a thing here that's not getting talked about much, which is that one of the demographics where Bernie has the least support is also one with a documented history of having a substantially higher rate of anti-semetism than the national average.
Make of that what you will.
1. That Bankrupcy Bill wasn't as cracked up as Sanders Supporters seem to think.Lord MJ wrote:Bernie missed an opportunity to finish Hillary off at the last debate and he dropped the ball.
When he was asked, name one time donor money has influenced Secretary Clinton. He didn't have an answer.
I would have said
1. Bankruptcy bill, she voted for it after receiving Wall St money when she previously opposed it. That bill benefitted big banks at the expense of the average consumer
2. She does not support brining back Glass Stegall after taking millions in campaign contributions and speaking fees from Wall St.
3. Wall St was sure able to get favorable terms in the bailout with Hillary's support.
4. I can't help but wonder whether Hillary's backtracking on single payer has anything to do with contributions from pharmaceutical industry
5. Lets not forget her support for Fracking.
6. Finally, the Clinton foundation recieving money from Saudi Arabia, and lo and behold Secretary Clinton approves an arms deal with Saudi Arabia. An arms deal that resulted in Saudi Arabia committing mass war crimes in Yemen. Killing thousands of men, women, and children. And what's worse. Saudis gave weapons to terrorists to support what amounts to ethic cleansing of Shiite muslims. YOU armed terrorists Secretary Clinton. You know what they call Saudi Arabia? ISIS that made it. You armed the equivalent of ISIS. Shame on You Hillary Clinton!
Why is it that every time we hear about you associated with money or donations, bad stuff happens? Please explain Secretary!
Despite the fact he would've violated the one sacred taboo of American politics, never criticize Saudi Arabia. I think that would've drove the point home. I doubt Hillary would have an effective counterattack right then and there at the debate. I'm sure her campaign would come up with something. But calling out Hillary for killing civilians and saying that the Saudis are ISIS that made it would certainly make the MSM take notice.
The sexist attacks will undoubtedly come saying "Well men have approved arms deals with Saudis too." The obvious response would be, "when it comes to ethnic cleansing, you lose your ability to pull the sexism card. How many people need to die because of Secretary Clinton's crack addiction with dirty money?"
We don't actually know what Bernie's demographics in those states look like since they don't have exit polling available (one of the many, many, many reasons why we should collectively ditch the caucus system). And AFAIK we don't even have exit polling information on Arab-Americans given how small they are relative to the rest of the electorate, nor does the Census specifically label them as such.Napoleon the Clown wrote:Hawaii is just so fucking white, right? As is Alaska.
It's either willfully ignorant or outright dishonest to say that Bernie's only supporters are white, and deceptive to say most of his supporters are white because, shockingly, most of every candidate's supporters are white because America is... get this... Mostly white!
But let's just ignore Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, a shockingly (or maybe not so shocking, considering Hill-dawg's actions as Sec of State) number of Arab Americans... Fuck, I've been paying more heed to what minority women have been saying on the two Democratic candidates that any other group because they're some of the most ignored people in the nation. Interesting to see the perspective differences, you know?
Basically calling her our for supporting terrorists would leave her dazed and confused. The second to last debate when Bernie was hitting her relentlessly Hillary was lost. It helped that that was one of the few debates that the moderators were at the top of their game and of high quality (except for trying to once again associate Bernie style socialism with Venezuelan style socialism which is really is something that I despise.)maraxus2 wrote: I bet that response sounded much more persuasive when you wrote it on /r/SandersforPresident, but if you want to persuade a wider audience you'll have to try a bit harder than that. And as for your last, and rather odd, personal attacks on Hillary (she's the one unprepared for a debate?), I'm not sure what to make of it.
