Support NeoGAF

[brainchild]

Remove money from politics, and our system would still be corrupt.

Money, or the lack of it, did not create racism. And since the entire purpose of this thread is tonight's debate where both candidates spent a fair amount of time making their cases to the Southern States and the black electorate, I don't see a problem with pointing out that he's narrowing his message, and thus his chances with a lot of black voters, by focusing so much of his commentary on racial issues on how it ties into his economic inequality stump, even in questions where he's being directly prompted to step outside of that box.

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are running for president. They are actively trying to demonstrate their competency in DOING THEIR JOB, not playing God and even musing the idea that they can get rid of racism, sexism, ageism, bigotry, etc. on a fundamental level.

That isn't to say that talking about these issues on a fundamental level won't be helpful or useful to society, but they are right to focus on what they can hope to actually do in order to bring about a change in terms of the government's influence on these issues.

 

[watershed]

So, just confirm racial bias is an actual thing even though their whole talking points about systemic racism is predicated on that being true.

I'd like them to say that we teach racism. That we teach our children to be racist. That we are comfortable being racist. This belief kills people. It robs people of opportunity and their basic rights. These systems are the problem and so are we. Obama has said this in kinder ways in the past. He has used the national stage to talk about racism as an ideology that lives in people, not just external policies like housing and health. I want Bernie and Hillary, as two white candidates in one of this country's two major political parties to tell the truth. That takes courage and has been done before.

 

[pigeon]

Neither Hillary nor Bernie want to address racism directly. They want to talk about systemic racism in policing, education, healthcare, etc without talking about what motivates it: RACISM. Hillary gets closer than Bernie by a little.

Hillary has been pretty explicit in saying she doesn't believe you can directly address racism -- you "can't change hearts." You need to be aware of it and make policies that directly fight its consequences. That's different from trying to create color-blind policies that assume it doesn't exist.

 

[Prodigal Son]

I'd like them to say that we teach racism. That we teach our children to be racist. That we are comfortable being racist. This belief kills people. It robs people of opportunity and their basic rights. These systems are the problem and so are we. Obama has said this in kinder ways in the past. He has used the national stage to talk about racism as an ideology that lives in people, not just external policies like housing and health. I want Bernie and Hillary, as two white candidates in one of this country's two major political parties to tell the truth. That takes courage and has been done before.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but in what way, in your view, does modern America teach racist?

 

[Wall]

The attacks on single payer in the debate are just sad. You don't need an actuary to see that the U.S. pays the highest healthcare costs in the world yet still can't cover everyone; meanwhile, other countries where healthcare is guaranteed as a right pay less for healthcare; have the same or better health outcomes; and manage to cover everybody. Those countries use different methods to achieve those feats, but they all have in common a removal of the profit motive from the provision of health care.

Clinton is being disingenuous when she says we can achieve the same positive outcomes as those other countries through a system like the exchanges because such a system is built around the considerations of entities like health insurance companies. As long as we are forced to negotiate the needs of such entities when setting up our healthcare system, we will never be competitive with other countries. The reason we can't be competitive with other countries is that countries where the profit motive is removed from healthcare only need to consider the need to provide for their citizens, rather than balance that need with the considerations of "stakeholders" like insurance companies.

The doubly sad thing is that the ACA actually contains a mechanism for states to move to a single payer system like the one Sanders proposes. That won't work for very small states like Vermont - which is the experience the expert projection (Thorpe's) critical of Sanders plan comes from - but it will work in a large state like Colorado, where single payer is on the ballot. The attacks by Clinton and her allies are just harming this effort.

The same things can be said for criticisms of Sander's other plans. They are all ideas from other countries similar to our own. There is no reason they can't work here. There was a time this country actually embraced ideas from other places. Now we just turn inward and shout: "Amurrica".

Hearing the statements of the Democratic front-runner tonight, I was struck with the idea that Democrats have transformed from the party of "Yes we Can" in 2008 to the party of "No we Can't" in 2016. Sad. Ask Walter Mondale how that worked out for him.

 

[brainchild]

I'd like them to say that we teach racism. That we teach our children to be racist. That we are comfortable being racist. This belief kills people. It robs people of opportunity and their basic rights. These systems are the problem and so are we. Obama has said this in kinder ways in the past. He has used the national stage to talk about racism as an ideology that lives in people, not just external policies like housing and health. I want Bernie and Hillary, as two white candidates in one of this country's two major political parties to tell the truth. That takes courage and has been done before.

I'm sure there will be lots of different [important] topics that Bernie or Hillary will use their national platform for. At this point, they're basically going through a series of job interviews; not exactly the time to have a sit down with America and explain how the world works.

Hillary has been pretty explicit in saying she doesn't believe you can directly address racism -- you "can't change hearts." You need to be aware of it and make policies that directly fight its consequences. That's different from trying to create color-blind policies that assume it doesn't exist.

Definitely agree.

 

[crisdecuba]

Just finished my abridged debate video: 2 hours compressed to ~32 minutes.

https://youtu.be/Ozm1ansFfLM

Enjoy!!

 

[Psychoward]

So, just confirm racial bias is an actual thing even though their whole talking points about systemic racism are predicated on that being true.

Sure, but sometimes you need to put blame on individual racists as well as the system that allows them to conduct their racism.

And yes you're not always going to change a racists' mind, but afaik in these debates they've shied away from calling individuals racist.

 

[watershed]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but in what way, in your view, does modern America teach racist?

Sorry, if it was earlier in the night I would get into it. But I don't want to now. Just for example though, look at how we teach history, where people of color are taught and when, and what narratives are told and not told. That's just one example. Another, look at all the research that shows racial integration in schools, if it extends beyond elementary school, literally changes how people view people of other races. But we defunded integration and changes the legal requirements. Right now, public schools are more segregated by race than any other time post de-segregation (the era of actively desegregating schools). But it's not limited to public education. We teach more outside of school than we do in, and we teach white-normativity, colorblindness, and racial stereotypes all over the place. That's my attempt at a short answer, lol.

 

[Prodigal Son]

Sorry, if it was earlier in the night I would get into it. But I don't want to now. Just for example though, look at how we teach history, where people of color are taught and when, and what narratives are told and not told. That's just one example. Another, look at all the research that shows racial integration in schools, if it extends beyond elementary school, literally changes how people view people of other races. But we defunded integration and changes the legal requirements. Right now, public schools are more segregated by race than any other time post de-segregation (the era of actively desegregating schools). But it's not limited to public education. We teach more outside of school than we do in, and we teach white-normativity, colorblindness, and racial stereotypes all over the place. That's my attempt at a short answer, lol.

Yeah, spot on dude. Sorry to push you this late, just wanted someone to articulate it for me.

 

[brainchild]

Sure, but sometimes you need to put blame on individual racists as well as the system that allows them to conduct their racism.

A politician can actually do something about the latter. A politician has no magical powers to take away the former. A politician running for president will probably focus on issues they feel that they can do something about.

 

[ApharmdX]

Just finished my abridged debate video: 2 hours compressed to ~32 minutes.

https://youtu.be/Ozm1ansFfLM

Enjoy!!

Perfect, thanks for posting this.

 

[royalan]

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are running for president. They are actively trying to demonstrate their competency in DOING THEIR JOB, not playing God and even musing the idea that they can get rid of racism, sexism, ageism, bigotry, etc. on a fundamental level.

That isn't to say that talking about these issues on a fundamental level won't be helpful or useful to society, but they are right to focus on what they can hope to actually do in order to bring about a change in terms of the government's influence on these issues.

I'm confused, where did I, or Hillary for that matter, suggest that it was the job of these candidates to abolish racism/sexism/ageism/etc? Where are you getting that from?

Hillary said it best in her first meeting with Black Lives Matter activists: you don't change hearts, you change laws. We're talking POLICY here. What do you plan to do and how will you address these issues. You're right, these issues go well beyond politics and our political system, but I don't agree that these issues can't be addressed with our political system.

I feel like you're implying that Bernie Sanders is refusing to "play god" by narrowing his campaign to one issue.

 

[Psychoward]

A politician can actually do something about the latter. A politician has no magical powers to take away the former. A politician running for president will probably focus on issues they feel that they can do something about.

I am in total agreement, but that doesn't mean I can't be disappointed that they never throw in an off-hand comment about one of the issues blocking our progress.

 

[Prodigal Son]

I'm confused, where did I, or Hillary for that matter, suggest that it was the job of these candidates to abolish racism/sexism/ageism/etc? Where are you getting that from?

Hillary said it best in her first meeting with Black Lives Matter activists: you don't change hearts, you change laws. We're talking POLICY here. What do you plan to do and how will you address these issues. You're right, these issues go well beyond politics and our political system, but I don't agree that these issues can't be addressed with our political system.

I feel like you're implying that Bernie Sanders is refusing to "play god" by narrowing his campaign to one issue.

Of course it isn't the only issue, but like I've been saying time and time again, it's an issue that affects all issues. If 90% of America wants gun background checks, we should have gun background checks. We don't have gun background checks because powers like the NRA have money in congress. A sensible person sees this and nips problem at the bud. You don't continue to lobby primarily for gun control, you lobby to remove the financial corruption from congress. It doesn't take a political genius to see this. This is common reasoning.

Obama wasn't given money from Wall-Street because they were feeling generous. They gave him money because they expected something in return. They got it. They still have a hand in congress and a president who hasn't, at all, made it a chief goal to change that.

Our system is fucked and it's so saddening to see people have brainwashed themselves into voting for candidates who are accepting and even supporting of corruption in its purest form. Stop drinking the fucking kool aid.

Dude. Corruption isn't 'one issue.'

 

[watershed]

Yeah, spot on dude. Sorry to push you this late, just wanted someone to articulate it for me.

No worries, glad to provide.

 

[royalan]

Dude. Corruption isn't 'one issue.'

We're arguing in circles here.

Let's go back to the beginning. My main point that you originally responded to was that Bernie Sanders should broaden his message on racism as a sole issue, and not just in how it relates to economic inequality, especially when he's asked by the moderators to do specifically that. Your response seems to be that economic inequality is a high tier issue that effects that a host of other problems. Ok, and? I'm not disagreeing with you, I just don't see how this addresses what I said.

 

[DataStream]

I think Bernie should just come out and say that he supports a higher level of isolationism and believes in the legitimacy of gathering international support via the UN before taking any action. His points are all well taken and illustrate his history on the issue, but he needs to give people a firm idea of how he decides on issues when it comes to FP.

Overall, I think he came out on top (and imagine most Hilary supporters feel the same way). I will say that if she keeps ramping up her attacks it will not work out well for her.

 

[brainchild]

I'm confused, where did I, or Hillary for that matter, suggest that it was the job of these candidates to abolish racism/sexism/ageism/etc? Where are you getting that from?

Hillary said it best in her first meeting with Black Lives Matter activists: you don't change hearts, you change laws. We're talking POLICY here. What do you plan to do and how will you address these issues. You're right, these issues go well beyond politics and our political system, but I don't agree that these issues can't be addressed with our political system.

I feel like you're implying that Bernie Sanders is refusing to "play god" by narrowing his campaign to one issue.

If you're calling for presidential candidates to attempt to fix these issues at the root, then you're asking them to step outside of the political system, don deified suits, and magically change people's hearts.

If you're calling for presidential candidates to attempt to fix these issues from within the political system, then focusing on removing the corruption from this system is 100% relevant to any solution that could be proposed through such a system.

Yes, removing the corruption doesn't remove the issues, but it allows one to actually do everything they can from within the system, whereas maintaining corruption significantly inhibits one's ability to do so.

We're arguing in circles here.

Let's go back to the beginning. My main point that you originally responded to was that Bernie Sanders should broaden his message on racism as a sole issue, and not just in how it relates to economic inequality, especially when he's asked by the moderators to do specifically that. Your response seems to be that economic inequality is a high tier issue that effects that a host of other problems. Ok, and? I'm not disagreeing with you, I just don't see how this addresses what I said.

No, more like money in politics is an issue that effects all other issues in politics. Economic inequality is an issue, but it is fueled by political corruption.

 

[Prodigal Son]

We're arguing in circles here.

Let's go back to the beginning. My main point that you originally responded to was that Bernie Sanders should broaden his message on racism as a sole issue, and not just in how it relates to economic inequality, especially when he's asked by the moderators to do specifically that. Your response seems to be that economic inequality is a high tier issue that effects that a host of other problems. Ok, and? I'm not disagreeing with you, I just don't see how this addresses what I said.

There we go then. I missed the main point of our issue. None of my posts were about racism because I completely stepped over the fact that you were talking about racism. I'm sorry about this. We're on different pages.

That said, the immediate legislative solution to institutional shows of racism will never come into effect with a congress whose corrupt financial interests say otherwise. The black community might not like this answer, but as a black man, I think it's the right answer.

 

[finowns]

Sure, but sometimes you need to put blame on individual racists as well as the system that allows them to conduct their racism.

And yes you're not always going to change a racists' mind, but afaik in these debates they've shied away from calling individuals racist.

When you say 'individual racist' it almost sounds like a manageable population. Racial bias is, I think, far more wide spread.

I don't disagree with what you and the other poster are saying but it seems vague to me. Where does racism come from? And is one persons racism the same as another's, or are their varying degrees. These are import questions but I don't know if we will get satisfying answers from Sanders or Hillary. But, hopefully they can have an impact on the political systems that promote bigotry which is what they should be talking about.

 

[Jay-Hova]

We're arguing in circles here.

Let's go back to the beginning. My main point that you originally responded to was that Bernie Sanders should broaden his message on racism as a sole issue, and not just in how it relates to economic inequality, especially when he's asked by the moderators to do specifically that. Your response seems to be that economic inequality is a high tier issue that effects that a host of other problems. Ok, and? I'm not disagreeing with you, I just don't see how this addresses what I said.

I don't see how he could address it as an issue without tying it into with something else on the topic of policy.
Unless it's something like when he did that terrible pivot from Muslim profiling to wall street,

 

[brainchild]

I am in total agreement, but that doesn't mean I can't be disappointed that they never throw in an off-hand comment about one of the issues blocking our progress.

Fair enough, I'd like that too, but I have a feeling we're gonna see it once Hillary or Bernie become president.

 

[royalan]

If you're calling for presidential candidates to attempt to fix these issues at the root, then you're asking them to step outside of the political system, don deified suits, and magically change people's hearts. I'm not doing this.

If you're calling for presidential candidates to attempt to fix these issues from within the political system, then focusing on removing the corruption from this system is 100% relevant to any solution that could be proposed through such a system.I'm not doing this either. Not quite, anyway.

Yes, removing the corruption doesn't remove the issues, but it allows one to actually do everything they can from within the system, whereas maintaining corruption significantly inhibits one's ability to do so.

Correct me if I'm wrong, because this is where I'm disagreeing with you: It seems that you (and Prodigal Son) are suggesting that in order for anything of note to be achieved, money must first be removed from our political system, which would then weed out the corruption. I believe that money is only one of many reasons that our political system is corrupt, and so if you're waiting for a ethnically pure political system before you set out to do the work and get shit done, then we'll be waiting a long time.

 

[onipex]

Bernie's answer to every question (race, gender equality, size of government) is taking on big money. His message has gone from a breath of fresh air to a broken record. He comes off as the better version of Jimmy McMillan ( rents too high guy).

On foreign policy he voted against a war and that's it.

His Henry Kissinger attack ,while good, was all he really had when his voting record came up. It got the job done though.

Hillary comes off as more informed , but she really needs to stop trying to paint Bernie as anti Obama. No one is going to buy it. Painting Bernie as an one note candidate was her best attack.

Neither one really did any self damage. The one issue candidate attack could stick to Bernie and Kissinger could stick to Hillary. I think Hillary did an okay job responding to it but the media could still run with it. Bernie might wear the one issue candidate claim as a badge of honor, but it could hurt him.

I think Clinton won this debate with her closing remarks , but both did well its more like an Iowa win.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I mean, her voting record can't really reflect how Bernie has pushed her, right? Has she made a lot of significant votes since Bernie's campaign really started to kick into gear? This doesn't sound like a meaningful metric. Comparing her current policies to pre-Bernie would be more revealing.

She's not a Senator anymore.

Point is when she was she was 93% similar to Sanders in the Senate so it's ridiculous to say Sanders has made her completely change everything. She was already similar.

Like this is what some people need to understand both are great candidates with good records. Clinton is not the GOP in blue

 

[Jay-Hova]

Bernie's answer to every question (race, gender equality, size of government) is taking on big money. His message has gone from a breath of fresh air to a broken record. He comes off as the better version of Jimmy McMillan ( rents too high guy).

On foreign policy he voted against a war and that's it.

His Henry Kissinger attack ,while good, was all he really had when his voting record came up. It got the job done though.

Hillary comes off as more informed , but she really needs to stop trying to paint Bernie as anti Obama. No one is going to buy it. Painting Bernie as an one note candidate was her best attack.

Neither one really did any self damage. The one issue candidate attack could stick to Bernie and Kissinger could stick to Hillary. I think Hillary did an okay job responding to it but the media could still run with it. Bernie might wear the one issue candidate claim as a badge of honor, but it could hurt him.

I think Clinton won this debate with her closing remarks , but both did well its more like an Iowa win.

I don't know how much this would address your issues with Bernie.
But this is a good relatively unbiased history on his political career (so not his activities in college or when he ran for high school office on the promise of starting a scholarship for Korean orphans and lost but still got it done with the help of the guy who did win, irrelevant but I just wanted to add it).
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-sanders-radical-past-how-the-vermont-230255076.html

 

[brainchild]

Correct me if I'm wrong, because this is where I'm disagreeing with you: It seems that you (and Prodigal Son) are suggesting that in order for anything of note to be achieved, money must first be removed from our political system, which would then weed out the corruption. I believe that money is only one of many reasons that our political system is corrupt, and so if you're waiting for a ethnically pure political system before you set out to do the work and get shit done, then we'll be waiting a long time.

Well, from Bernie's perspective, getting money out of politics is part of 'getting shit done'.

And you're right, money isn't the only factor in political corruption, but it is currently the most powerful factor. You can never remove corruption 100% from any organization or government because it is comprised of humans; a species prone to corruption by many factors. However, of the factors that a politician can actually set as a goal to remove, money is the most important one.

So no, I'm not saying that we need to wait until the ethics in our political system are squeaky clean, but if our system operated from a functioning democracy free of the influence of powerful special interests groups, and if we had publicly funded elections, many of the issues we've been talking about would have a better chance at being addressed.

 

[Wall]

Bernie's answer to every question (race, gender equality, size of government) is taking on big money. His message has gone from a breath of fresh air to a broken record. He comes off as the better version of Jimmy McMillan ( rents too high guy).

On foreign policy he voted against a war and that's it.

His Henry Kissinger attack ,while good, was all he really had when his voting record came up. It got the job done though.

Hillary comes off as more informed , but she really needs to stop trying to paint Bernie as anti Obama. No one is going to buy it. Painting Bernie as an one note candidate was her best attack.

Neither one really did any self damage. The one issue candidate attack could stick to Bernie and Kissinger could stick to Hillary. I think Hillary did an okay job responding to it but the media could still run with it. Bernie might wear the one issue candidate claim as a badge of honor, but it could hurt him.

I think Clinton won this debate with her closing remarks , but both did well its more like an Iowa win.

I agree that Bernie comes off as one note sometimes. Personally, I wish he would go into more details regarding why his plans would work. I also wish he would outline his vision for foreign policy.

On the other hand, that one note gives Bernie a coherent message. Clinton can rattle off a lot of details, which makes her seem informed (Don't get me wrong. I am not saying she isn't), but it also makes her seem a little scattered in her messaging. She also comes across as a bit negative and reactive.

It's also worth remembering, I think, that most people don't obsessively follow politics to the point where they watch or read about debates constantly. It can be worthwhile to repeat oneself to reach such people.

 

[onipex]

I don't know how much this would address your issues with Bernie.
But this is a good relatively unbiased history on his political career (so not his activities in college or when he ran for high school office on the promise of starting a scholarship for Korean orphans and lost but still got it done with the help of the guy who did win).
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-sanders-radical-past-how-the-vermont-230255076.html

I've followed Bernie long before he started his run for president. I'm a fan , but being a fan will not get him my vote. Laying out details on other issues like he does when it comes to history or big money will do it. He has been in politics long enough that I can't look past this. I also can't see him as anti establishment because of how long he has been in the game.

Edit:

I agree that Bernie comes off as one note sometimes. Personally, I wish he would go into more details regarding why his plans would work. I also wish he would outline his vision for foreign policy.

On the other hand, that one note gives Bernie a coherent message. Clinton can rattle off a lot of details, which makes her seem informed (Don't get me wrong. I am not saying she isn't), but it also makes her seem a little scattered in her messaging. She also comes across as a bit negative and reactive.

It's also worth remembering, I think, that most people don't obsessively follow politics to the point where they watch or read about debates constantly. It can be worthwhile to repeat oneself to reach such people.

Clinton never had good messaging imo. If she wins the nomination Sanders may have done her a huge favor, because her closing remarks to this debate was the clearest thing she has said yet. I don't think the repeating Sanders is doing is the same as Clinton does with her failed " Sanders sad mean things about Obama" attacks. He is asked about race relations and says he will tax the rich. He get asked about sexism and says he will take on the banks ( I know he didn't say this). I mean at this point its getting annoying. Its working for him right now so I guess that all that really matters to his campaign.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I think Bernie should just come out and say that he supports a higher level of isolationism and believes in the legitimacy of gathering international support via the UN before taking any action. His points are all well taken and illustrate his history on the issue, but he needs to give people a firm idea of how he decides on issues when it comes to FP.

I mean the issue here is what degree of interaction does he foresee the US having with the world if his approach will not be isolationist. His varying statements on containing Russia, on reducing US interventions, on destroying ISIS, on when it is and isn't okay to call for regime change - with associated voting, sometimes all in the single debate segment, can come off as inconsistent/unclear; and I think it's because he honestly hasn't really thought about it much. On the whole, I can surmise he sees a more diminished role for the US in leading world affairs, and ymmv on whether that's a good or bad thing, but it's difficult to discern how diminished and what that role would look.

Afghanistan was UN-sanctioned action carried out by a broad coalition and has been the longest US war ever; action in Libya was also [ostensibly] backed by a UN mandate, pressure from allies to act and support from the Arab League.

In the end, it probably won't matter though given foreign policy doesn't seem to matter in this race anyway.

 

[theignoramus]

I didn't know 2007 Hillary used John McCain in this weird dual pronged attack on Obamas lack of experience.

" John McCain and I have years of experience, Obama wrote a speech"

She paid lip service to a Republican candidate from across the aisle to try and undermine Obama, that's hard core.

 

[dabig2]

Remove money from politics, and our system would still be corrupt.

Money may not create racism, but it fuels it. It's actually more about power/control instead of money but the 2 are closely tied together in a capitalist society like ours. Poor and middle class whites aren't racist for zero reason. They instinctively know that they're fighting for table scraps at an exclusive and tiny table and that black people and other minorities are fighting for those same scraps.

For example, take a look back at antebellum slavery. People who owned slaves were an extreme minority of the population, but slavery was supported by the vast majority in the South. Why? Because it kept the black man down on the social ladder. There's a bit of pride in being above someone else without actually having to do anything other than just being born the right color. Impoverished Irish people in the old days were racist as fuck and literally burned down New York City and lynched dozens of black people in protest of the Civil War because they knew the score - that freed black people would be gunning for the same scraps and that they'll lose their competitive advantage. It didn't matter that other whites treated them like shit just as long as black people were treated worse.
Black Wall St wasn't burned down because white people woke up 1 day and said "fuck black people". It goes deeper than that. They saw that black people were accumulating wealth and could soon threaten their own standing.

Selfishness and fear are the root causes of racism, and selfishness and fear are tied to resource scarcity. We can't solve resource scarcity, but we can address the fact that the rich and powerful engineer it and keep increasing it because they know that infighting among the impoverished keeps their own positions safe. Whether that infighting be centered on racism and/or religion (the 2 biggest tribal divides today) doesn't matter to them as long as we all keep tearing each other apart for the same scraps.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Lincoln should have compromised with the South by letting them keep their slaves but make incremental changes to their quality of life. Right?

Lincoln ran his campaign on that idea, and his hand was only forced due to the Civil War. He didn't want to instantly free the slaves because he feared it would lead to a breaking of the union, and ensuring the union stayed together was Lincoln's primary goal as president.

And even after Lincoln "freed" the slaves, they weren't really free, and it took decades to get them their rights. Even now, 150 years later, our country still struggles with the scars of the Civil War.

So yea...

- Lincoln did compromise for a very long time and based his entire campaign's message on compromise and incremental change. Given the choice between compromise and freeing the slaves, Lincoln would have picked compromise, every time. He only was forced by the Civil War to start being more drastic.
- Tensions got so high, we had to fight the bloodiest war we've ever fought. Nobody is going to go to war over Health Care.
- Even after the slaves were technically "free" they weren't really, had very limited rights, and in many cases, slavery just kept going on under different schemes and names. It would take a hundred years to restore voting rights to freed slaves.
- Even today, the tensions of the Civil War still live on. We haven't even fully healed.


Lincoln didn't snap his fingers and suddenly all the slaves were free and had full rights and the same quality of life as whites. It took his entire presidency, a huge war, and hundreds of years of incremental legislation to fully get rid of the country's ties with slavery. And he was killed over it. And even today, it isn't entirely cleaned up, as states find new ways to disenfranchise African Americans of their rights, often using some of the same tactics as the late 1800s. Some would argue slavery isn't even over, as we haven't even fully cleaned up the mess from a hundred and fifty years ago. And I think they'd have a pretty strong argument that there's a lot more work to be done cleaning up the ties to slavery that still exist.

"Lincoln freed the slaves" is a nice thing to tell 4th graders in their history lessons, but the real story of slavery, Lincoln and the Civil War is a lot more nuanced and a lot more interesting.

 

[stupei]

Hillary, back in a debate in January:

"One out of three African-American men may well end up going to prison. That's the statistic. I want people here to think what we would be doing if it was one out of three white men. And very often the black men are arrested, convicted, and incarcerated for offenses that do not lead to the same results for white men. So we have a very serious problem that we can no longer ignore."

How much more direct can she get?

 

[Dude Abides]

What's Bernie's plan for getting money out of politics?

 

[Gruco]

What's Bernie's plan for getting money out of politics?

In real world terms, nominate judges who will overturn citizens united. In Bernie terms, pass a constitutional amendment defining that the government has the power to regulate election spending and create a revolutionary public finance system.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

I share your frustration but I completely disagree: packing the Supreme Court with liberal justices is the easiest and most secure way of pushing the country left, particularly with a rabid, unpredictable GOP controlled congress.

Also, I think this cycle, on the GOP side, illustrates just how dangerous playing that ideological purity game can be. The GOP can't stop eating their own, they're undergoing huge upheaval. You don't come out of a process like that unscathed.

What makes SC appointments who may or may not vote liberal in major cases the easiest and the most secure way? The president can appoint well over 1,000 people with Senate approval and hundreds of without approval. It's not the Supreme Court's job to move the country left to counterbalance a rabid and unpredictable GOP because moving right is not in and of itself unconstitutional.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

It's not the Supreme Court's job to move the country left to counterbalance a rabid and unpredictable GOP because moving right is not in and of itself unconstitutional.

And yet time and time again in the history of this country, that's exactly what they've done. Forced the country left on certain issues.

And on the flip side, a conservative Supreme Court can make liberal policies impossible to enact. See, for example, Citizen's United or Dred Scott

 

[Eidan]

What's Bernie's plan for getting money out of politics?

Through the force of his will and passion.

 

[Slayven]

I think that was the best debate so far on race questions. Sad it took this long to get some hard questions.

 

[Kathian]

Hillary, back in a debate in January:

How much more direct can she get?

The US needs political reform from a local to federal level to really start to change things. Too many elected officials and not enough responsibility. None of the candidates even begin to discuss true political reform.

 

[BowieZ]

I think Clinton won this debate with her closing remarks , but both did well its more like an Iowa win.

I pretty much agree with this. Sanders' closing remarks were worryingly repetitive and unemphatic, whereas Clinton got all stumpin' and got the crowd rallied up.

He could have done a lot better and this really didn't come at a great time, as the media will certainly have a field day with his weaker performance.

The "you ran against him" line is not going to cut it in future. He needs to somehow approach the Obama legacy issue in a totally new way.

 

[fantomena]

I had to google Kissinger, never heard of him lol.

After googling I found myself confused of why Hillary would take advice from that shithead.

 

[Veritigo_X]

Statement last night from Sanders' campaign manager Jeff Weaver: "If Secretary Clinton had her way there would be no President Barack Obama."

... is this really the angle they are taking? It just seems like a funny response to the Obama legacy discussion.

 

[RustyNails]

I think that was the best debate so far on race questions. Sad it took this long to get some hard questions.

That weird segue by Bernie tying this topic with Wall street was awkward. And I cringed when he said "hanging out in the corner", specifically when talking about young black teens. Come on...

 

[Abounder]

Hillary being proud of Kissinger shows how out of touch she is to the left, along with 'sending a message' by voting to deport kids in need. Hillary's point about how criticizing Obama is somehow bad was just nonsensical, and she got completely destroyed on that in one sentence of Bernie's closing statement. What also scares me about Hillary is her vague language about cracking down the internet to hunt down ISIS, which in a way goes back to her vote for the Patriot Act.

All that said she's a much more articulate speaker than Sanders. Rubio needs to watch Hillary

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Statement last night from Sanders' campaign manager Jeff Weaver: "If Secretary Clinton had her way there would be no President Barack Obama."

... is this really the angle they are taking? It just seems like a funny response to the Obama legacy discussion.

That is a horrible, horrible way to go about this.

It can so easily be pushed aside by Hillary, while at the same time giving her a chance to keep him, wanting to primary Obama, as the focus.

It's pretty obvious to anyone that Hillary holds no ill will or resentment towards Obama.

 

[vikki]

That weird segue by Bernie tying this topic with Wall street was awkward. And I cringed when he said "hanging out in the corner", specifically when talking about young black teens. Come on...

I wonder if hanging out on the corner is code for something?

 

[Prologue]

I had to google Kissinger, never heard of him lol.

After googling I found myself confused of why Hillary would take advice from that shithead.

She takes advice from him, but won't do open talk with world leaders without them meeting our demands.