Eh, the racism that allows Arab and Pakistani Muslims to be detained without trial is incredibly different to the racism that leads to African Americans being killed or abused by police. The former is a lot less about white supremacy and a lot more about American neocon capitalist hegemony, which for all its faults does not really discriminate on the basis of race alone.
Black Lives Matter disrupts Martin OMalley, Bernie Sanders town hall
- Thread starter Guevara
- Start date
- Status
Eh, the racism that allows Arab and Pakistani Muslims to be detained without trial is incredibly different to the racism that leads to African Americans being killed or abused by police. The former is a lot less about white supremacy and a lot more about American neocon capitalist hegemony, which for all its faults does not really discriminate on the basis of race alone.
Yeah I thought he said that Hispanics and Asians WERE killed at the same rate as blacks, so I was arguing against that. It was my mistake.
kame-sennin
Member
King Tubby
Member
If any candidate is going to push the issue of racial inequality, it should be Bernie Sanders - not just because of his track record, but also because the votes it might cost him are already driven away by his self-identification as a socialist. In fact, failing to capitalize (and yes, I know this is extremely callous way to talk about it) on this sentiment could be a very big blunder for his campaign. If Sanders embraced the BlackLivesMatter movement and made racial equality a top priority of his campaign his youth and minority appeal would be leaps and bounds beyond what any establishment candidate could hope to achieve, and he has relatively little to lose with respect to the electorate.
I think one of the problems is that a lot of people don't think Bernie is actually running for President, but rather to simply highlight specific issues and bring them to the forefront for the "real" candidate (Clinton) to address.
If you're looking at it that way, then it doesn't really matter if he's on your side or not. You just want him to push your one specific issue.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Doesn't it make more sense to picket the second-best candidate? Hillary's racial equality track record is worse than Sanders. By telling Hillary that her policies are insufficient and informing her that you will vote Sanders unless she offers better ones, you incentivize her to out-do Sanders. Once she has out-done Sanders, you then go to Sanders and say the same thing - Hillary's policies are better, improve yours or we won't vote for you. Both of them then have to compete to win voter attention by offering better and better policies on the issue.
Picketing the candidate who already offers the best policies on your issue doesn't seem to make much sense to me - even when those policies are not ideal and could be better (i.e., Sanders' poor stance on gun control, which is intimately connected with race relations in many ways). What do you tell Sanders? That you'll vote for Hillary? She has worse policies than he does, which just means his incentive is to have better messaging and nothing more. That you won't vote? That just says that he should double down on issues which actually have drawn him voters instead of investing further on issues where he is already better than other candidates but doesn't see any gain for it.
I don't disagree with anyone criticizing how Sanders handled the Netroots protestors. It was bad. My only concern is that I don't think many of those criticizing are offering any effective method for actually changing the status quo.
But what exactly is going to change those problems? Let's be real, demilitarizing the police and prison reform still aren't going to get rid of the innate racism in this country that led to those problems to begin with. And I'm not sure what exactly Bernie, or any politician, could do to solve the "black name" problem.
I have a feeling that Sanders believes that by helping to change the perception of blacks in this country economically that it will help influence the opinion of them elsewhere when it comes to the systematic core.
Is it certain that will have any real impact? No, but I think it has a far better chance than prison and police reform.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Does this justify such a strong push back by Bernie's supporters? A lot of the rhetoric I see - not from anyone in particular, I don't plan on making this a personal attack - really sounds to me like the same policing that occurred during many other racial protests. Of course the circumstances are changed, but the importance of the protest is the same. They want to make it known to Sanders that they want him to focus on something that they care about. Would Sanders change his mind if their tone was different? Would Sanders' supporters not criticize the protests even with a good tone? I don't think either is likely to be true.
Eh, I think you're kind of looking at racism the wrong way. While I agree that economic change will be more beneficial than police reform, "innate racism" is essentially irrelevant. You don't need to hate black people to perpetuate racism, and I'm sure that many police officers, bank tellers, politicians, or jurors who oppress black people don't actually hate them. But because racism can only be defined through expressed actions, expressed actions can be racist even if there is no racist intent behind them.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
It's easier to mobilize a candidate that already agrees with you to give your issue a higher priority than it is to convince a candidate that doesn't agree with you to agree with you. I think protestors rightly recognize that Hillary is unlikely to be an ally on this subject.
Example of how this plays out with lobbyists and congresspersons in the US:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27644332
Conclusion:
" The proximate political objective of [lobbying] is not to change legislators' minds but to assist natural allies in achieving their own, coincident objectives. The theory is simple in form, realistic in its principla assumptions, and counterintuitive in its main implications. Empirically, the model renders otherwise anomalous regularities comprehensible and predictable. "
makingmusic476
Member
UltimaPooh
Member
Where should he have been? Grand standing? Posturing? Dudes from Vermont.
kame-sennin
Member
Because even liberals think black people should move to the back of the line:
A leading voice in the chorus of social transition belongs to the white liberal, whether he speak through the government, the church, the voluntary welfare agencies or the civil rights movement. Over the last few years many Negroes have felt that their most troublesome adversary was not the obvious bigot of the Ku Klux Klan or the John Birch Society, but the white liberal who is more devoted to order than to justice, who prefers tranquility to equality. In a sense the white liberal has been victimized with some of the same ambivalence that has been a constant part of our national heritage. Even in areas where liberals have great influence-labor unions, schools, churches and politics-the situation of the Negro is not much better than in areas where they are not dominant. This is why many liberals have fallen into the trap of seeing integration in merely aesthetic terms, where a token number of Negroes adds color to a white-dominated power structure. They say, our union is integrated from top to bottom, we even have one Negro on the executive board; or Our neighborhood is making great progress in integrated housing, we now have two Negro families; or Our university has no problem with integration, we have one Negro faculty member and even one Negro chairman of a department.
Often white liberals are unaware of their latent prejudices. A while ago I ran into a white woman who was anxious to discuss the race problem with me. She said: I am very liberal. I have no prejudices toward Negroes. I believe Negroes should have the right to vote, the right to a good job, the right to a decent home and the right to have access to public accommodations. Of course, I must confess that I would not want my daughter to marry a Negro. This lady could not see that her failure to accept intermarriage negated her claim to genuine liberalism. She failed to see that implicit in her rejection was the feeling that her daughter had some pure, superior nature that should not be contaminated by the impure, inferior nature of the Negro. It is the Teutonic Origins theory warmed over. The question of intermarriage is never raised in a society cured of the disease of racism.
The white liberal must see that the Negro needs not only love but also justice. It is not enough to say, We love Negroes, we have many Negro friends. They must demand justice for Negroes. Love that does not satisfy justice is no love at all. It is merely a sentimental affection, little more than what one would have for a pet. Love at its best is justice concretized. Love is unconditional. It is not conditional upon ones staying in his place or watering down his demands in order to be considered respectable. He who contends that he used to love the Negro, but did not truly love him in the beginning, because his love was conditioned upon the Negroes limited demands for justice.
The white liberal must affirm that absolute justice for the Negro simply means, in the Aristotelian sense, that the Negro must have his due. There is nothing abstract about this. It is as concrete as having a good job, a good education, a decent house and a share of power. It is, however, important to understand that giving a man his due may often mean giving him special treatment. I am aware of the fact that this has been a troublesome concept for many liberals, since it conflicts with their traditional ideal of equal opportunity and equal treatment of people according of their individual merits. But this is a day which demands new thinking and re-evaluation of old concepts. A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, in order to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis.
The white liberal must rid himself of the notion that there can be a tension-less transition from the old order of injustice to the new order of justice the Negro cannot achieve emancipation by passively waiting for the white race voluntarily to grant it to him. The Negro has not gained a single right in America without persistent pressure and agitation. However lamentable it may seem, the Negro is now convinced that white America will never admit to him equal rights unless it is coerced into doing it.
Nonviolent coercion always brings tension to the surface. This tension, however, must not be seen as destructive. There is a kind of tension that is both healthy and necessary for growth. Society needs nonviolent gadflies to bring its tensions into the open and force its citizens to confront the ugliness of their prejudices and the tragedy of their racism.
It is important for the liberal to see that the oppressed person who agitates for his rights is not the creator of tension. He merely brings out the hidden tension that is already alive. Last summer when we had our open housing marches in Chicago, many of our white liberal friends cried out in horror and dismay: You are creating hatred and hostility in the white communities in which you are marching. You are only developing a white backlash. I never could understand this logic. They failed to realize that the hatred and the hostilities were already latently or subconsciously present. Our marches merely brought them to the surface. How strange it would be to condemn a physician who, through persistent work and the ingenuity of his medical skills, discovered cancer in a patient. Would anyone be so ignorant as to say he caused the cancer? Through the skills and discipline of direct action we reveal that there is a dangerous cancer of hatred and racism in our society. We did not cause the cancer; we merely exposed it. Only through this kind of exposure will the cancer ever be cured. The committed white liberal must see the need for powerful antidotes to combat the disease of racism.
The white liberal must escalate his support for the struggle for racial justice rather than de-escalate it. This would be a tragic time to forsake and withdraw from the struggle. The need for commitment is greater today than ever.
Often white liberals are unaware of their latent prejudices. A while ago I ran into a white woman who was anxious to discuss the race problem with me. She said: I am very liberal. I have no prejudices toward Negroes. I believe Negroes should have the right to vote, the right to a good job, the right to a decent home and the right to have access to public accommodations. Of course, I must confess that I would not want my daughter to marry a Negro. This lady could not see that her failure to accept intermarriage negated her claim to genuine liberalism. She failed to see that implicit in her rejection was the feeling that her daughter had some pure, superior nature that should not be contaminated by the impure, inferior nature of the Negro. It is the Teutonic Origins theory warmed over. The question of intermarriage is never raised in a society cured of the disease of racism.
The white liberal must see that the Negro needs not only love but also justice. It is not enough to say, We love Negroes, we have many Negro friends. They must demand justice for Negroes. Love that does not satisfy justice is no love at all. It is merely a sentimental affection, little more than what one would have for a pet. Love at its best is justice concretized. Love is unconditional. It is not conditional upon ones staying in his place or watering down his demands in order to be considered respectable. He who contends that he used to love the Negro, but did not truly love him in the beginning, because his love was conditioned upon the Negroes limited demands for justice.
The white liberal must affirm that absolute justice for the Negro simply means, in the Aristotelian sense, that the Negro must have his due. There is nothing abstract about this. It is as concrete as having a good job, a good education, a decent house and a share of power. It is, however, important to understand that giving a man his due may often mean giving him special treatment. I am aware of the fact that this has been a troublesome concept for many liberals, since it conflicts with their traditional ideal of equal opportunity and equal treatment of people according of their individual merits. But this is a day which demands new thinking and re-evaluation of old concepts. A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, in order to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis.
The white liberal must rid himself of the notion that there can be a tension-less transition from the old order of injustice to the new order of justice the Negro cannot achieve emancipation by passively waiting for the white race voluntarily to grant it to him. The Negro has not gained a single right in America without persistent pressure and agitation. However lamentable it may seem, the Negro is now convinced that white America will never admit to him equal rights unless it is coerced into doing it.
Nonviolent coercion always brings tension to the surface. This tension, however, must not be seen as destructive. There is a kind of tension that is both healthy and necessary for growth. Society needs nonviolent gadflies to bring its tensions into the open and force its citizens to confront the ugliness of their prejudices and the tragedy of their racism.
It is important for the liberal to see that the oppressed person who agitates for his rights is not the creator of tension. He merely brings out the hidden tension that is already alive. Last summer when we had our open housing marches in Chicago, many of our white liberal friends cried out in horror and dismay: You are creating hatred and hostility in the white communities in which you are marching. You are only developing a white backlash. I never could understand this logic. They failed to realize that the hatred and the hostilities were already latently or subconsciously present. Our marches merely brought them to the surface. How strange it would be to condemn a physician who, through persistent work and the ingenuity of his medical skills, discovered cancer in a patient. Would anyone be so ignorant as to say he caused the cancer? Through the skills and discipline of direct action we reveal that there is a dangerous cancer of hatred and racism in our society. We did not cause the cancer; we merely exposed it. Only through this kind of exposure will the cancer ever be cured. The committed white liberal must see the need for powerful antidotes to combat the disease of racism.
The white liberal must escalate his support for the struggle for racial justice rather than de-escalate it. This would be a tragic time to forsake and withdraw from the struggle. The need for commitment is greater today than ever.
-MLK
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I don't think this is an example of what that paper talks about, though. That paper points out that lobbying actually provides a way for the lobbied party to satisfy more of their preferences by altering priorities - e.g., if they do what the lobbying party desires they get resources that allow them to pursue their original higher priority to a better degree than they could before. From the perspective of the person being lobbied, it's Pareto optimal - by changing priorities, they still actually improve the position of all of their preferences.
I don't think that's the case in this situation because Sanders doesn't face an expansion in his ability to focus on his original priorities by changing the order. Sanders has a limited media "budget" in terms of the amount of time and coverage he gets. By making one issue more prominent, he necessarily makes another less prominent. It's probably just a truth that focusing on economic equality is the optimal way of using his media budget because race issues appeal to a smaller demographic. Changing his priority order doesn't expand his media "budget" to the point he's actually in a better position on his original issue.
I sympathize and agree with the message, but I don't agree with the choice of venue.
A lot has changed since the days of MLK. The liberals he's talking about aren't directly comparable to those of today. For example, I don't think you'd find that many who would be against the interracial marriage of a relative these days.
A lot has changed since the days of MLK. The liberals he's talking about aren't directly comparable to those of today. For example, I don't think you'd find that many who would be against the interracial marriage of a relative these days.
Are you actually correcting anything?
What my post details is the sensation that black people feel like they're being condescended to by Bernie supporters. Do you think they don't know, after all of this, that Bernie Sanders marched with MLK Jr. back in the day? Talk about the future! Talk about what Bernie is saying now about racism, rather than getting defensive!
I didn't mind that he wanted to focus on economic issues for the most part during the primaries. I acknowledge that they're important issues. Other candidates talk about other issues, that's fine.
But you don't go to Netroots Nation and not talk about race. It's as if Obama went to China just to talk about America and directing all conversation about China back to America. Of course that would make people irritated with Bernie. If he's so straightforward on economic issues, talking race issues candidly shouldn't be a problem.
A Link to the Past
Banned
But you - and by you I mean I, personally - see white liberals engaging in that shit to this day. One could argue that the harassment Sanders supporters have been dolling out is an example, but a better one is when I was personally harassed for taking issue with a liberal atheist's post calling Muslims killers, or being harassed because I called someone out for using transphobic language to attack Lindsey Graham. It still happens, it's just not as blatant - kind of like how most racists today are not blatant about their racism.
Dyson Industries
Banned
I'm not black and I'm not an American citizen, but I still find this attitude extremely problematic at a minimum. Putting myself in the shoes of someone who can be shot and killed by police seemingly at will, the attitude of "rising tides lifts all boats" is not only Pollyanna-ish nonsense, but one that deliberately ignores the special issues that affect African-Americans right now. A lady ended up hung in her cell in Texas a few days ago and apparently it's happened before in that town/precinct. She was starting a good job and had a good education. That didn't protect her. Michael Brown was going to college. That didn't save him. Chris Rock has more money than any of us will see in our lifetimes and he still gets mistreated by the police. The ignorance displayed in here by people who probably think they're being good allies is shameful. Nobody should be satisfied with lip service when you and people like you are dying over bollocks, and so-called liberals are patting you on the head and telling you that this is "as good as it gets right now".
Frankly,I'd be shouting too.
I get that now, but it still doesn't help me understand what needs to be done. Demilitarization of police and reduction of incarceration are Bernie's stances, what else does he need to do?
And_Gignac
Member
I think the problem at hand comes from a lack of communication from the Bernie media team, but also from a section of Sanders supporters. Unfortunately, Sanders has appeal to a part of ex Ron Paul supporters, who have a tendency to become zealots. Their behavior on Twitter, the main bastion of many black activists, has antagonized many of the more important voices in the black twitter community.
But I think people should research more about what Sanders has said and done about the current face of racism. He is not relying on what he did 50 years ago. Both camps should be open to listen to each other, instead of getting frustrated.
But I think people should research more about what Sanders has said and done about the current face of racism. He is not relying on what he did 50 years ago. Both camps should be open to listen to each other, instead of getting frustrated.
You had a problem with an atheist. Yeah, he was also a liberal, but it sounds like he was an extreme atheist. Not all liberals or conservatives share the same mindset in terms of their prejudices or religious opinions.
When you boil it all down, government decisions are about the economy - what we collectively choose to spend tax dollars on. I feel Bernie is correct to be focused on that, as it is in fact an enabler of structural racism. For example, are we buying more jails than schools with that money? Are we perpetuating a war on poverty (drugs)? And so on.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Yet liberals are given a free pass whereas conservatives are treated like racist associates. When we stop looking at people on the left to see how they're fucking up and being awful, when we try to make it be that they're a radical atheist or some other thing rather than being an aspect of liberalism, we erase the actual shit that comes from liberal people. I see transphobic shit like that all the time from liberals, it's a very constant thing. It's not an aspect of liberalism so much as it is an aspect of the fact that we are more willing to look the other way when it happens IN liberalism.
I don't give people like Bill Maher a pass at all for his anti-Muslim bullshit, despite us agreeing on a lot. People aren't binary. They have good sides and bad sides and they all combine in unique ways. I'm not going to shut someone down completely because I disagree with one of their views.
A Link to the Past
Banned
"Shut down"
In what world is that relevant to what I said? Am I shutting people down by criticizing them? It sounds to me like you want to shut down people who assert that liberalism still has a lot of the same problems that it did back during the Civil Rights movement.
Dude Abides
Banned
This type of thing is why serious candidates stay the hell away from these "grassroots" events.
futuredrew
Banned
Well sorry but economic problems do trump everything. This fucking economy has been on the brink of another collapse since the last recession. You think if the American economy crashes social justice will mean anything? Mother fucker we will all be broke and starving. Money don't care what color you are.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
No, those white liberals still exist, and there are still a fucking lot of them. Go to any modern black activist meeting, Facebook group, etc, and you'll see constant arguing from "well-meaning white liberals" who are actually fucking everything up with their own inaction while pressuring black folks to do what they say.
This:
sums up a lot of this thread and many others every time black activists try to get attention or mobilize anyone to do anything at all ever.
"Yet liberals are given a free pass whereas conservatives are treated like racist associates"
Even if a liberal is being a prejudiced ass about something, the policies they support aren't based on perpetuating racial/religious discrimination. I guess that's what I'm trying to get at. Attacking a liberal for their own shit is a matter that has to do with their own personal views rather than the overall goals of liberalism. Pointing out that some liberals are prejudiced is all well and good, but that's not a reflection of liberalism as a whole. That some of them 'get away with it' is merely a reflection on how the alternative political/economic stance is based on keeping the status quo.
A Link to the Past
Banned
No one is saying that there's no value to fixing the economy, they are saying that fixing racism is not as simple as "having a better economy."
It's a reflection of liberal arrogance. Do you know how often I have been told that a person cannot be bigoted because they are a liberal? Fucking tons. Liberalism is one of the best avenues to take if you want to be awful, because if you call them out on it, you get called out for attacking someone on your side, or you get the "liberals can't be bigots" rhetoric, or they lash out at you and diver their bigotry towards you.
What indicates to you that what MLK said then is not true now? Why are many white liberals of that era problematic, but nowadays it's just a coincidence and #notallliberals?
PhoenixDark
Banned
And yet none of them have a plan to "fix racism." Because it (probably) can't be fixed. So can we talk about policies that at least lower racial inequalities instead of hand wringing over some final solution that doesn't exist?
futuredrew
Banned
As Jmood88 said and I agree, . I think he makes the mistake of thinking that economic problems trump everything else and will fix everything.
That was the post I quoted, yes racial issues need serious work, yes racial issues need more than just a band aid, but I was arguing my point which is yeah economy trumps everything because the American economy is the worlds economy. We have abused it, we have put band aids on it, we've done no real work to fix it. If our economy crashes so many other countries will as well, so yes economy trumps everything, unless you want the Great Depression 2.
Will a fixed economy fix race, absolutely not, but the economy should be the priority.
Ziltoidia 9
Member
I beg to differ. One of the biggest things that can help the minority community is to have more growth in the middle class. Upward mobility is key to society acting civil, less crime, less prejudice from law enforcement. Also, drop the war on drugs and you immediately have less "crime".
Team Alucard
Banned
Have people forgotten that Sanders is a politician? No shit his main focus is on economics, that's still the most important issue for much of the electorate, especially for democratic voters who don't care as much about foreign policy.
No one is going to run a campaign with race relations as their primary focal point.
No one is going to run a campaign with race relations as their primary focal point.
A Link to the Past
Banned
There are a lot more ways to "fix" racism than to improve the economy, and a lot more direct ways as well.
Also "hand-wringing"? Seriously?
That fact does not diminish the justification for the protest - it only emboldens it. People who want more talk and focus on race relations aren't going to be entirely satisfied with a candidate if they do not think that they talk and focus on race relations enough.
Well, we can start by acknowledging the problem, acknowledging that it's a major problem, and not just the offshoot of economic inequality (even if that's a part of it).
Yeah, some people are going to be disingenuous about how liberal they truly are. They're liars, to everyone and themselves. Liars come in all shapes and sizes. That doesn't make liberalism wrong, though. Anyway, I agree with what you're saying. I think we're actually on the same page, but I'm being clumsy with my wording.
There are even ways to do it that a certain candidate might already support! Can you believe it?
UltimaPooh
Member
What would be a few fixes that don't involve the economy?
A Link to the Past
Banned
By your tone, I'm not entirely sure if you're being sarcastic at the person I'm replying to or myself, or if you're referring to Bernie or referring to another candidate (which to be fair the latter option is kind of unlikely).
Social shit, pal. Come out in defense of protesters. Normalize the idea that these protests are justified and that there's a very real reason for them to be angry. Talk about establishing independent organizations intended to investigate cases of police brutality. Improve education on black history, on slavery, on racism, etc.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Sanders has acknowledged it. Clinton gave a pretty detailed speech about racism a month or two ago. Now what?
Dyson Industries
Banned
Making it a primary focal point isn't the issue. I don't even think Barack Obama made it a primary focal point in his first campaign, unless your media was forcing the issue. There's a marked difference between acknowledgment and equivocating, and someone who has had the experience he has should know better, especially in this charged climate where African-Americans are being killed daily. From an outsider's perspective, it seems like your country's unwillingness to talk about race is the root cause of many of these issues.
See above.
When the minority community isn't integrated into the rest of society due to institutionalized racism, it creates a massive amount of hurdles for them in making that upward climb.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Fair enough, and I don't think anyone thinks liberalism is wrong, just that there is more innate problems that we're reluctant to talk about sometimes.
UltimaPooh
Member
I agree more could be done in support of these ideas and defending the protestors... But.
Improving education and creating organizations all have an economical link.
UltimaPooh
Member
That is an awful idea. She just got into congress and now people want her to go out and be less effective?
Pheonix hit on the head in another thread. People can get pissed at Bernie all they want but if you want change... It comes through your local and state governments.
Only reason I am excited for Bernie is that he probably did as much as he could do in Congress... In the white house hell at least be a guiding light for all the Liz Warrens out there.
There's two types of racism which unfortunately get bundled together. There's your overt, direct racism. Those are the KKK guys as well as the liberal housewives who lock their car doors when they see a black man standing by the intersection. There's only so much you can do about that on a grand scale. You can't legislate your way out of people acting on stereotypes, however, you can slowly and deliberately work to lessen those stereotypes via the media and through your own actions.
The second type of racism is structural, systemic racism. That's what can be addressed through legislation; what we can try to achieve by voting for the right candidates. The forces against us making these needed changes are largely economical. The prison industrial complex, for example, is what's keeping the drug war alive. The people employed by these institutions aren't necessarily all racists, but what they end up accomplishing does disproportionately affect some groups more than others. The way to tackle this institutional racism is via economic instruments. Remove the financial incentives which perpetuate the ill-advised policies of old.
The second type of racism is structural, systemic racism. That's what can be addressed through legislation; what we can try to achieve by voting for the right candidates. The forces against us making these needed changes are largely economical. The prison industrial complex, for example, is what's keeping the drug war alive. The people employed by these institutions aren't necessarily all racists, but what they end up accomplishing does disproportionately affect some groups more than others. The way to tackle this institutional racism is via economic instruments. Remove the financial incentives which perpetuate the ill-advised policies of old.
I was being sarcastic and talking about Bernie. If he's going to get criticism, and I don't see why he shouldn't, the criticism shouldn't come from a place of delusion. We have people in here repeatedly raising issues that he has already addressed and holding them up as some sort indictment of his campaign. This would be solved if they had spent as much time watching his rallies as they did scrolling through twitter or reading a few paragraphs of a vox article.
not psycho
Member
After doing some more reading, Sanders is pretty bad at talking about this issue. It's not that he doesn't talk about it, it's that even when he says the right things, it comes across as dodging.
For example, when he talks about mistreatment and murder of Black suspects, the need for a culture change in the police, holding police accountable when they break the law, having respect for prisoners, demilitarizing police, fighting mass incarceration, he doesn't give a ton of specific non-economic solutions, and awkwardly segues into economics. He may have a more detailed and lengthy response that I haven't seen, which I would love to be directed to.
Even a few supporting details would make him come across better. He voted for alternative sentencing as a way to counter mass incarceration. That's great, describe that a little and win some points. He wants to hold police accountable; describe how to make that easier to accomplish. Independent investigation and prosecution? Describe how to increase respect for prisoners. More money for more judges, speedy trials, safer prisons? That last would probably cost him votes, unfortunately.
And when he segues to economics, preface it by saying that all the stuff he just mentioned is essential, but that economic changes are also an essential part of fighting systemic racism. It's all connected. It really does come across as dodging the way he does it now.
For example, when he talks about mistreatment and murder of Black suspects, the need for a culture change in the police, holding police accountable when they break the law, having respect for prisoners, demilitarizing police, fighting mass incarceration, he doesn't give a ton of specific non-economic solutions, and awkwardly segues into economics. He may have a more detailed and lengthy response that I haven't seen, which I would love to be directed to.
Even a few supporting details would make him come across better. He voted for alternative sentencing as a way to counter mass incarceration. That's great, describe that a little and win some points. He wants to hold police accountable; describe how to make that easier to accomplish. Independent investigation and prosecution? Describe how to increase respect for prisoners. More money for more judges, speedy trials, safer prisons? That last would probably cost him votes, unfortunately.
And when he segues to economics, preface it by saying that all the stuff he just mentioned is essential, but that economic changes are also an essential part of fighting systemic racism. It's all connected. It really does come across as dodging the way he does it now.
All things Bernie has advocated/done.
P
This is like MLK staging a sit in at his own church.
A Link to the Past
Banned
There's an economic link to most things. No matter what you do, there's always going to be an economic link. What one thing could be said or done by Sanders that doesn't impact the economy in some way?
So Bernie Sanders is like a modern day MLK Jr.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll