|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 17 2016 10:11 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2016 08:58 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 17 2016 08:23 Sermokala wrote:On May 17 2016 06:57 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 17 2016 05:17 Sermokala wrote:On May 17 2016 04:59 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 17 2016 04:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 17 2016 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
lets continue to hold hillary to a separate, higher bar shall we
i feel like people's opinions about the transcripts are almost a litmus test at this point. when they come out they'll be a rorschach test
i expect her to come out with the transcripts after the primary is over, though i dont particularly care. obama will probably be like "for crying out loud its the same stuff i say at commencements" if people try to make a fuss about it What separate higher bar? She and her supporters keep saying that, but can't point to what speeches others aren't releasing. The bar where Sanders doesn't need a plan, just a promise for change that will magically happen when the GOP majority magically leaves and manufacturing just magically comes back while 15 trillion in spending is okay while hilary's 10 trillion in spending makes her a corporate shill. The bar where Hilary uses normal nomenclature in a video for decades past is more anti-black than Bernie calling blacks violent psychopaths is simply "out of context." The bar where almost every single democratic ally in the house and senate already are supportive and wanting to help Hilary push forward her plans, but they are derided by you for not wanting to do what an old white guy says. The part where Hilary is 2-3 million votes ahead of Sanders but SHE is the one you accuse of being unlikable. The part where Bernie could not even tell people whether or not he could even break up big banks when asked directly, or (after hounding Hilary for it for months) eventually said he'd just do what hilary was saying she'd do and use Dodd Frank to make his big attack on the banks. The fact that he keeps not saying anything, only doing the things Hilary and Obama already are doing, all while telling people not to trust the DNC or Democrats in his attempt to ensure a republican house and senate. Bernie is dangerous to liberals--much more than Trump. Not because Trump has less dangerous goals--but Bernie is much more competent at actually following through with his dangerous plans than trump. 1. Politicians have always made promises without a concrete plan on how to do it. See Obama "hope and change" 2. "Super predator" isn't normal nomenclature at any point in history. People don't even use that for super sexual predators. 3. If it was just what an old white guys says the primary wouldn't be contested as it is. People wanting the progressive party to actually be progressive isn't just "wanting to do what an old white guy says" 4. She has terrible likability in polls of people. This isn't something that people are just accusing her of it has polling data to back it up. 5. See number 1. 6. This point of yours makes no sense and is a lie at the best of interpretation. 7. Bernie isn't dangerous to Liberals hes dangerous to conservative and moderate democrats that don't want to worry about their base and want them to just keep voteing them into office without moving the country anywhere. People said the same things about Obama being held to a different standard just because hes black.but instead its because shes a woman. The answer is no and yes. Sexists gets to disagree with her because shes sexist and hide behind shitty reasons and regular people get called sexist because they disagree with her on legitimate reasons. On May 17 2016 05:07 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Bernie Bonus: his supporters are thugs who try to use heckler's vetos to shut down delegate processes. Hillary won Nevada by 5% but they tried to bully their way into a Sanders "Win" in Nevada by shouting and yelling and refusing to abide by the voted results. We hear endless whining about how the system is Rigged and Corrupt, but these Berniebros certainly love trying to overturn Democratic processes via thuggery. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/15/chaos_at_nevada_democratic_convention_dnc_leaders_flee_building_as_sanders_supporters_demand_recount.html EDIT: the Nevada caucus results were 52.6% Hillary, 47.3% Bernie. No amount of yelling and intimidation should result in a Bernie "Win" when he lost at the voting level. what in the fuck is a "heckler's veto" its called people being dumb enough to use voice votes in a contested election. If you read anything about it you'd see how much of a farce Nevada was. The recount people motioned for was because they handed out petitions as people were coming in and in the lines to register which ment that delegates weren't voting on anything. You'd think a party calling itself the democratic party would have experience with holding a democratic process in their meetings. 1st Off When Obama said he would reach out to liberal republicans and conservative democrats because that's the middle ground that allows for compromises to made--that was a specific tool for change. When Obama said he would push healthcare reform--and then passed healthcare reform. That was a goal implemented using the plan he designed. When he said he was against the Iraq War but not against the Afghanistan War, that showed that he wasn't simply being anti-war or anti-foreign policy, but actually wanted to make decisions on a case by case basis. When he said he would cut taxes on the middle class, and did cut taxes on the middle class. Obama had a lot of big ideas. But he also had a lot of specific backend plans to help push those ideas. He had super delegate support, he had corporate money to fund both his and his allies, he had a goal of reaching out to specific voter bases that he actually followed through on. Hope and Change was just the meme. But his been spouting off the need for inclusive politics since the beginning with an emphasis not on saying the craziest things possible, but on looking for middle grounds between both sides and not just his. 2nd Off Non-Democrats telling democrats to stop being democrats is not "being progressive," ignoring global policies in an attempt to stop globailization is not "being progressive," being stuck with 60 year old policies instead of adapting policies to the current trends of the time is not "being progressive." And citing everyone that disagrees with you as being the enemy is simply the talents on non-liberals. When you have a group of people yelling at liberals for not doing it how they used to do it 60+ years ago, that's not being progressive that's being regressive. And telling me that polls dislike Hilary when 3million more people voted for her is just so out of touch it makes sense why you'd be a sandernista. Lol at half your post. The "2nd off" is purely devoid of sense. You show no understanding on how tent building or likability polls work. Healthcare was a power play to ensure democratic supremacy for a generation while they had a super majority to do it. Obama's campaign was based on change that turned to pragmatism once he finaly got into office. What progressive things has obama done in office or has campaigned for? It isn't controversial to say the party took a right turn with bill clinton and continued it with the moderates of Obama and hillary. And I'm not a sandernista. I'm a confirmed conservative. But good job generalizing anyone who doesn't agree with you with your enemy. Which by your standards makes you not a liberal so welcome to the republican party buddy. Before Obama was even a blip on the radar he showed up to my town and talked to us about reaching across the aisle for pragmatic middle ground solutions. Even when he got more and more popularity he continually cried out that it wasn't about red states or blue states. When he got into office he would present plans that were combinations of conservative and liberal ideals, much like the ACA using Romney's own state healthcare plan as its starting structure. He was very much for the pulling of troops out of Iraq as direct attack on the Bush directive, but was also for increasing presence in Afghanistan in direct accordance with the Bush directive. And while under his watch we have seen "Don't Ask Don't Tell", Gay Marriage, and almost two Supreme Court Nominees, and the Amnesty Act he decreed be executive order--all this and more has move the company left. We also have a more explicated Patriot Act policy that is an expansion from the Bush years. All things he promised since before the first debate, all things he followed through on. The stuff he promised to the crowd I was in in 2007 was exactly what he delivered in 2008 and 2012. He was pragmatic from day 1, he was moderate from day 1, and it was that moderation that allowed him to pull the country leftward in respect to how right it had become in the Bush years. And all of this proves my point. The fact that you state that he decided to increase troops in iraq and not increase troops in Afghanistan apparently didn't happen to you but that okay. but that you decide to point to two supreme court cases and an executive order (that you for some reason call an amnesty act despite not having anything to do with amnesty but a lack of enforcement of laws on the books) is the best you can come up with to go alongside his one great legislative victory in repealing DADT? And how did this get about Obama your suppose to be defending Hillary. What good things did she do during the obama administration?
You're the one who accused Obama of going on back on his word, excuse me for pointing out that he didn't. These are not the best I can come up, these are literally just the surface level stuff of what he has done, things anyone with a pulse hears about even if the actively try to disengage from politics. His accomplishments run a lot deeper than that.
The reason its brought up a lot, is because when someone like Sanders or Trump or the Tea Party start saying that the establishment is not working--that establishment is Obama. That establishment is the derivatives change he made in 08 that allowed my friend's mother to keep her house or be homeless that year. That establishment is the ACA finally allowing preexisting conditions to be ignored allowing a different friend's father to get healthcare for the first time in his life (he runs his own handyman business), that establishment is what has allowed gay marriage to become a reality, its the establishment that gave amnesty to immigrants, its the establishment that is beginning talks with Iran, its the establishment that has recovered us from the Bush administration, its the establishment that has given us one of the longest job growth streak in history.
So when people like Bernie tell me that he's against the establishment--he's telling me he is against job growth, that he is against immigrants, that he is against protecting people about to lose their homes, people who finally got healthcare they would have never gotten without the establishment's help. And when he tells us that his plan will be 50% more expensive than Hilary's, that his plan attempts to ignore globalization, that his plan is to ignore dark skinned non-christians to suffer genocide, that his plan is to backstab our biggest ally in the middle east and tell Israel that after decades of being bombed that the right thing to do is tell their enemies that suicide bombings are an effective at negotiating with the west. When Bernie says those things--I cannot help but be more than a little peeved.
And when someone else shows up, telling me that there were things we did in the past eight years that worked, and things that didn't, and that the best plan of action is to take the things that worked and expand it, and to take the things that didn't work, and to phase it out. You can't help but be enamored by the one person who wants to do something about genocide, who wants to learn from past mistakes, who is willing to negotiate their stance as new information arises, who is willing to change her platform if the people need more from her, but who still has a few things she's willing to fight for even without public support. You can't help but be enamored by the person who is both accused of being too good at politics, and at the same time too willing to match the will of the people. That you finally have a bulldog willing to fight for what *we* want instead of what she thinks we want who has the reputation to be very good at fighting for it.
|
On May 18 2016 01:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 00:56 kwizach wrote:On May 18 2016 00:55 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2016 00:53 Reaper9 wrote:
Hrm I better not try poking that link again Mohdoo, Google gave me a warning when I tried lol. My apologies. Didn't look that way to me. It might be that the page contains links to weird conspiracy shit. Remove the www. and the link'll work fine. o.0 Not familiar with what difference that makes other than making it unclickable. However, done per your recommendation. Thanks!
Not sure either, however I was getting the same error as Reaper9 with the www., and it worked fine when I removed them 
|
On May 18 2016 00:55 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2016 23:03 Mohdoo wrote:On May 17 2016 22:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Nearly 60 years after the landmark US supreme court ruling that ordered schools to integrate, the classrooms of Cleveland, Mississippi, are still divided by race.
A federal court ordered the Cleveland school district to consolidate its schools entirely on Friday, ruling that after so many decades of resistance, only dismantling and reforming the schools could bring the town’s two sides together.
In a 96-page opinion, the US district court for the northern district of Mississippi wrote: “The delay in desegregation has deprived generations of students of the constitutionally guaranteed right of an integrated education. Although no court order can right these wrongs, it is the duty of the District to ensure that not one more student suffers under this burden.”
To say the town has two sides is no exaggeration; the population of 12,000 is split east and west by the old Illinois railroad tracks. Residents on the east side are black, and attend East Side high school. On the west, white children attend Cleveland high.
The school district had come up with two plans of its own to mix the students, but US judge Debra Brown rejected them as unconstitutional.
“Six decades after the supreme court in Brown v Board of Education declared that ‘separate but equal has no place’ in public schools, this decision serves as a reminder to districts that delaying desegregation obligations is both unacceptable and unconstitutional,” said Vanita Gupta, head of the US justice department’s civil rights division. “This victory creates new opportunities for the children of Cleveland to learn, play and thrive together. The court’s ruling will result in the immediate and effective desegregation of the district’s middle school and high school program for the first time in the district’s more than century-long history.”
In recent years across the country there has been an effort to stop “re-segregation”: in the generations since the supreme court’s Brown vs Board of Education ruling, the white people in many towns have slowly sifted out of integrated schools by moving into certain neighborhoods.
But that’s the not the case in Cleveland according to Wendy Scott, dean of Mississippi College School of Law and an expert in school desegregation. “There are only a handful of cases like that,” she told the Atlantic magazine last February.
Cleveland sits in Bolivar County at the center of the Mississippi Delta, a torpid and poverty-stricken portion of the state that hasn’t known widespread prosperity since slaves hauled cotton on plantations. Source "There's no difference between the two parties" What a sad, sad reality. This is why you need a federal government: To stomp shit like this out of existence. Rural communities can sometimes end up so isolated that it's as if they aren't a part of society. I dont see specifics in what they did in the school district here. Can students go to either school regardless of where they live or do they have to have a specific address? if they have to live in the area assigned to their school and people happen to live in that area how is that the districts issue? it sounds like there could be zoning issues going on or something. what this article describes happens all over the country with inner city schools that are 95% black and the suburbs are 90% white or affluent. there needs to be more detail befors we start jumping on the bandwagon that something sinister is going on here. it could be all economic
No, they cannot and the court ruled that the intent of the divided school districts was to keep poor black kids out of the affluent white schools. This went up to the federal appeals court, so a lot of evidence was involved and resulted in a 96 page ruling. The court ruled it was segregation without using the word, which is the topic secret plan of racism in the modern era. Don’t call it segregation or racism, even though that is totally the plan.
Just like the voter ID law as featured in a previous article has nothing to do with protecting the voting process.
|
On May 18 2016 01:07 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I mean, why can't Hilary just have Sanders as VP, and both work at it together? I support both nominees for the democratic race, so which ever comes out first has my vote.
I rather have people out vote the republican side than have the party split at this point.
Making absolutely no effort in stopping his delegates and supporters from making death threats and causing disruptions, in fact actually encouraging such disgraceful behavior.
No idea of policy or its implementation, is proud of being a "socialist" and praised bread lines (Venezuela doesn't even have fucking bread in their bread lines anymore, that's how terrible the situation is).
Disregards the rules set up by the DNC, accepted excess donations from foreigners not even living in the United States nor born there.
Infighting and destroying their own supporters now at this stage, supporters accuse their own ardent supporters of Bernie who ask for calm as traitors and $hills (ugh they actually spell the word like that)
|
On May 18 2016 00:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2016 23:43 Mohdoo wrote:On May 17 2016 23:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:I don't care if he formally says "I take responsibility for their actions" as long as he says something to the effect of "I discourage any and all of my supporters from acting in this way." In fact the latter is more important in my opinion, especially given his past statements. On May 17 2016 23:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Donald Trump likes to say he has created a political movement that has drawn “millions and millions” of new voters into the Republican Party. “It’s the biggest thing happening in politics,” Trump has said. “All over the world, they’re talking about it,” he's bragged.
But a Politico analysis of the early 2016 voting data show that, so far, it’s just not true.
While Trump’s insurgent candidacy has spurred record-setting Republican primary turnout in state after state, the early statistics show that the vast majority of those voters aren’t actually new to voting or to the Republican Party, but rather they are reliable past voters in general elections. They are only casting ballots in a Republican primary for the first time.
It is a distinction with profound consequences for the fall campaign.
If Trump isn’t bringing the promised wave of new voters into the GOP, it’s far less likely the Manhattan businessman can transform a 2016 Electoral College map that begins tilted against the Republican Party. And whether Trump’s voters are truly new is a question of urgent interest both to GOP operatives and Hillary Clinton and her allies, who have dispatched their top analytics experts to find the answer.
“All he seems to have done is bring new people into the primary process, not bring new people into the general-election process … It’s exciting that these new people that are engaged in the primary but those people are people that are already going to vote Republican in the [fall],” said Alex Lundry, who served as director of data science for Mitt Romney in 2012, when presented Politico’s findings. “It confirms what my suspicion has been all along.”
For this analysis, Politico obtained voting statistics from GOP officials and independent analysts in the handful of states that have so far released such information. To varying extents, the findings rebut both of Trump’s central claims: that he has brought in waves of new voters and that he has attracted flocks of Democrats. Among the highlights:
In Iowa, the Republican caucus turnout smashed its past record by 50 percent this year, jumping from 121,000 to nearly 187,000. But, according to figures provided by the state party, 95 percent of the 2016 caucusgoers had previously voted in at least one of the past four presidential elections—and almost 80 percent had voted in at least three of the past four.
The new caucusgoers, in other words, are likely to vote in November anyway. Source Someday the "exit polls show self-identified independents voted for me in the primary therefore I'm attracting new and moderate voters" narrative will be thoroughly stomped out as the nonsense it is. I have a feeling it won't be this season, though. It's interesting how this election has shown the absolutely batshit crazy independents more than the moderate ones. People always assume independent means socially liberal and fiscally conservative or something like that. Turns out a lot of them are just so far right or so far left that they can't even feel at home in the left/right parties o.0 You should also take this as a product of the modern internet and prevalence of media sharing. It vastly increases the volume of the extreme ends of the spectrum.
The moderate independent was mostly a unicorn anyways
|
On May 17 2016 18:46 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2016 14:43 Nyxisto wrote:
I think environmental racism refers to dumping waste and toxins and such in low income immigrant communities which seems like a pretty reasonable concern tbh But what does that have to do with race? Shit is being dumped there because they're poor and disinfranchised, not because they're of race X. We didn't wait mass immigration to consider that poor people's health was worth less than the rich's.
Reminds me of the Atwater quote:
You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
This is the actual dangerous form of racism. Racism isn't actually a crazy guy in a Klansmen costume, it's these kind of systemic inequalities that are concentrated around sticking it to groups through economic and social means etc..
|
|
|
United States19573 Posts
So I'm gonna have to be that guy.
Bernie Sanders is huge on college campuses—or yuuuuge, as he likes to say—but the small private school in Vermont that his wife, Jane, ran for seven years announced yesterday that it will shutter because of “the crushing weight” of debt incurred under her leadership.
Burlington College said its financial troubles are connected to Mrs. Sanders’s 2010 purchase of 32 acres of lakefront property, part of a botched expansion plan. The college was placed on academic probation in 2014 by its accrediting agency and it faced cash flow problems due to the imminent loss of a line of credit, The Post’s Nick Anderson reports. To survive, the school has tried to sell land but it was not enough to remain solvent.
Jane Sanders was president from 2004 until 2011, when she stepped down amid an apparent dispute with the college’s board. She left with a $200,000 severance package.
www.washingtonpost.com
|
On May 18 2016 01:20 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2016 10:11 Sermokala wrote:On May 17 2016 08:58 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 17 2016 08:23 Sermokala wrote:On May 17 2016 06:57 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 17 2016 05:17 Sermokala wrote:On May 17 2016 04:59 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 17 2016 04:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 17 2016 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
lets continue to hold hillary to a separate, higher bar shall we
i feel like people's opinions about the transcripts are almost a litmus test at this point. when they come out they'll be a rorschach test
i expect her to come out with the transcripts after the primary is over, though i dont particularly care. obama will probably be like "for crying out loud its the same stuff i say at commencements" if people try to make a fuss about it What separate higher bar? She and her supporters keep saying that, but can't point to what speeches others aren't releasing. The bar where Sanders doesn't need a plan, just a promise for change that will magically happen when the GOP majority magically leaves and manufacturing just magically comes back while 15 trillion in spending is okay while hilary's 10 trillion in spending makes her a corporate shill. The bar where Hilary uses normal nomenclature in a video for decades past is more anti-black than Bernie calling blacks violent psychopaths is simply "out of context." The bar where almost every single democratic ally in the house and senate already are supportive and wanting to help Hilary push forward her plans, but they are derided by you for not wanting to do what an old white guy says. The part where Hilary is 2-3 million votes ahead of Sanders but SHE is the one you accuse of being unlikable. The part where Bernie could not even tell people whether or not he could even break up big banks when asked directly, or (after hounding Hilary for it for months) eventually said he'd just do what hilary was saying she'd do and use Dodd Frank to make his big attack on the banks. The fact that he keeps not saying anything, only doing the things Hilary and Obama already are doing, all while telling people not to trust the DNC or Democrats in his attempt to ensure a republican house and senate. Bernie is dangerous to liberals--much more than Trump. Not because Trump has less dangerous goals--but Bernie is much more competent at actually following through with his dangerous plans than trump. 1. Politicians have always made promises without a concrete plan on how to do it. See Obama "hope and change" 2. "Super predator" isn't normal nomenclature at any point in history. People don't even use that for super sexual predators. 3. If it was just what an old white guys says the primary wouldn't be contested as it is. People wanting the progressive party to actually be progressive isn't just "wanting to do what an old white guy says" 4. She has terrible likability in polls of people. This isn't something that people are just accusing her of it has polling data to back it up. 5. See number 1. 6. This point of yours makes no sense and is a lie at the best of interpretation. 7. Bernie isn't dangerous to Liberals hes dangerous to conservative and moderate democrats that don't want to worry about their base and want them to just keep voteing them into office without moving the country anywhere. People said the same things about Obama being held to a different standard just because hes black.but instead its because shes a woman. The answer is no and yes. Sexists gets to disagree with her because shes sexist and hide behind shitty reasons and regular people get called sexist because they disagree with her on legitimate reasons. On May 17 2016 05:07 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Bernie Bonus: his supporters are thugs who try to use heckler's vetos to shut down delegate processes. Hillary won Nevada by 5% but they tried to bully their way into a Sanders "Win" in Nevada by shouting and yelling and refusing to abide by the voted results. We hear endless whining about how the system is Rigged and Corrupt, but these Berniebros certainly love trying to overturn Democratic processes via thuggery. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/15/chaos_at_nevada_democratic_convention_dnc_leaders_flee_building_as_sanders_supporters_demand_recount.html EDIT: the Nevada caucus results were 52.6% Hillary, 47.3% Bernie. No amount of yelling and intimidation should result in a Bernie "Win" when he lost at the voting level. what in the fuck is a "heckler's veto" its called people being dumb enough to use voice votes in a contested election. If you read anything about it you'd see how much of a farce Nevada was. The recount people motioned for was because they handed out petitions as people were coming in and in the lines to register which ment that delegates weren't voting on anything. You'd think a party calling itself the democratic party would have experience with holding a democratic process in their meetings. 1st Off When Obama said he would reach out to liberal republicans and conservative democrats because that's the middle ground that allows for compromises to made--that was a specific tool for change. When Obama said he would push healthcare reform--and then passed healthcare reform. That was a goal implemented using the plan he designed. When he said he was against the Iraq War but not against the Afghanistan War, that showed that he wasn't simply being anti-war or anti-foreign policy, but actually wanted to make decisions on a case by case basis. When he said he would cut taxes on the middle class, and did cut taxes on the middle class. Obama had a lot of big ideas. But he also had a lot of specific backend plans to help push those ideas. He had super delegate support, he had corporate money to fund both his and his allies, he had a goal of reaching out to specific voter bases that he actually followed through on. Hope and Change was just the meme. But his been spouting off the need for inclusive politics since the beginning with an emphasis not on saying the craziest things possible, but on looking for middle grounds between both sides and not just his. 2nd Off Non-Democrats telling democrats to stop being democrats is not "being progressive," ignoring global policies in an attempt to stop globailization is not "being progressive," being stuck with 60 year old policies instead of adapting policies to the current trends of the time is not "being progressive." And citing everyone that disagrees with you as being the enemy is simply the talents on non-liberals. When you have a group of people yelling at liberals for not doing it how they used to do it 60+ years ago, that's not being progressive that's being regressive. And telling me that polls dislike Hilary when 3million more people voted for her is just so out of touch it makes sense why you'd be a sandernista. Lol at half your post. The "2nd off" is purely devoid of sense. You show no understanding on how tent building or likability polls work. Healthcare was a power play to ensure democratic supremacy for a generation while they had a super majority to do it. Obama's campaign was based on change that turned to pragmatism once he finaly got into office. What progressive things has obama done in office or has campaigned for? It isn't controversial to say the party took a right turn with bill clinton and continued it with the moderates of Obama and hillary. And I'm not a sandernista. I'm a confirmed conservative. But good job generalizing anyone who doesn't agree with you with your enemy. Which by your standards makes you not a liberal so welcome to the republican party buddy. Before Obama was even a blip on the radar he showed up to my town and talked to us about reaching across the aisle for pragmatic middle ground solutions. Even when he got more and more popularity he continually cried out that it wasn't about red states or blue states. When he got into office he would present plans that were combinations of conservative and liberal ideals, much like the ACA using Romney's own state healthcare plan as its starting structure. He was very much for the pulling of troops out of Iraq as direct attack on the Bush directive, but was also for increasing presence in Afghanistan in direct accordance with the Bush directive. And while under his watch we have seen "Don't Ask Don't Tell", Gay Marriage, and almost two Supreme Court Nominees, and the Amnesty Act he decreed be executive order--all this and more has move the company left. We also have a more explicated Patriot Act policy that is an expansion from the Bush years. All things he promised since before the first debate, all things he followed through on. The stuff he promised to the crowd I was in in 2007 was exactly what he delivered in 2008 and 2012. He was pragmatic from day 1, he was moderate from day 1, and it was that moderation that allowed him to pull the country leftward in respect to how right it had become in the Bush years. And all of this proves my point. The fact that you state that he decided to increase troops in iraq and not increase troops in Afghanistan apparently didn't happen to you but that okay. but that you decide to point to two supreme court cases and an executive order (that you for some reason call an amnesty act despite not having anything to do with amnesty but a lack of enforcement of laws on the books) is the best you can come up with to go alongside his one great legislative victory in repealing DADT? And how did this get about Obama your suppose to be defending Hillary. What good things did she do during the obama administration? You're the one who accused Obama of going on back on his word, excuse me for pointing out that he didn't. These are not the best I can come up, these are literally just the surface level stuff of what he has done, things anyone with a pulse hears about even if the actively try to disengage from politics. His accomplishments run a lot deeper than that. The reason its brought up a lot, is because when someone like Sanders or Trump or the Tea Party start saying that the establishment is not working--that establishment is Obama. That establishment is the derivatives change he made in 08 that allowed my friend's mother to keep her house or be homeless that year. That establishment is the ACA finally allowing preexisting conditions to be ignored allowing a different friend's father to get healthcare for the first time in his life (he runs his own handyman business), that establishment is what has allowed gay marriage to become a reality, its the establishment that gave amnesty to immigrants, its the establishment that is beginning talks with Iran, its the establishment that has recovered us from the Bush administration, its the establishment that has given us one of the longest job growth streak in history. So when people like Bernie tell me that he's against the establishment--he's telling me he is against job growth, that he is against immigrants, that he is against protecting people about to lose their homes, people who finally got healthcare they would have never gotten without the establishment's help. And when he tells us that his plan will be 50% more expensive than Hilary's, that his plan attempts to ignore globalization, that his plan is to ignore dark skinned non-christians to suffer genocide, that his plan is to backstab our biggest ally in the middle east and tell Israel that after decades of being bombed that the right thing to do is tell their enemies that suicide bombings are an effective at negotiating with the west. When Bernie says those things--I cannot help but be more than a little peeved. And when someone else shows up, telling me that there were things we did in the past eight years that worked, and things that didn't, and that the best plan of action is to take the things that worked and expand it, and to take the things that didn't work, and to phase it out. You can't help but be enamored by the one person who wants to do something about genocide, who wants to learn from past mistakes, who is willing to negotiate their stance as new information arises, who is willing to change her platform if the people need more from her, but who still has a few things she's willing to fight for even without public support. You can't help but be enamored by the person who is both accused of being too good at politics, and at the same time too willing to match the will of the people. That you finally have a bulldog willing to fight for what *we* want instead of what she thinks we want who has the reputation to be very good at fighting for it.
There are so many things wrong with your post I can't even begin literally. I can't even get a read on your politically. Obama is over now and everyones looking forward to and talking about the election to devide his replacement.
+ Show Spoiler +, that his plan is to ignore dark skinned non-christians to suffer genocide, that his plan is to backstab our biggest ally in the middle east and tell Israel that after decades of being bombed that the right thing to do is tell their enemies that suicide bombings are an effective at negotiating with the west. When Bernie says those things--I cannot help but be more than a little peeved.
I don't even know where to begin with this. Do I start with how obama is pissing off the Saudis? Or the part with with isreal or ISIS? The Right in america is Isreals staunchest supporters for whatever and the left is the one trying to keep them on a leash. Do you not care about the human rights abuses in the gaza strip and west bank? What about Obama's handling of the syrian civil war leading to ISIS's invasion of western Iraq? How the ACA was a stripped down version of what it could have been beacuse the democrats couldn't work with even the conservative elements of its own party? Immigrants didn't get Amnesty I have no idea where you get this. Obama is hardly a guy to credit on gay marriage with his "evolution" on the issue. The Iran nuclear talks started back in 2006 with Bush.
I don't even know who you are talking about with that last paragraph, I think you're trying to go for Hillary but just no at the very least no one says that Hillary is "too good at politics".
|
On May 18 2016 02:29 cLutZ wrote:So I'm gonna have to be that guy. Show nested quote +
Bernie Sanders is huge on college campuses—or yuuuuge, as he likes to say—but the small private school in Vermont that his wife, Jane, ran for seven years announced yesterday that it will shutter because of “the crushing weight” of debt incurred under her leadership.
Burlington College said its financial troubles are connected to Mrs. Sanders’s 2010 purchase of 32 acres of lakefront property, part of a botched expansion plan. The college was placed on academic probation in 2014 by its accrediting agency and it faced cash flow problems due to the imminent loss of a line of credit, The Post’s Nick Anderson reports. To survive, the school has tried to sell land but it was not enough to remain solvent.
Jane Sanders was president from 2004 until 2011, when she stepped down amid an apparent dispute with the college’s board. She left with a $200,000 severance package.
www.washingtonpost.com
I think it was previously posted previously, but no one commented. Non-profit schools expanding by buying lake front property does not sound like a good plan. But hey, $200,000 severance is pretty good for sinking a 40 year old institution.
|
To be frank, this nation desperately needs schools like Burlington College to close, regardless of who leads them.
There are too many goddamn schools and not enough people getting educated.
|
On May 18 2016 02:09 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2016 18:46 OtherWorld wrote:On May 17 2016 14:43 Nyxisto wrote:
I think environmental racism refers to dumping waste and toxins and such in low income immigrant communities which seems like a pretty reasonable concern tbh But what does that have to do with race? Shit is being dumped there because they're poor and disinfranchised, not because they're of race X. We didn't wait mass immigration to consider that poor people's health was worth less than the rich's. Reminds me of the Atwater quote: Show nested quote + You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.” This is the actual dangerous form of racism. Racism isn't actually a crazy guy in a Klansmen costume, it's these kind of systemic inequalities that are concentrated around sticking it to groups through economic and social means etc..
I'm not saying that things like dumping shit on poor populations don't affect minorities more, because that's true. I'm saying that the reason we're dumping shit on poor populations is not the fact that they're minorities, it's the fact that they're poor. You seem to define racism as "racism by result", which is basically saying that any policy or discourse which as a byproduct seems to discriminate a race more than another is racist ; I'd argue that racism should be defined by its intent. For example, Clinton's crime bill was (I assume) not meant to heighten incarceration rates for Black people, yet as a result it did. Was Clinton's bill racist? I think we can agree that the answer is obviously no. Did it have a discriminatory effect? Sure.
|
United States19573 Posts
On May 18 2016 02:37 farvacola wrote:
To be frank, this nation desperately needs schools like Burlington College to close, regardless of who leads them.
There are too many goddamn schools and not enough people getting educated.
What is amazing is that you are able to sink the finances of a college given that the Federal government gives out loans, that you don't even have to back, for nearly 100% of the cost of your product.
|
On May 18 2016 02:39 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 02:09 Nyxisto wrote:On May 17 2016 18:46 OtherWorld wrote:On May 17 2016 14:43 Nyxisto wrote:
I think environmental racism refers to dumping waste and toxins and such in low income immigrant communities which seems like a pretty reasonable concern tbh But what does that have to do with race? Shit is being dumped there because they're poor and disinfranchised, not because they're of race X. We didn't wait mass immigration to consider that poor people's health was worth less than the rich's. Reminds me of the Atwater quote: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.” This is the actual dangerous form of racism. Racism isn't actually a crazy guy in a Klansmen costume, it's these kind of systemic inequalities that are concentrated around sticking it to groups through economic and social means etc.. I'm not saying that things like dumping shit on poor populations don't affect minorities more, because that's true. I'm saying that the reason we're dumping shit on poor populations is not the fact that they're minorities, it's the fact that they're poor. You seem to define racism as "racism by result", which is basically saying that any policy or discourse which as a byproduct seems to discriminate a race more than another is racist ; I'd argue that racism should be defined by its intent. For example, Clinton's crime bill was (I assume) not meant to heighten incarceration rates for Black people, yet as a result it did. Was Clinton's bill racist? I think we can agree that the answer is obviously no. Did it have a discriminatory effect? Sure.
No I think it's exactly right to define Bill Clinton's crime bill is a racist. Some nutjob talking about race theory like it's the 1930's might be racist by intent but it's irrelevant.It's defining the problem away because the racism that is actually dangerous is the one that utilizes the market or the justice system to fuck up millions of people. And it really isn't an accident that these justice reforms hit minorities disproportionality, because minorities aren't in power and the people in power like to stay there. It's the same argument with gender equality in high paying jobs. It's no accident that men in leadership positions keep recruiting men.
|
On May 18 2016 02:39 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 02:09 Nyxisto wrote:On May 17 2016 18:46 OtherWorld wrote:On May 17 2016 14:43 Nyxisto wrote:
I think environmental racism refers to dumping waste and toxins and such in low income immigrant communities which seems like a pretty reasonable concern tbh But what does that have to do with race? Shit is being dumped there because they're poor and disinfranchised, not because they're of race X. We didn't wait mass immigration to consider that poor people's health was worth less than the rich's. Reminds me of the Atwater quote: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.” This is the actual dangerous form of racism. Racism isn't actually a crazy guy in a Klansmen costume, it's these kind of systemic inequalities that are concentrated around sticking it to groups through economic and social means etc.. I'm not saying that things like dumping shit on poor populations don't affect minorities more, because that's true. I'm saying that the reason we're dumping shit on poor populations is not the fact that they're minorities, it's the fact that they're poor. You seem to define racism as "racism by result", which is basically saying that any policy or discourse which as a byproduct seems to discriminate a race more than another is racist ; I'd argue that racism should be defined by its intent. For example, Clinton's crime bill was (I assume) not meant to heighten incarceration rates for Black people, yet as a result it did. Was Clinton's bill racist? I think we can agree that the answer is obviously no. Did it have a discriminatory effect? Sure.
Systematic racism is not defined by intent. By its nature, it can be unconscious or simply systematic. The Trevor Noah discussed in an interview with NPR and that they were not receiving auditions from black comedians. And the reason was that the show worked through agents and most black comedians can’t get agents. That is the system being biased against blacks simply because no one asked “Why do we not receive black auditions? We should be receiving more.” No one is at fault there, unless someone was completely in denial that there might be a flaw in the system causing them to not receive auditions from black comedians.
And we are all racist. We make unconscious judgment based on race all the time. The key to combating racism is to be aware that we are doing it and review why we make those judgments. The Bill Clinton crime bill ended up being racist, though that was likely not his intent. But the failure to admit and address its clear flaws only adds to the problem.
|
On May 18 2016 02:46 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 02:39 OtherWorld wrote:On May 18 2016 02:09 Nyxisto wrote:On May 17 2016 18:46 OtherWorld wrote:On May 17 2016 14:43 Nyxisto wrote:
I think environmental racism refers to dumping waste and toxins and such in low income immigrant communities which seems like a pretty reasonable concern tbh But what does that have to do with race? Shit is being dumped there because they're poor and disinfranchised, not because they're of race X. We didn't wait mass immigration to consider that poor people's health was worth less than the rich's. Reminds me of the Atwater quote: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.” This is the actual dangerous form of racism. Racism isn't actually a crazy guy in a Klansmen costume, it's these kind of systemic inequalities that are concentrated around sticking it to groups through economic and social means etc.. I'm not saying that things like dumping shit on poor populations don't affect minorities more, because that's true. I'm saying that the reason we're dumping shit on poor populations is not the fact that they're minorities, it's the fact that they're poor. You seem to define racism as "racism by result", which is basically saying that any policy or discourse which as a byproduct seems to discriminate a race more than another is racist ; I'd argue that racism should be defined by its intent. For example, Clinton's crime bill was (I assume) not meant to heighten incarceration rates for Black people, yet as a result it did. Was Clinton's bill racist? I think we can agree that the answer is obviously no. Did it have a discriminatory effect? Sure. No I think it's exactly right to define Bill Clinton's crime bill is a racist. Some nutjob talking about race theory like it's the 1930's might be racist by intent but it's irrelevant.It's defining the problem away because the racism that is actually dangerous is the one that utilizes the market or the justice system to fuck up millions of people. And it really isn't an accident that these justice reforms hit minorities disproportionality, because minorities aren't in power and the people in power like to stay there. It's the same argument with gender equality in high paying jobs. It's no accident that men in leadership positions keep recruiting men.
I can understand your point of view ; but if you define Clinton's bill as racist, then the number of things that suddenly become racist is mindblowingly huge, to the point where we need a new word to describe "traditional racism", which is the expression of a hierarchical ranking between races. Thus, while I do agree that racial (and, too, non-racial) discriminations in modern societies are a real issue and should be fought, I don't think that labelling every discriminatory thing under the sun as racism is the good way to do it.
|
On May 18 2016 02:41 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 02:37 farvacola wrote:
To be frank, this nation desperately needs schools like Burlington College to close, regardless of who leads them.
There are too many goddamn schools and not enough people getting educated. What is amazing is that you are able to sink the finances of a college given that the Federal government gives out loans, that you don't even have to back, for nearly 100% of the cost of your product.
While I agree with you in essence, it's worth mentioning that federal indebtedness weighs heavily on a school's ability to procure what ends up being relatively small but integral funding from other sources, which is likely what happened with Burlington once the bungled real estate scheme did its damage.
|
On May 18 2016 02:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 02:39 OtherWorld wrote:On May 18 2016 02:09 Nyxisto wrote:On May 17 2016 18:46 OtherWorld wrote:On May 17 2016 14:43 Nyxisto wrote:
I think environmental racism refers to dumping waste and toxins and such in low income immigrant communities which seems like a pretty reasonable concern tbh But what does that have to do with race? Shit is being dumped there because they're poor and disinfranchised, not because they're of race X. We didn't wait mass immigration to consider that poor people's health was worth less than the rich's. Reminds me of the Atwater quote: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.” This is the actual dangerous form of racism. Racism isn't actually a crazy guy in a Klansmen costume, it's these kind of systemic inequalities that are concentrated around sticking it to groups through economic and social means etc.. I'm not saying that things like dumping shit on poor populations don't affect minorities more, because that's true. I'm saying that the reason we're dumping shit on poor populations is not the fact that they're minorities, it's the fact that they're poor. You seem to define racism as "racism by result", which is basically saying that any policy or discourse which as a byproduct seems to discriminate a race more than another is racist ; I'd argue that racism should be defined by its intent. For example, Clinton's crime bill was (I assume) not meant to heighten incarceration rates for Black people, yet as a result it did. Was Clinton's bill racist? I think we can agree that the answer is obviously no. Did it have a discriminatory effect? Sure. Systematic racism is not defined by intent.
If we remove intent from the equation, how do you assign guilt? If someone tries to help black communities, but makes them worse, what then? People criticize Clinton for the bill and its impact. But is there not also a certain amount of assumed failure? Is it really fair for some people to call the Clinton's racist for the (unintended) effect of the crime bill?
It feels like people take guilt and then assume intent. Clearly if it was a Clinton bill and they are responsible for the effect. But that doesn't mean they intended for the effect to happen, so it feels inappropriate for people to call the Clinton's racist. They created a bill which had a racist impact, but that doesn't make them racists.
|
On May 18 2016 02:31 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 01:20 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 17 2016 10:11 Sermokala wrote:On May 17 2016 08:58 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 17 2016 08:23 Sermokala wrote:On May 17 2016 06:57 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 17 2016 05:17 Sermokala wrote:On May 17 2016 04:59 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 17 2016 04:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 17 2016 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
lets continue to hold hillary to a separate, higher bar shall we
i feel like people's opinions about the transcripts are almost a litmus test at this point. when they come out they'll be a rorschach test
i expect her to come out with the transcripts after the primary is over, though i dont particularly care. obama will probably be like "for crying out loud its the same stuff i say at commencements" if people try to make a fuss about it What separate higher bar? She and her supporters keep saying that, but can't point to what speeches others aren't releasing. The bar where Sanders doesn't need a plan, just a promise for change that will magically happen when the GOP majority magically leaves and manufacturing just magically comes back while 15 trillion in spending is okay while hilary's 10 trillion in spending makes her a corporate shill. The bar where Hilary uses normal nomenclature in a video for decades past is more anti-black than Bernie calling blacks violent psychopaths is simply "out of context." The bar where almost every single democratic ally in the house and senate already are supportive and wanting to help Hilary push forward her plans, but they are derided by you for not wanting to do what an old white guy says. The part where Hilary is 2-3 million votes ahead of Sanders but SHE is the one you accuse of being unlikable. The part where Bernie could not even tell people whether or not he could even break up big banks when asked directly, or (after hounding Hilary for it for months) eventually said he'd just do what hilary was saying she'd do and use Dodd Frank to make his big attack on the banks. The fact that he keeps not saying anything, only doing the things Hilary and Obama already are doing, all while telling people not to trust the DNC or Democrats in his attempt to ensure a republican house and senate. Bernie is dangerous to liberals--much more than Trump. Not because Trump has less dangerous goals--but Bernie is much more competent at actually following through with his dangerous plans than trump. 1. Politicians have always made promises without a concrete plan on how to do it. See Obama "hope and change" 2. "Super predator" isn't normal nomenclature at any point in history. People don't even use that for super sexual predators. 3. If it was just what an old white guys says the primary wouldn't be contested as it is. People wanting the progressive party to actually be progressive isn't just "wanting to do what an old white guy says" 4. She has terrible likability in polls of people. This isn't something that people are just accusing her of it has polling data to back it up. 5. See number 1. 6. This point of yours makes no sense and is a lie at the best of interpretation. 7. Bernie isn't dangerous to Liberals hes dangerous to conservative and moderate democrats that don't want to worry about their base and want them to just keep voteing them into office without moving the country anywhere. People said the same things about Obama being held to a different standard just because hes black.but instead its because shes a woman. The answer is no and yes. Sexists gets to disagree with her because shes sexist and hide behind shitty reasons and regular people get called sexist because they disagree with her on legitimate reasons. On May 17 2016 05:07 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Bernie Bonus: his supporters are thugs who try to use heckler's vetos to shut down delegate processes. Hillary won Nevada by 5% but they tried to bully their way into a Sanders "Win" in Nevada by shouting and yelling and refusing to abide by the voted results. We hear endless whining about how the system is Rigged and Corrupt, but these Berniebros certainly love trying to overturn Democratic processes via thuggery. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/15/chaos_at_nevada_democratic_convention_dnc_leaders_flee_building_as_sanders_supporters_demand_recount.html EDIT: the Nevada caucus results were 52.6% Hillary, 47.3% Bernie. No amount of yelling and intimidation should result in a Bernie "Win" when he lost at the voting level. what in the fuck is a "heckler's veto" its called people being dumb enough to use voice votes in a contested election. If you read anything about it you'd see how much of a farce Nevada was. The recount people motioned for was because they handed out petitions as people were coming in and in the lines to register which ment that delegates weren't voting on anything. You'd think a party calling itself the democratic party would have experience with holding a democratic process in their meetings. 1st Off When Obama said he would reach out to liberal republicans and conservative democrats because that's the middle ground that allows for compromises to made--that was a specific tool for change. When Obama said he would push healthcare reform--and then passed healthcare reform. That was a goal implemented using the plan he designed. When he said he was against the Iraq War but not against the Afghanistan War, that showed that he wasn't simply being anti-war or anti-foreign policy, but actually wanted to make decisions on a case by case basis. When he said he would cut taxes on the middle class, and did cut taxes on the middle class. Obama had a lot of big ideas. But he also had a lot of specific backend plans to help push those ideas. He had super delegate support, he had corporate money to fund both his and his allies, he had a goal of reaching out to specific voter bases that he actually followed through on. Hope and Change was just the meme. But his been spouting off the need for inclusive politics since the beginning with an emphasis not on saying the craziest things possible, but on looking for middle grounds between both sides and not just his. 2nd Off Non-Democrats telling democrats to stop being democrats is not "being progressive," ignoring global policies in an attempt to stop globailization is not "being progressive," being stuck with 60 year old policies instead of adapting policies to the current trends of the time is not "being progressive." And citing everyone that disagrees with you as being the enemy is simply the talents on non-liberals. When you have a group of people yelling at liberals for not doing it how they used to do it 60+ years ago, that's not being progressive that's being regressive. And telling me that polls dislike Hilary when 3million more people voted for her is just so out of touch it makes sense why you'd be a sandernista. Lol at half your post. The "2nd off" is purely devoid of sense. You show no understanding on how tent building or likability polls work. Healthcare was a power play to ensure democratic supremacy for a generation while they had a super majority to do it. Obama's campaign was based on change that turned to pragmatism once he finaly got into office. What progressive things has obama done in office or has campaigned for? It isn't controversial to say the party took a right turn with bill clinton and continued it with the moderates of Obama and hillary. And I'm not a sandernista. I'm a confirmed conservative. But good job generalizing anyone who doesn't agree with you with your enemy. Which by your standards makes you not a liberal so welcome to the republican party buddy. Before Obama was even a blip on the radar he showed up to my town and talked to us about reaching across the aisle for pragmatic middle ground solutions. Even when he got more and more popularity he continually cried out that it wasn't about red states or blue states. When he got into office he would present plans that were combinations of conservative and liberal ideals, much like the ACA using Romney's own state healthcare plan as its starting structure. He was very much for the pulling of troops out of Iraq as direct attack on the Bush directive, but was also for increasing presence in Afghanistan in direct accordance with the Bush directive. And while under his watch we have seen "Don't Ask Don't Tell", Gay Marriage, and almost two Supreme Court Nominees, and the Amnesty Act he decreed be executive order--all this and more has move the company left. We also have a more explicated Patriot Act policy that is an expansion from the Bush years. All things he promised since before the first debate, all things he followed through on. The stuff he promised to the crowd I was in in 2007 was exactly what he delivered in 2008 and 2012. He was pragmatic from day 1, he was moderate from day 1, and it was that moderation that allowed him to pull the country leftward in respect to how right it had become in the Bush years. And all of this proves my point. The fact that you state that he decided to increase troops in iraq and not increase troops in Afghanistan apparently didn't happen to you but that okay. but that you decide to point to two supreme court cases and an executive order (that you for some reason call an amnesty act despite not having anything to do with amnesty but a lack of enforcement of laws on the books) is the best you can come up with to go alongside his one great legislative victory in repealing DADT? And how did this get about Obama your suppose to be defending Hillary. What good things did she do during the obama administration? You're the one who accused Obama of going on back on his word, excuse me for pointing out that he didn't. These are not the best I can come up, these are literally just the surface level stuff of what he has done, things anyone with a pulse hears about even if the actively try to disengage from politics. His accomplishments run a lot deeper than that. The reason its brought up a lot, is because when someone like Sanders or Trump or the Tea Party start saying that the establishment is not working--that establishment is Obama. That establishment is the derivatives change he made in 08 that allowed my friend's mother to keep her house or be homeless that year. That establishment is the ACA finally allowing preexisting conditions to be ignored allowing a different friend's father to get healthcare for the first time in his life (he runs his own handyman business), that establishment is what has allowed gay marriage to become a reality, its the establishment that gave amnesty to immigrants, its the establishment that is beginning talks with Iran, its the establishment that has recovered us from the Bush administration, its the establishment that has given us one of the longest job growth streak in history. So when people like Bernie tell me that he's against the establishment--he's telling me he is against job growth, that he is against immigrants, that he is against protecting people about to lose their homes, people who finally got healthcare they would have never gotten without the establishment's help. And when he tells us that his plan will be 50% more expensive than Hilary's, that his plan attempts to ignore globalization, that his plan is to ignore dark skinned non-christians to suffer genocide, that his plan is to backstab our biggest ally in the middle east and tell Israel that after decades of being bombed that the right thing to do is tell their enemies that suicide bombings are an effective at negotiating with the west. When Bernie says those things--I cannot help but be more than a little peeved. And when someone else shows up, telling me that there were things we did in the past eight years that worked, and things that didn't, and that the best plan of action is to take the things that worked and expand it, and to take the things that didn't work, and to phase it out. You can't help but be enamored by the one person who wants to do something about genocide, who wants to learn from past mistakes, who is willing to negotiate their stance as new information arises, who is willing to change her platform if the people need more from her, but who still has a few things she's willing to fight for even without public support. You can't help but be enamored by the person who is both accused of being too good at politics, and at the same time too willing to match the will of the people. That you finally have a bulldog willing to fight for what *we* want instead of what she thinks we want who has the reputation to be very good at fighting for it. There are so many things wrong with your post I can't even begin literally. I can't even get a read on your politically. Obama is over now and everyones looking forward to and talking about the election to devide his replacement. + Show Spoiler +, that his plan is to ignore dark skinned non-christians to suffer genocide, that his plan is to backstab our biggest ally in the middle east and tell Israel that after decades of being bombed that the right thing to do is tell their enemies that suicide bombings are an effective at negotiating with the west. When Bernie says those things--I cannot help but be more than a little peeved. I don't even know where to begin with this. Do I start with how obama is pissing off the Saudis? Or the part with with isreal or ISIS? The Right in america is Isreals staunchest supporters for whatever and the left is the one trying to keep them on a leash. Do you not care about the human rights abuses in the gaza strip and west bank? What about Obama's handling of the syrian civil war leading to ISIS's invasion of western Iraq? How the ACA was a stripped down version of what it could have been beacuse the democrats couldn't work with even the conservative elements of its own party? Immigrants didn't get Amnesty I have no idea where you get this. Obama is hardly a guy to credit on gay marriage with his "evolution" on the issue. The Iran nuclear talks started back in 2006 with Bush. I don't even know who you are talking about with that last paragraph, I think you're trying to go for Hillary but just no at the very least no one says that Hillary is "too good at politics".
When asked about Syria, Bernie would rather have muslims get involved than americans. You know, because what history tells us is that genocides naturally work themselves out by themselves. History also tells us that nothing shows that we care about an issue more than telling others who aren't helping to help in our stead. So stupid, so hateful. Does it matter what caused a problem? Mistakes happen, all politicians will make mistakes. Fixing mistakes is part of the job, we are way past middle school where "not it" is no longer an option when you're a leader of the free world. Walking around saying "I wouldn't have made that decision X decades ago" is absolutely meaningless since fixing the problems in front of you is the job of a world leader.
When Bernie had a chance to write a statement about Israel, he publicly says that he knows that Israel's been hit hard by bombings, but too bad, Israel needs to give lands back because if a nation dislikes your ally and bombs the shit out of them, Bernie is willing to cede those lands. The Gaza strip is a complicated place, telling Israel to shut the fuck up and just take bombs up the ass or else even the US will hate on them is not how to fix it. Negotiations between Palestine and Israel is the only way to fix it and we as third parties do not get to make premade conclusions for how that is supposed to be solved. But Bernie would rather just tell Israel to cut back on its lands because what does Bernie care that Israel also cares about those lands, just another in Bernie's long standing selfishness of wanting to yell the craziest thing the loudest so people think he's cool, such a great move since we have SO many strong allies in the middle east that we can afford to shit on random ones we already have all willy nilly.
When Bernie is asked about his plans for Big Banks he attacks Hilary for wanting to use Dodd Frank and then IMMEDIATELY says he'll use Dodd Frank, because, you know, he isn't just a hateful instigator who doesn't actually have a plan and mostly just wants to say things to incite hate amongst his followers. He couldn't even answer the question of "should he have the power to break up banks" when asked it directly by a liberal news organization. He literally has no idea what his options available to him and yet that's the part of his platform he yells about the loudest. We already know Hilary's plan on it, she not only told us what bills she already has in place, but specifically how to support those bills, how to get allies for those bills, and her plans to expand those bills to make a more long term security for the American finance system. Bernie just runs around yelling about imprisoning bankers for something that happened almost a decade ago. Its no wonder that its the Bernie supporters attacking Trump Rallies and Democratic Rallies, they have a leader whose main plan is lynch mobbing rich people. Oh, I'm sorry, "imprisoning" rich people.
Do you really think its a surprise that recent polls shows that Bernie supporters are as likely to vote for Trump? Its because there isn't really much difference between Trump and Bernie.
|
On May 18 2016 03:03 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 02:49 Plansix wrote:On May 18 2016 02:39 OtherWorld wrote:On May 18 2016 02:09 Nyxisto wrote:On May 17 2016 18:46 OtherWorld wrote:On May 17 2016 14:43 Nyxisto wrote:
I think environmental racism refers to dumping waste and toxins and such in low income immigrant communities which seems like a pretty reasonable concern tbh But what does that have to do with race? Shit is being dumped there because they're poor and disinfranchised, not because they're of race X. We didn't wait mass immigration to consider that poor people's health was worth less than the rich's. Reminds me of the Atwater quote: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.” This is the actual dangerous form of racism. Racism isn't actually a crazy guy in a Klansmen costume, it's these kind of systemic inequalities that are concentrated around sticking it to groups through economic and social means etc.. I'm not saying that things like dumping shit on poor populations don't affect minorities more, because that's true. I'm saying that the reason we're dumping shit on poor populations is not the fact that they're minorities, it's the fact that they're poor. You seem to define racism as "racism by result", which is basically saying that any policy or discourse which as a byproduct seems to discriminate a race more than another is racist ; I'd argue that racism should be defined by its intent. For example, Clinton's crime bill was (I assume) not meant to heighten incarceration rates for Black people, yet as a result it did. Was Clinton's bill racist? I think we can agree that the answer is obviously no. Did it have a discriminatory effect? Sure. Systematic racism is not defined by intent. If we remove intent from the equation, how do you assign guilt? If someone tries to help black communities, but makes them worse, what then? People criticize Clinton for the bill and its impact. But is there not also a certain amount of assumed failure? Is it really fair for some people to call the Clinton's racist for the (unintended) effect of the crime bill? It feels like people take guilt and then assume intent. Clearly if it was a Clinton bill and they are responsible for the effect. But that doesn't mean they intended for the effect to happen, so it feels inappropriate for people to call the Clinton's racist. They created a bill which had a racist impact, but that doesn't make them racists.
You don't assign guilt, you fix the problem with the system in the best way possible. You assign guilt to the people who dig their heels in the instant they hear that there might be a problem. Or doubles down on defending their actions and claim that they didn't have a negative impact on a specific race.
People get way to bent out of shape about the word "racist". I'm a white guy from from an all white section of my state. There were literally zero minorities students in my school until my junior year. Then we had one minority. I said a bunch of racist shit in my life simply because of where I grew up and lack of information. And I did this into my late 20s, despite having black co workers and thinking I was fine. My life got way easier when I just accepted that I am likely to be unintentionally racist in the future and I need to just admit it. We are all human and we fuck up. Just own up to it and move on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
