If you're poor, and all your neighbors are poor, then you neighborhood isn't going to be pulling in the needed revenue for the schools and other local institutions and services. When you've got bad schools and a crumbling infrastructure, businesses leave, taking jobs with them. These neighborhoods with high unemployment and lack of quality education are perfect for criminal markets (drugs, prostitution, etc) to take root and flourish. The solution isn't to provide bootstrap instructions to the poor, it's to break this vicious cycle of poverty. Namely, fix the infrastructure and improve the schools, which would create jobs and better equip future generations for the working world.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Black Lives Matter shuts down a Bernie Sanders rally
- Thread starter soleil
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
If you're poor, and all your neighbors are poor, then you neighborhood isn't going to be pulling in the needed revenue for the schools and other local institutions and services. When you've got bad schools and a crumbling infrastructure, businesses leave, taking jobs with them. These neighborhoods with high unemployment and lack of quality education are perfect for criminal markets (drugs, prostitution, etc) to take root and flourish. The solution isn't to provide bootstrap instructions to the poor, it's to break this vicious cycle of poverty. Namely, fix the infrastructure and improve the schools, which would create jobs and better equip future generations for the working world.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Yeah, except you've just done what the previous guy did which is imply causation without actually demonstrating why. Blacks were enslaved, then discriminated against, then given poor schooling, then targeted disproportionately by a criminal justice system. Those things could have happened under any economic system, so explain how capitalism is the problem.
Sure, there has been discrimination in literally every nation ever to exist (including mass murder of sexual minorities in many communist nations) and slavery in plenty, but capitalism is the only cause of racism. What we need to do is make a more socialist nation where hiring decisions are made by people appointed by government officials that hate black people.
Also, capitalism benefits dramatically from mass immigration, but that is opposed by, guess who, racists.
Racism is a psychological and cultural phenomena caused by the brain's tendency to generalize as much as possible and young, white, male Socialists ignoring that are doing a disservice to people.
And did you face systemic discrimination growing up?Being poor is not an excuse or reason to push your fucking agenda that's why the reason crime rate is the way it is. I grew up without two pennies to rub together, and I never committed a crime or needed to rob, hurt or steal from someone, It's just so fucking frustrating to sit here and read that you people have it all solved but but but their poor. No it's not a excuse or crutch.
Dude can't just rest on his laurels, politics is a "what are you doing about this issue now," job. He's a national candidate for the presidency, and as a result of a weak field the primary challenger to Hillary Clinton. If they're giving him shit it means they don't feel he's paying enough attention to his issues and that's fair. He's been talking mostly economics until now, but that won't stop a cop from pulling a black man over and shooting them for no reason other than being black. He's gotta address that shit more. If Biden, or another strong candidate, was in the race he wouldn't have this problem, but he's the number 2 guy right now.
It definitely will in the long run. Inequality makes some groups the easy target of police abuse. Hitting quotas and wanting to minimize blowback leads to racial profiling. You don't have to be poor to be affected by that. Changes to policing, reducing poverty (systemic racism) and providing quality legal aid is a really real solution to a lot of problems.
Sanders is offering more than that, but people are wilfully ignoring this for some reason.
Sure, there has been discrimination in literally every nation ever to exist (including mass murder of sexual minorities in many communist nations) and slavery in plenty, but capitalism is the only cause of racism. What we need to do is make a more socialist nation where hiring decisions are made by people appointed by government officials that hate black people.
Also, capitalism benefits dramatically from mass immigration, but that is opposed by, guess who, racists.
Racism is a psychological and cultural phenomena caused by the brain's tendency to generalize as much as possible and young, white, male Socialists ignoring that are doing a disservice to people.
The politicians pushing deeply capitalistic policies are the same ones that, generally, we would think couldn't give less of a shit about minorities.
Capitalism benefits from mass immigration in that business benefits by being able to undercut and undermine the wages and benefits earned by the country's citizens over time. A capitalistic society that existed with little to none of the worker's rights that we have wouldn't benefit nearly the same from immigration.
Racism isn't solely about money. Everyone knows that. But there's no magic button or foolproof plan for getting rid of people's prejudices. It's just not happening. Ignoring the role economics play in the endless cycle of racism, and how they're used to institutionalize racism, is doing a great disservice to people. Do you think the average Republican voter who GAF might think of as a racist looks at a Ben Carson the same way they'd look at a 20-year old black man who just got arrested for Marijuana? Of course they wouldn't. What's the difference between the two? That one had the good sense to make ample use of his God-given bootstraps?
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
The politicians pushing deeply capitalistic policies are the same ones that, generally, we would think couldn't give less of a shit about minorities.
Capitalism benefits from mass immigration in that business benefits by being able to undercut and undermine the wages and benefits earned by the country's citizens over time. A capitalistic society that existed with little to none of the worker's rights that we have wouldn't benefit nearly the same from immigration.
Racism isn't solely about money. Everyone knows that. But there's no magic button or foolproof plan for getting rid of people's prejudices. It's just not happening. Ignoring the role economics play in the endless cycle of racism, and how they're used to institutionalize racism, is doing a great disservice to people. Do you think the average Republican voter who GAF might think of as a racist looks at a Ben Carson the same way they'd look at a 20-year old black man who just got arrested for Marijuana? Of course they wouldn't. What's the difference between the two? That one had the good sense to make ample use of his God-given bootstraps?
The present paper has extended the national approach to the analysis of the effect of immigration on wages in the tradition of Borjas (2003) and Borjas and Katz (2007). In particular, it has argued that a structural model of production, combining workers of different skills with capital, is necessary to assess the effect of immigration on the wages of native workers of different skills in the long run. Estimating a reduced-form or a partial elasticity does not give complete information about the total wage effect of immigration as these estimate only the effect of direct competition, whereas the total wage effect is also determined by indirect complementarities among different types of immigrants and natives. Using a nested-CES framework seems to be a promising way to make progress in understanding the total wage effect of immigration. And while such a framework imposes restrictions on cross-elasticities, it is flexible enough to allow for different nesting structures and, therefore, for testing alternative restrictions.
In this framework we found a small but significant degree of imperfect substitutability between natives and immigrants within education and experience groups. A substitution elasticity of around 20 is supported by our estimates. Allowing this elasticity to vary across education groups results in significantly lower estimates among less educated workers (around 11.1). In the long run, these estimates imply an overall average positive effect of immigration on native wages of about 0.6% and an overall average negative effect on the wages of previous immigrants of about −6%.
We have also argued that the elasticity of substitution between workers with no degree and workers with a high school degree is an important parameter in determining the wage effects of immigration. The established tradition in labor economics of assuming that this elasticity is large (around 33) is strongly supported by the data. Also consistent with the labor literature, we found that the elasticity of substitution between workers with some college education or more and those with a high school education or less is much smaller (around 2). The relatively balanced inflow of immigrants belonging to these two groups from 1990 to 2006 implies very small relative wage effects due to immigration. Varying the nesting or other elasticity assumptions (for example, by inverting education and experience in the nest, or allowing different elasticities of substitution between young and old workers) matter much less in determining the total wage effect of immigration on natives of different educational levels.
All in all, one finding seems robust: once imperfect substitutability between natives and immigrants is allowed for, over the period 1990–2006 immigration to the United States had at most a modest negative long-run effect on the real wages of the least educated natives. This effect is between −2.1% and +1.7% depending on the chosen nesting structure, with the positive results coming from the nesting structure preferred by the data. Our finding at the national level of a small wage effect of immigration on less-educated natives is in line with the findings identified at the city level.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01052.x/full
23
5. Conclusions
In this paper we have investigated the
result of previous studies analysing the
effect of immigration on na
tives’ wages. As already no
ted by Borjas (2003), the
estimated effect of immigration on the
wage of native workers varies widely
from study to study and sometimes
even within the same study.
By means of meta-analysis techniques we
statistically summarised 344 estimates
collected from a sample of eighteen stud
ies computing the percentage change in
the wage of a native worker
with respect to a one percen
tage point increase in the
ratio of immigrants over native workers.
Issues such as
publication bias and
study quality were addressed. Overall, the
effect is very small. A one percentage
point increase in the proportion of immigr
ants in the labour force lowers wages
across the investigated studi
es by only 0.119 percent.
We found that the negative impact of i
mmigration on wages is larger in EU
countries than in th
e US. However, such differences
should not be attributed to
the geographical size of the local labour
markets that constitute the observations
in the primary studies. We
also found that, other things equal, immigrants are
more in competition with other immigr
ants than with natives. However,
immigration does not appear
to have different effects on female than on male
workers.
Much work remains to be done on assess
ing the impact of immigration on labour
markets. The broad conclusion of 22 year
s of research since Grossman’s (1982)
estimates is that the impact of immigra
tion on wages is statistically significant
but quantitatively small. This
has been indeed confirme
d by our meta-analysis.
The challenge for further research is to
identify and separate carefully the many
adjustment processes that have given rise
to this observation. Research on capital
flows, sectoral change, economies of s
cale and technological change induced by
immigration would need high priority. Mo
reover, it is likely that the short-run
impact of immigration differs strongly
from the medium and long-term impact,
so that dynamic analysis with time seri
es data on labour markets and longitudinal
data on workers should now replace the
conventional cross-sectional area and
factor proportions approaches.
http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10289/824/PSC-dp-47.pdf?sequence=1
This paper copies like garbage so just scroll down to the conclusion.
http://www.researchgate.net/profile...and_Growth/links/00b7d53510a07bb20b000000.pdf
Nah. More people=more production=better economic performance. Wages aren't driven down much at all.
And second gen immigrants aren't unskilled at all.
zero shift
Banned
Sure, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Swedes_by_net_worth lists the billionaires. Divide the total by Swedens gdp - around 500 billion.
That isn't a wholey accurate way of looking at things because networth doesn't include tax which Sweden is known for. Still that is pretty eye opening all things considered.
PhoenixDark
Banned
#BlackLivesMatter Activists Plan to Disrupt Hillary Clinton Event
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Hillary's security should be able to prevent stupidity from reaching the stage, but they'll likely be able to interrupt things from the crowd.
No. Many liberals were on board with the civil rights movement (including Sanders). That comment is moreso about 1950s/1960s moderate (and some liberal) commentators wringing their hands over process, why the movement should wait, etc.
Nor would I compare Sanders, a socialist (or democrat socialist) to corporate/traditional democrats like Hillary or Obama. You could argue the democrat party sold out its constituents (unions, working class, minorities, etc) a long time ago. Perhaps most recently with NAFTA and of course TPP. They've improved and are of course better than republicans but still. I wouldn't lump Sanders in the same boat.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Hillary's security should be able to prevent stupidity from reaching the stage, but they'll likely be able to interrupt things from the crowd.
Question- MLK's "White Moderate" quote, was he talking about Liberals? Were they called moderates at the time?
No. Many liberals were on board with the civil rights movement (including Sanders). That comment is moreso about 1950s/1960s moderate (and some liberal) commentators wringing their hands over process, why the movement should wait, etc.
Nor would I compare Sanders, a socialist (or democrat socialist) to corporate/traditional democrats like Hillary or Obama. You could argue the democrat party sold out its constituents (unions, working class, minorities, etc) a long time ago. Perhaps most recently with NAFTA and of course TPP. They've improved and are of course better than republicans but still. I wouldn't lump Sanders in the same boat.
Jeevesmeister
Banned
#BlackLivesMatter Activists Plan to Disrupt Hillary Clinton Event
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Hillary's security should be able to prevent stupidity from reaching the stage, but they'll likely be able to interrupt things from the crowd.
They totally softballed her. Pre-announced what they were going to do and ask, showed up too late after Hillary took the stage, didn't even get into the building.
Really pathetic looking.
A Link to the Past
Banned
They totally softballed her. Pre-announced what they were going to do and ask, showed up too late after Hillary took the stage, didn't even get into the building.
Really pathetic looking.
Whatever means by which to make BLM look like a Hillary mouthpiece right
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
They totally softballed her. Pre-announced what they were going to do and ask, showed up too late after Hillary took the stage, didn't even get into the building.
Really pathetic looking.
Look, if you can figure out how to get past the sercurity of a former senator, secretary of the state, and first lady, while she holds private event, I'm sure plenty of people would love to know.
Oh, and there's a chance you'll get an Ant-Man suit too.
I also thought it was odd that with Hillary, they publically telegraphed their move ahead of time.They totally softballed her. Pre-announced what they were going to do and ask, showed up too late after Hillary took the stage, didn't even get into the building.
Really pathetic looking.
And LOL at the question. "Will you fix what you did?"
Even if the answer is "Yes," why would you trust the same person to undo what they willingly pushed for?
Publicizing it beforehand is generally not how they approached the others.Look, if you can figure out how to get past the sercurity of a former senator, secretary of the state, and first lady, while she holds private meeting, I'm sure plenty of peoplw would love to know.
Oh, and there's a chance you'll get an Ant-Man suit too.
Jeevesmeister
Banned
Look, if you can figure out how to get past the sercurity of a former senator, secretary of the state, and first lady, while she holds private meeting, I'm sure plenty of peoplw would love to know.
A good start would be to not to publicly announce ahead of time how you're going to "disrupt" one of the most anti-black Democratic primary candidates in recent history.
A Link to the Past
Banned
I also thought it was odd that with Hillary, they publically telegraphed their move ahead of time.
And LOL at the question. "Will you fix what you did?"
Even if the answer is "Yes," why would you trust the same person to undo what they willingly pushed for?
An important question I think is, why were people asking them to do this to Hillary if she is just going to be untruthful?
Publicizing it beforehand is generally not how they approached the others.
They could very well just be trying not to get as much harassment. Perhaps those Sanders supporters ruined the potential Hillary protests
PhoenixDark
Banned
Look, if you can figure out how to get past the sercurity of a former senator, secretary of the state, and first lady, while she holds private event, I'm sure plenty of peoplw would love to know.
Oh, and there's a chance you'll get an Ant-Man suit too.
Sounds like they got there after the doors were closed due to capacity. I'd imagine if they got in they could have protested in the crowd with chants.
It's interesting that they're now demanding she answer for her record. I thought records don't matter. No one cares what you did x years ago, and all that jazz.
Well I guess it would bring attention to the "tough on crime" policies that she pushed as FLOTUS, something that isn't being talked about much. I'm not sure the average voter is aware of this part of her history.An important question I think is, why were people asking them to do this to Hillary if she is just going to be untruthful?
Wouldn't want to expose the existence of any dickheads supporting Clinton now, would we?They could very well just be trying not to get as much harassment. Perhaps those Sanders supporters ruined the potential Hillary protests
A Link to the Past
Banned
Sounds like they got there after the doors were closed due to capacity. I'd imagine if they got in they could have protested in the crowd with chants.
It's interesting that they're now demanding she answer for her record. I thought records don't matter. No one cares what you did x years ago, and all that jazz.
Don't be disingenuous. A past of wrong-doing is a lot more likely to reflect on current stances and ideas than a past of do-gooding may.
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
Sounds like they got there after the doors were closed due to capacity. I'd imagine if they got in they could have protested in the crowd with chants.
It's interesting that they're now demanding she answer for her record. I thought records don't matter. No one cares what you did x years ago, and all that jazz.
Don't be obtuse. There's a clear difference between riding on a good record and having a bad one.
Don't be obtuse. There's a clear difference between riding on a good record and having a bad one.
Yup, you get better results if you set the bar high.
Not advocating letting someone ride on a good record, but my question is: Why trust someone if they have a bad record?Don't be obtuse. There's a clear difference between riding on a good record and having a bad one.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Not advocating letting someone ride on a good record, but my question is: Why trust someone if they have a bad record?
Do they support Hillary? Do they trust Hillary?
I dont know, but I was talking generally.Do they support Hillary? Do they trust Hillary?
A Link to the Past
Banned
I dont know, but I was talking generally.
Black people support her for the same reason white people support her - she's popular. I mentioned this once before, but it's really unfair that it's more okay to criticize black people for not voting for the right candidate than it is to criticize white people for not voting for the right candidate. Not saying that you are, but others in this thread though.
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
I support Bernie. But you know, with all this shit talking about Hillary, I wonder how many of you will feel if she gets the nom. You all keep asking if Bernie will "do enough" to gain black voters.
My question is after all the shit stirring, would any of you even want to vote for Hillary in the general?
Because white voters are hella more likely to switch sides, never mind not vote.
My question is after all the shit stirring, would any of you even want to vote for Hillary in the general?
Because white voters are hella more likely to switch sides, never mind not vote.
Seven4sses
Member
I don't understand antagonizing Bernie, he is not the enemy.
If this is really purely an attempt to discredit Bernie so that that Clinton has (more of) a cakewalk, that's pretty disgusting.
They wound up doing the opposite from what I've heard. He appointed Symone Sanders (not related) who supports BLM and it gave him a chance to outline his stance on racial injustice. It may not seem like much to the BLM group, but at least Sanders is speaking out on the issue.
I am indeed an equal opportunity criticizer. =)Black people support her for the same reason white people support her - she's popular. I mentioned this once before, but it's really unfair that it's more okay to criticize black people for not voting for the right candidate than it is to criticize white people for not voting for the right candidate. Not saying that you are, but others in this thread though.
A Link to the Past
Banned
I support Bernie. But you know, with all this shit talking about Hillary, I wonder how many of you will feel if she gets the nom. You all keep asking if Bernie will "do enough" to ein black voters.
My question is after all the shit stirring, would any of you even want to vote for Hillary in the general?
Because white voters are hella more likely to switch sides, never mind not vote.
Yup. Voting for Bernie if he gets the nom, Hillary if she does. I'm not gonna risk a Republican winning just to spite Hillary.
I support Bernie. But you know, with all this shit talking about Hillary, I wonder how many of you will feel if she gets the nom. You all keep asking if Bernie will "do enough" to ein black voters.
My question is after all the shit stirring, would any of you even want to vote for Hillary in the general?
Because white voters are hella more likely to switch sides, never mind not vote.
I'm supporting Bernie now but I will vote for Hilary in the general. Despite all my misgivings about her, she is way better than any republican running.
Jeevesmeister
Banned
Hilarious because I thought Hillary wasn't being protested because she was a lost cause.
I'd do it out of necessity because the last time we had a Republican President millions of innocent people were killed due to Bush's horseshit, and it would be a moral obligation to the rest of the world, not something to be done with pride. However I have my doubts most of the Democrats would share this view.
In the larger picture it would mean spending a lot of time pulling the Democratic party back to an actual Left course. Hence the frustration with the nonsense about how Bernie needs to cater specifically to BLM which is somehow some monolith of the black vote that is just going to stay home and let the Republicans take over if they don't get what they want, goalposts and all. Trump himself said he'd go to war with Iraq and Syria again, to let millions of innocent lives be slaughtered because of political selfishness is inhuman. There are larger stakes at risk here with this election, especially abroad.
My question is after all the shit stirring, would any of you even want to vote for Hillary in the general?
I'd do it out of necessity because the last time we had a Republican President millions of innocent people were killed due to Bush's horseshit, and it would be a moral obligation to the rest of the world, not something to be done with pride. However I have my doubts most of the Democrats would share this view.
In the larger picture it would mean spending a lot of time pulling the Democratic party back to an actual Left course. Hence the frustration with the nonsense about how Bernie needs to cater specifically to BLM which is somehow some monolith of the black vote that is just going to stay home and let the Republicans take over if they don't get what they want, goalposts and all. Trump himself said he'd go to war with Iraq and Syria again, to let millions of innocent lives be slaughtered because of political selfishness is inhuman. There are larger stakes at risk here with this election, especially abroad.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Hilarious because I thought Hillary wasn't being protested because she was a lost cause.
I'd do it out of necessity because the last time we had a Republican President millions of innocent people were killed due to Bush's horseshit, and it would be a moral obligation to the rest of the world, not something to be done with pride. However I have my doubts most of the Democrats would share this view.
In the larger picture it would mean spending a lot of time pulling the Democratic party back to an actual Left course. Hence the frustration with the nonsense about how Bernie needs to cater specifically to BLM which is somehow some monolith of the black vote that is just going to stay home and let the Republicans take over if they don't get what they want, goalposts and all. Trump himself said he'd go to war with Iraq and Syria again, to let millions of innocent lives be slaughtered because of political selfishness is inhuman. There are larger stakes at risk here with this election, especially abroad.
Haha, are you kidding me? So you complain about BLM protesters not going after Hillary, and then when they do all you can say is "lol hypocrites amirite"
Seems like there's no winning for BLM with you. That they protested Sanders is enough for you to write them off, because Sanders is a special little flower
Seems Hillary met with the Black Lives Matter protesters in person afterwards
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/11/polit...-hampshire-black-lives-matter-2016/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/11/polit...-hampshire-black-lives-matter-2016/index.html
Keene, New Hampshire (CNN)Secret Service agents on Tuesday kept five people in #BlackLivesMatter T-shirts from entering a Hillary Clinton event in New Hampshire, but the candidate later met with them in an overflow room set up near the event.
The Secret Service had closed the doors to the event, a forum focused on combating substance abuse, in Keene after it reached capacity, a Clinton spokesperson and a Secret Service agent told CNN.
One of the five kept outside the event was Daunasia Yancey, the organizer from the Boston chapter of #BlackLivesMatter. The New Republic had quoted her earlier Tuesday saying the group planned to disrupt Clinton's event with questions about her previous support for "draconian penalties for drug possession and abuse" and the "hyper-militarization of urban police forces."
An overflow room was set up at Clinton's Keene event, where the protesters watched the event via a live stream. After the forum, Clinton headed over to the room to meet with them, said Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton's campaign.
I support Bernie. But you know, with all this shit talking about Hillary, I wonder how many of you will feel if she gets the nom. You all keep asking if Bernie will "do enough" to ein black voters.
My question is after all the shit stirring, would any of you even want to vote for Hillary in the general?
Because white voters are hella more likely to switch sides, never mind not vote.
I like Bernie way more than Hillary but in no way do I actively fear her like I do pretty much all of the potential Republican nominees. I can sympathize with the people who are all-in for Hillary because of how important it is to not let a Republican take the White House (not saying that nobody likes her for legitimate reasons). I'm just not ready to resign to the idea that she's the best we can hope for yet.
Not sure if I could vote for Hilary. Would depend on how batshit crazy the GOP nominee is. Who am I kidding they are all batshit. Probably would just vote the undercard and skip the president, not like my state is going blue anytime soon.
I'm in the same boat. O'Malley might have a better chance of becoming president than any Democrat has of winning Oklahoma. I know all votes matter but I'd like to know what it'd feel like to live in a swing state. It's a lot harder to get excited for the general than it is the primary.
While some Bernie supporters have been unreasonable, Sanders is indeed special. Everything that he says he stands for, he will talk about in detail to show that it's not just a paragraph that his campaign team put together. It's his real thoughts.Haha, are you kidding me? So you complain about BLM protesters not going after Hillary, and then when they do all you can say is "lol hypocrites amirite"
Seems like there's no winning for BLM with you. That they protested Sanders is enough for you to write them off, because Sanders is a special little flower
Hillary is the polar opposite of that, releasing crafted statements on her own time instead of having to answer immediately like O'Malley and Sanders:
People would have to be purposely anti-intellectual to refuse to acknowledge the difference between being asked for your platform upfront versus not being there and then releasing a FB post after the fact at a time of your own choosing.DeRay Mckesson said:But he added a dose of skepticism: Compared with her rivals, after all, she got off easy.
She also had time to craft it, Mckesson wrote. She shouldve been at Netroots.
Same. Really hate when people treat their vote this way tbh.I like Bernie way more than Hillary but in no way do I actively fear her like I do pretty much all of the potential Republican nominees. I can sympathize with the people who are all-in for Hillary because of how important it is to not let a Republican take the White House (not saying that nobody likes her for legitimate reasons). I'm just not ready to resign to the idea that she's the best we can hope for yet.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Don't be disingenuous. A past of wrong-doing is a lot more likely to reflect on current stances and ideas than a past of do-gooding may.
Says who? In politics, people downplay their record and take new stances depending on where the wind is blowing all the time. Hillary Clinton is doing that right now, as is O'Malley. If crime was high nation wide we wouldn't be having a conversation on criminal justice reform, we'd be trapped in the 90s-esque battles over increasing cop presence in cities. Just yesterday there was a discussion here about O'Malley's comprehensive criminal justice reform package, and he was receiving some supportive comments despite the fact that his record is terrible. I would prefer people be consistent in their view on how much records matter or don't matter.
BTW what does "riding on a good record" mean? To me that would be something like a candidate bragging about a vote they made x years ago, as if that excuses their current record. Sanders hasn't ridden on anything, he's been consistent - a principle that is rather absent in Washington. I'd have more respect for a candidate who took an unpopular stance against something when it was hard, rather than someone who shifts when public opinion shifts. That goes for Obama coming out for gay marriage, O'Malley finding the light on mandatory minimums, etc. Nothing wrong with eventually making it to the right side of an issue, but I'm not gonna give someone dap for it in most cases if it happens at the most convenient time.
Another article with some more details:Seems Hillary met with the Black Lives Matter protesters in person afterwards
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/11/polit...-hampshire-black-lives-matter-2016/index.html
http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/11/black-lives-matter-protesters-blocked-from-entering-hillary-event/
Wonder why they weren't willing to meet her in front of the media?According to reporters on the scene, the protesters showed up late and a fire marshal and Secret Service agents blocked them from entering the event. Campaign spokesman Nick Merrill offered to swap out people who were already inside the event so that the Black Lives Matter protesters could enter. They declined the offer but requested to meet with Clinton in an overflow room set up at the event, which was held at Keene Middle School.
It is unclear which attendees would have been kicked out of the event in exchange for the activists.
The overflow set up proved moot, however, when the Black Lives Matter group backed out of the arrangement when they learned that media would be inside.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Says who? In politics, people downplay their record and take new stances depending on where the wind is blowing all the time. Hillary Clinton is doing that right now, as is O'Malley. If crime was high nation wide we wouldn't be having a conversation on criminal justice reform, we'd be trapped in the 90s-esque battles over increasing cop presence in cities. Just yesterday there was a discussion here about O'Malley's comprehensive criminal justice reform package, and he was receiving some supportive comments despite the fact that his record is terrible. I would prefer people be consistent in their view on how much records matter or don't matter.
BTW what does "riding on a good record" mean? To me that would be something like a candidate bragging about a vote they made x years ago, as if that excuses their current record. Sanders hasn't ridden on anything, he's been consistent - a principle that is rather absent in Washington. I'd have more respect for a candidate who took an unpopular stance against something when it was hard, rather than someone who shifts when public opinion shifts. That goes for Obama coming out for gay marriage, O'Malley finding the light on mandatory minimums, etc.
Riding on a good record only means that you did good in the past. A person, a politician, should have to continue to show that this good record is relevant. A good person turning bad (or perhaps not being as good as they once were) is easier than a bad person turning good.
Some leftists I know sent me this piece on Sanders. Sorry if it's a little off topic, but has it been discussed on GAF?
http://www.blackagendareport.com/node/4604
http://www.blackagendareport.com/node/4604
Dyson Industries
Banned
Dead African-Americans would argue otherwise, if they could. As a white guy, I'm not so obtuse as to say the black community is wrong on this issue.There are larger stakes at risk here with this election, especially abroad.
That's how the game is won. Not by running away.Seems Hillary met with the Black Lives Matter protesters in person afterwards
Jeevesmeister
Banned
Dead African-Americans would argue otherwise, if they could. As a white guy, I'm not so obtuse as to say the black community is wrong on this issue.
We're talking millions. Millions. And the Republican platform has only grown more and more imperialistic and militaristic. The frontrunner himself just said he plans to start 2 new wars if elected.
That's how the game is won. Not by running away.
This false narrative being manufactured is exactly what Hillary wants, and buying into it is a sham.
Wonder why they weren't willing to meet her in front of the media?
She was trying to turn it in to a photo-op and the BLM reps she was going to meet with weren't in it for the attention.
EDIT: For the record, that's just my interpretation that I'm pulling out of my ass.
If this is thinly veiled attack on Sanders...That's how the game is won. Not by running away.
1) It's not a game. People are being beat by the police, a force that is supposed to protect them.
2) Sanders was never given the mic back. He waiting the entire duration of his allotted time, standing by their side as they spoke about their message. Then time ran out and he left, because he was scheduled for another event, where 15k people were waiting.
I suppose you think he should have brought a toothbrush and sleeping bag and camped out on stage while the protestors were continually refusing to give him the mic back?
1) Says a lot about her authenticity when a meeting with BLM is a "photo op" to her.She was trying to turn it in to a photo-op and the BLM reps she was going to meet with weren't in it for the attention.
2) I think maybe they should have met with her and refused to pose for pictures, but instead continually shout at her and demand answers to their questions.
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
2) Sanders was never given the mic back. He waiting the entire duration of his allotted time, standing by their side as they spoke about their message. Then time ran out and he left, because he was scheduled for another event, where 15k people were waiting.
As bishop likes to say, "then explain netroots"
And the cancelled meetings.
Or don't, because honestly it's water under the bridge unless people want to downplay BLM again. Per usual.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Riding on a good record only means that you did good in the past. A person, a politician, should have to continue to show that this good record is relevant. A good person turning bad (or perhaps not being as good as they once were) is easier than a bad person turning good.
Surely we can agree that doesn't apply to someone like Sanders right? He hasn't turned bad nor is he not being as good as he once was. He's been consistent. I disagree with Tea Party members on 99% of issues but I have more respect for the ones who remain consistent (Justin Amash) than those who shift depending on where the wind - or money - is blowing (Rand Paul).
We've had multiple threads and debates over Sanders' record not mattering, it comes up nonstop. My point is that it doesn't make any sense to dismiss a politician's record while focusing on what they promise to do now. What they've done in the past is often a reflection of their views. O'Malley was mayor of a hyper violent city. He decided to deal with it by enacting zero tolerance policies, cleaning the streets by arresting anyone for the most minor of crimes, increasing cop presence, supporting mandatory minimums, etc. This made the city safer, sure. But it ruined a lot of innocent people's lives and hurt communities, and he did it in order to sell himself as "tough on crime" for white voters. That's how he got elected governor. If the country had a major crime problem today I guarantee you he'd be running on his record with an almost Nixon-esque law and order slant. Instead crime is low and both parties are talking about justice reform, so he gets to waltz in as a supporter of that.
Same applies to Hillary. I'm not saying these candidates are trash and they can't do anything to win my vote. I'm just saying I recognize the game they're playing, and also recognize they'll sell you down the river if the political tides turn (ie if crime rises significantly in the coming years).
Moving goalposts.As bishop likes to say, "then explain netroots"
And the cancelled meetings.
Or don't, because honestly it's water under the bridge unless people want to downplay BLM again. Per usual.
Netroots was his first interruption this cycle and he was clearly frazzled like a real human being, not a politically calculated inaccessible robot. Cancelled meetings was also clearly due to being being blindsided as his campaign hadn't grown to the point of full articulation of his race-specific stances.
I suppose, though, that he could have not shown up, and then given his staff more than a day's worth of time to craft a message after seeing what everyone thinks the candidates should have said. Would that be more authentic?
A Link to the Past
Banned
Surely we can agree that doesn't apply to someone like Sanders right? He hasn't turned bad nor is he not being as good as he once was. He's been consistent. I disagree with Tea Party members on 99% of issues but I have more respect for the ones who remain consistent (Justin Amash) than those who shift depending on where the wind - or money - is blowing (Rand Paul).
We've had multiple threads and debates over Sanders' record not mattering, it comes up nonstop. My point is that it doesn't make any sense to dismiss a politician's record while focusing on what they promise to do now. What they've done in the past is often a reflection of their views. O'Malley was mayor of a hyper violent city. He decided to deal with it by enacting zero tolerance policies, cleaning the streets by arresting anyone for the most minor of crimes, including cop presence, supporting mandatory minimums, etc. This made the city safer, sure. But it ruined a lot of innocent people's lives, and he did it in order to sell himself as "tough on crime" for white voters. That's how he got elected governor. If the country had a major crime problem today I guarantee you he'd be running on his record with an almost Nixon-esque law and order slant. Instead crime is low and both parties are talking about justice reform, so he gets to waltz in as a supporter of that.
Same applies to Hillary. I'm not saying these candidates are trash and they can't do anything to win my vote. I'm just saying I recognize the game they're playing, and also recognize they'll sell you down the river if the political tides turn (ie if crime rises significantly in the coming years).
It's not a matter of mattering, it's a matter of "please stop bringing up past good deeds" and bring up what he's doing now. That's what people want to hear. Bringing up Hillary's past misdeeds is valid because there needs to be evidence that she outgrew it. We need to make Hillary honest and keep Bernie honest - treating his track record as all that he needs isn't going to do that.
If this is thinly veiled attack on Sanders...
2) I think maybe they should have met with her and refused to pose for pictures, but instead continually shout at her and demand answers to their questions.
They did meet with her though
Though I do I think Bernie is far ahead in terms of responding to BLM considering he appointed a supporter as his press secretary and asked her to draft criminal reform legislation
- Status
- Not open for further replies.