Ah, and we have reached the part of the conversation where we summon the ghost of Martin Luther King, Jr., so that he may look down upon the race of people he left behind and shake his head sadly, knowing that if they truly wanted to live up to his vision of peace, they would hearken unto the wise words of Bernie Sanders.
Hillary destroying Bernie among minorities. women, age 50+ in New NBC/WSJ Poll
- Thread starter NeoXChaos
- Start date
- Status
Ah, and we have reached the part of the conversation where we summon the ghost of Martin Luther King, Jr., so that he may look down upon the race of people he left behind and shake his head sadly, knowing that if they truly wanted to live up to his vision of peace, they would hearken unto the wise words of Bernie Sanders.
It is not selfish if you don't believe that the alternative is enough of a less worse option than the worst option(In this case being the GOP)
Your talking about policy, as if they only have policy differences. A lot of people don't feel like its so much a fight between a liberal and a center rightish, than it is a battle for the decency in our political system against the corrupt establishment.
If we look at Clinton's record and make the hypothetical case that she is very close to corporations and corporate interests on a majority of issues, and is for the continued collusion of money in the political system, it no longer is an argument of whether or not she is not liberal enough, and instead becomes a discussion about whether or not she even has the people she is supposed to be representing in mind over her donors, which is usually not the case in establishment politics.
In this case, people are going to not simply decide between her and Sanders in good faith, but become outright hostile to her in particular.
It's what Bernie talks about using Dr. King as a prop to that people have a problem with. For every complaint with his campaign, the response to be, "oh check 30 years ago", is not gonna go over well.
God damn there's so much I hate about that image. That someone would be dumb enough to compare a white politician who is in a position of power to black students who were assaulted and whose lives were threatened is infuriating. BLM's actions at that rally weren't about hating Bernie, it was about getting him to improve. Around that time he was way too focused on economics and didn't have much about racial justice in his campaign, but they got him to change that. I don't get why that's so hard to understand for some people.
I might not be too enthused over Hillary Clinton, but as much as I like Bernie and would love to see him in the White House, I understand that under a Clinton presidency, people's rights won't slide rapidly backwards like they would under a Republican - any Republican - president. I don't think there's a single one running who would not, if given the opportunity, dismantle every single progressive gain made under the Obama administration. If I vote for Clinton, I know things might not improve as much as I want them to, but they won't get worse (and if my isidewith test results are to be believed, I would be getting about 89% Bernie in Hillary's administration, which is still pretty damn good). I understand being upset and disappointed at my favorite candidate not winning, but not supporting Hillary, or worse - supporting someone like Trump - is a mindset I cannot understand for the life of me. Even though they differ on many issues, Hillary is far more like Bernie than any Republican. Why would you be willing to risk someone like Trump or Cruz becoming president, where you would end up with absolutely nothing you wanted and a ton of shit you didn't?
Under a Republican, our social safety net (already quite limited) would be slashed, social gains made under the Obama administration would be rendered nonexistent (at least I'm assuming they would given how much the Republicans hate Obama), and the economy would go to hell - it would be like having another George Bush in the White House all over again, but this time it would be worse. Actually, a Ronald Reagan comparison might be more accurate given how many of the gains made during the Civil Rights movement he was able to push back or remove outright.
I don't understand my fellow white progressives sometimes. I really, really don't.
MHWilliams
Member
And the rest of us are simply saying, we get your ideals, but given the the possibility that the system will work out the way we expect it to, you sometimes need to go with the likely alternative, because of a situation as illustrated by this poster:
To throw that away over an imagined war for perfection or drastic change is your right, but don't expect me to think that you're a good person for making that choice. And yes, it does seem rather selfish. (Then again, you can frame most decisions as selfish depending on your scope.)
EatinOlives
Member
I'm asking you to look inward here. Look at your tone in this post, your defensiveness, and the fact that you haven't bothered to find this out until this moment.
Are black people really your allies, or just a herd of voters for you to rein together behind a banner? You're mashing a square peg into a round hole shouting "WHY. WON'T. YOU. GO. IN???"
ArkhamFantasy
Member
I think Sanders is a dramatically superior candidate to Clinton, im not a fan of hers at all, but i would absolutely vote for her if she won the nomination, a republican president with a republican controlled house and senate would be absolutely catastrophic.
excelsiorlef
Member
I got twitter responses from random people searching his name...
I was called a communist and one said "Better dead than red"
It was hilarious.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Nope card has been played
holy shit this is amazing
BoboBrazil
Member
I got 91% Bernie to 87% Hilary. I'd be happy with either, but realistically think Hilary has the best chance to win against the Republicans in the general election. Main difference is probably their different views on marijuana legalization. I am with Bernie 100% on full legalization.
Those lunatics don't care about policy at all. It's all emotional. That's the only way I can rationalize someone swinging from Sanders to fucking Trump. Just insane. Its a fucking videogame to these clowns, and if their favs dont win then they just don't care. Shit is retarded.
You don't have to check 30 years ago though.
The argument against Sanders is "his only line of defense for racial justice is that he marched with MLK!" No, he has plenty of racial justice platforms in the present and in the proceeding years going back.
He has long argued against private prisons, lesser non violent crime sentencing and education investment, and police retraining, along with his more general minimum wage, and civil service advocacy, that has not been a new things, they are just positions he's held for a long time now getting some spotlight.
The fact that we've had people who have attacked him on this issue actually helped him put it front and center, and yet we still have people who cry about "well he's still an old white guy who doesn't get me, so i'm going to vote for Hillary, cause she was the black president's wife oh yeah!"
Its a bunch of shit i've heard IRL recently all too much. I've had arguments with friends and family members alike over it and its frankly sickening.
SolicitorPirate
Member
It's the shitty reality we all wake up to at some point. Be it trans people in the LBGT community, trans women in the feminist movement or non-white progressives in general. The common lesson all those groups learn is that many of our progressive allies are only progressive insofar as it benefits them or allows them to feel superior to other people.
excelsiorlef
Member
This was about him not voting for her in the GE, support Bern all you want in the primaries but if you walk away after that and say you don't care if a GOP prez gets in? Fuck that stance.
Progressive doesn't mean walking away and saying oh well if women, racial and sexual minory rights get thrown out by a GOP created conservative Supreme Court.
MHWilliams
Member
Yes, and this is what we're trying to state again and again.
excelsiorlef
Member
Nah it's a centrist court, dude it's a court that just barely passed Same-Sex marriage, any shift to the right and it becomes locked as a Conservative court, and thus bye bye abortion, LGBTQ rights, social programs, welfare, minorities protections, all that jazz.
There are liberal judges, 1 centrist and 4 conservatives.
This is a huge election in terms of the long time future of your Supreme Court.
sorry, I'm drunk
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
These older, moderate voters are voting against their own interests. They disgust me. Don't they know if they don't vote for Bernie, I'll refuse to be their ally?
Battersea Power Station
Member
Did you guys see Killer Mike pandering to white folk on Colbert, with the same Dr. King nonsense? He's basically an Uncle Tom at this point. Bruh, just vote for Hillary if you care about black values. We don't need your condescending apocalyptic scare tactics.
excelsiorlef
Member
Vigilant Walrus
Member
I didn't assume you didn't like Bernie. I understand the logistical sentiment of what you're saying with regards to voting for Hilary due to looking at it at a risk-assessment point of view.
What I don't understand is that why any Bernie sanders supporters even if they are loud or obnoxious are his own worst enemy? They're not. They are passionate, brass, and are trying to make it happen. Saying you'll vote for Trump if Hilary gets the nod- maybe not conducive, but many people are so fed up and angry at the state of things, that it going a bit crazy might be what is needed to push this thing further.
I read some of the comments here (who are anti-bernie) as knee-jerk reactions. Not to Bernie but to his loud base. That is an oxymoron, because Bernies base and their donations is his bread and butter. He's the underdog, hilary clinton is one of the most well known names in the world and she is one of the most powerful and influential people in the world. Is it really any wonder that the underdogs camp who really, essentially are striving for a political revolution are so loud, and is there really anything wrong with it?
I don't think so. At least not at the level it is right now. I do find it weird that not more people commented on IvySaurus Slate article about Sanders gay past, and I would wish for more nuance, but I guess that will always be lacking in politics.
It's because feelings get hurt. You say something good, but you say it not a nice way, and now the panties are all twisted and I can't support this aggressive extremist group.
That's what's going on. MLK is repeated and repeated because he said things in a way that was not screaming or hostile, and the white majority saw this as non-toxic and non-threatening. I believe some of these people get irrationally emotionally upset and cannot see it from the perspective of BLM. "They have a right to be angry, but they don't have too..." < It hasn't happened to them and ain't so close to them, so they are not as fed up with it all as them who are living it and have had enough of going through proper democratic channels.
Yes, the way you say it determines how people react to you. Be hostile in your tone, and get hostility right back at you.
Those people who are upset over the image, see a defenseless old man being yelled the fuck down, at people being hostile and ill intended towards her. It just launches a defensive response and then you're arguing about knee jerk reactions and feelings getting hurt.
People who haven't lived it, or had it close to them, or who are far removed from it, doesn't understand the movements anger, and thus the empathy becomes more distant. As for people who have lived or understand the suffering on a personal level have a completely different viewpoint of the same situation.
That is the real problem. it becomes about how they say it, not what they are saying. people get angry when the privileged liberals get their feelings hurt when its not their people getting fucked over so bad by the system. The other side feels it's a dangerous and anti-democratic way of getting your point across.
That's my take on it. That's not how it should be, but democracy in the US (and other places) have reached a place where drastic measures are being taken by individuals. people who are extremely unpopular push through and do things that causes change. There is a resistence to change because change can be uncomfortable.
Just like with Bernie. It feels like quite a few people don't want to give him a chance because the same reasons we've debated in every thread. and every thread has louder and more vocal bernie supporters who are being called toxic, dangerous, insane and culty. It's the same sort of thing. "stop being so loud and in the way."
The thing is, a lot of those positions she's only agreed with recently, and usually not so much more than "i support that/i dont support that". In that case, do you really trust her on those positions?
A lot of people's attitude toward HIllary is her inauthenticity as i'm sure you've heard, and there are reasons for that beyond just looking staged up at a podium.
When your actively lying about the opponents health care plan for example that "he's gonna kill ACA and leave millions of people without insurance, at mercy hands of the GOP states!" that's not an advocate of single payer, even though she claimed at one point to be one.
[/QUOTE]
In many people's perspectives, going for the easy choice instead of the hard choice has never been the thing that actually brought radical change to this country's issues, on a number of occasions, despite much opposition.
Bernie Sanders is not a perfect candidate. He has gun votes and positions he refuses to apologize for that i don't particularly care for, and his viewpoints on "conditioned wartime" are something i don't really see working out perpetually. He supports a two state solution and dislikes Netanyahu's government, but will support Israel more often then not on issues relating to their funding and support.
To say he's a socialist is a joke, and to claim he's even the most liberal of liberals is also wrong.
http://www.salon.com/2016/01/16/ber...and_but_hes_a_democrat_in_every_way_but_name/
There are a whole host of issues that i might say i dsagree with him on. But at the end of the day, i support a lot of what he says, and feel like he's the only genuine one to push for those things, in regards to policy, and in general viewpoints on the role of actual governance versus collusion with special interests over the citizenry.
Nobody sane thinks he's going to enact complete and total universal healthcare on his first day or even during his presidency, and that goes for Wall Street reform too, or racial justice, or anything else.
But we need the mindset of someone going in the right direction on those viewpoints, to slowly move the conversation in that direction, and many of us don't think Hillary even cares about that over Citi Group, JP Morgan or Goldman Sachs. In addition to the many other private industry firms she colludes with.
bobbychalkers
Member
*is no longer a part of this world*Nope card has been played
I wasn't trying to make an argument of false equivalence, ivysaur, merely that it's hardly a single-sided problem. You're the one that introduced specific quantity as the counterpoint here whereas I'm simply saying the volume is sufficient regardless of exact quantity to be frequently disruptive and unflattering for both sides. I'll grant you that the anti-Clinton group does seem to engage in harsher language to make their point ("Never in a million years will I vote for that...") but the anti-Sanders group relying more on faint praise and back-handed compliment to kill his bid ("Oh, I like Bernie, but he's just so *unelectable* and you know how this country feels about Socialists..."), is still trying to kill his bid, right?
And I've been in my fair share of arguments over the years (on the Internet, no less!) to know when an argument ends in honest disagreement and when one ends in patronizing dismissal (being that I've probably done as much dismissing as being dismissed). Hopefully you can trust me when I say I know the distinction and don't simply claim I've been patronized simply because someone disagrees with me.
get out of here with that bullshit
Ron Paul called for a political revolution and his supporters supposedly came out to vote. Big lot of good that did him.
Personally, a vote for Hillary is a vote for 90-95% of what Bernie would give us (seriously, if you think that Hillary is no better than a Republican than you should just refrain from voting), combined with actual foreign policy experience. I haven't heard Bernie say one word beyond 'income inequality' when it comes to anything outside of domestic policy, and the United States doesn't live in a vacuum. Given the choice between an ideologically pure Senator who is extremely one dimensional, and a slightly more right candidate who was fucking Secretary of State, I know which one I stand behind.
That said, I'd vote for Bernie if he won, but that point is moot since he won't.
excelsiorlef
Member
Nope card has been played
This is brilliant
Nope card has been played
"...but their effects, attack points, and defense points are muted" encapsulates the intended end result behind the invocations of MLK by so many people these days so well
MHWilliams
Member
All immaterial statements to what I'm saying.
If Bernie doesn't get the nomination, what do you do with your vote? Given some statements earlier, some would throw away that vote or give it to a Republican candidate, which many see as harmful.
You're arguing Bernie vs. Hillary before the final nomination. That's not the contention that's causing issues in this thread. The contention is "Vote Bernie, or else" is a horrible position, given the potential outcomes.
Okay, that is fair.
Silver Arrows
Banned
Even though I do like Killer Mike...this sort of knob slobbering on Bernie is getting to be a bit much.
Especially for how generally of a cool person he is otherwise.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
excelsiorlef
Member
Also non-violence? Bernie is weak sauce on gun control....
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
Wow, 98% Bernie to 94% Hillary.
Nope card has been played
This card's description could have been written a lot better.
Battersea Power Station
Member
That's not cool. I don't agree with Mike's views (although I like his music) but I wouldn't call him a scarecrow just because of one ridiculous statement he made on a talk show. He's still a real person.
Silver Arrows
Banned
He's talking about you, mate. I think
I am throwing down the satire card, can't judge it. You either get it or you don't
Battersea Power Station
Member
Hm? I've never tried to scare anyone into voting for Hillary. I just think she's the more pragmatic choice.
Aztechnology
Member
Nope card has been played
Wish me the best on my way to the afterlife...
Ladies and Gentlemen: Someone without shit to actually say.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
Got a 98% on both..
Bernie Sander ssupporters are very vocal and dislike that most mainstream and reliable polls have him losing to Hillary. He's been her closest competition since the primary started, but the gap has always been large in some key demographics that you need to beat Hillary in. It's hard to accept that you favorite candidate is losing to a woman who killed dabbing and has taken campaign contributions from big political spenders.
excelsiorlef
Member
This thread is a perpetual gift giving machine....
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll