Former head of NAACP endorses Bernie Sanders for President

Status
Not open for further replies.
Because he voted for it. What about the contradiction aren't you grasping?

Surely you can see how you can give the benefit of the doubt to someone that didn't actually have a part in the process besides the voting when they say that they voted it for the other parts and you can't to someone that was heavily involved?

Actually as per the post above mine there's no need to give the benefit of the doubt, that's what he was talking about at the time.
 
I always find it funny when people get on their pedestal and in their best condescending "I know what's best for you more than you do" voice speak down to the pesky negroes how lost they are and that they need to vote for Bernie. Never realizing that they are the reason why many people don't want to fuck with Bernie.
What I find pretty funny is that most of the criticism towards Bernie is against his supporters. Seems like the best candidate the US has had in quite a while, considering people seem to have hard time targeting the criticism at the man himself.
 
A friend and fellow Bernie supporter unironically made a post on FB the other day about how Bernie is the best candidate for black people and how they'd be stupid to think otherwise.

I feel like I've unfollowed nearly all of my friends at this point.
 
Enough has been said in this thread. I like Bernie Sanders and support his policies. But man some of his supporters can be insufferable the way they refer to minorities like we're some monolith.


Bernie supporters are undoubtedly one of the worst things about this election cycle, even worse than Trump because hell at least Trump is entertaining. They are like that vacuum cleaner salesman that gets his foot in the door and 2 hours later he is still in your house. What makes it even worse is I'm in the prime Bernie fan demographic so every social forum/media outlet I use has a band of Bernie supporters looking to convert everyone they come across. Any and every dissenting opinion or hint of skepticism is met with numerous people trying to sell you on him. Plus every minor tidbit of news is posted as if it's a game changer. It's just about spam at this point.

I started off liking the guy, and even though I don't think his policies will pass or are even financially sound I may end up voting for him but man this is one group I do not want to be associated with at all.
 
When your choices are between pragmatism (Hilary) and idealism (Bernie), it's a hard sell for minorities when the "ideal" has shown that it's just more closet racism.
 
The specific group he promised an ongoing dialogue I have criticized myself for removing the frame of race from the issue. Forgive me for thinking of it as anything less than a onanistic exercise than progress on the terms I'm asking for.

BLM might not be content with Hillary's more direct tell me what you want me to do about it so we can package and explain it does work for me.

So blame it on the group? Bernie wanted to meet, so he did. That group didn't suit you therefore it's Bernie's fault there isn't dialogue to your liking.
 
Surely you can see how you can give the benefit of the doubt to someone that didn't actually have a part in the process besides the voting when they say that they voted it for the other parts and you can't to someone that was heavily involved?

I can if I'm engaged in hair splitting to distinguish two situations that are substantively the same. Not a big fan of doing that, though.
 
So blame it on the group? Bernie wanted to meet, so he did. That group didn't suit you therefore it's Bernie's fault there isn't dialogue to your liking.

It is Bernie's fault that I doubt the dialogue will go to my liking. Him naming a group that I know fails to address the problem in a very similar way to my criticism of his policy only strengthens my notion that it's probably not going to be conducive to me.
 
If Bernie Sanders had begun his political career in his native New York instead of Vermont, this would be a completely different story. In New York, he would have been politically involved in the lives of minorities. More so than in Vermont, which has a lower minority population overall. Black people would have known him over the years, and would more likely to support him, and support him sooner. And he'd be less likely to make some of the bonehead missteps that he's made in this campaign so far.

And sure, the BernieBros aren't Bernie Sanders, but it would be nice to have a conversation about him without having the sea lions in the room.
 
It is Bernie's fault that I doubt the dialogue will go to my liking. Him naming a group that I know fails to address the problem in a very similar way to my criticism of his policy only strengthens my notion that it's probably not going to be conducive to me.

Your original assertion was that there was no dialogue. There is one, but you don't agree with it.
 
Sanders has managed to attract an overwhelmingly white voter base that, by all measures, appears excited and convinced that Sanders's prescription of inequality busting, billionaire -humbling policy will fix all that is wrong with America. The thing is, Sanders's message hasn't quite caught the same kind of fire with non-white Democratic leaning voters -- voters that form a major and definitive share of the party's coalition that will become much more important after the New Hampshire primary.

Those who "Feel the Bern" invariably insist that those who don't are either dumb, don't understand their own political needs or what and who will truly help them. To some degree, that's normal when people get really passionate about a candidate or a campaign. But given the professed progressive leanings of those in the Sanders camp and what's widely known about the group's near-racial homogeneity, it's a response that seems like a rather large and telling contradiction. It is a response that seems devoid of any recognition that patronizing language, paternalistic "guidance" and recriminations are, at the very least, the active ingredients in modern and sometimes subtle forms of bigotry. Besides that, condescension is not often convincing.

In fact, that whole set of "they will eventually get it" arguments that Sanders supporters and even the Sanders campaign have readily made about voters of color is, truly, part of the Sanders campaign's problem.

Yes, Sanders fans, that reality did not matter much at all in very-white Iowa. And the polls out of even whiter New Hampshire suggest the same. But the rest of America does not look like Iowa or New Hampshire and has not for some time.

==



Sanders declared himself a Democratic candidate for the White House in April. In July, Sanders responded to a mostly black group of Black Lives Matter protesters at the liberal Netroots Nation even with enough frustration that he stopped speaking and left the stage. He took a similar tack with like-minded protesters at other events that followed. And when Sanders could be pinned down with questions about civil rights concerns such as the specter of police mistreatment or death at the hands of a cop, he seemed to respond most often with a great deal of umbrage and barely restrained anger about having been interrupted or put off his usual stump speech about economic inequality.

Sometimes, Sanders responded with mentions of black youth unemployment that were rather needlessly overstated; the simple truth is really quite bad, after all. And most often of all, there was a reminder that he participated in the 1963 March on Washington.

Sanders may not have meant it this way, but the collection of responses seemed to say 'Look, I've done my part and moved on from civil rights matters. I'm trying to tell you people what you need right now.' A less charitable read would be: 'Be quiet and listen.' Those aren't his exact words, of course, but they're really what every Sanders speech, debate performance and public appearance seems to reiterate.


More recently, when Sanders said openly that any reparations for black Americans are politically unfeasible and essentially not something that he or other serious and effective Democrats can embrace, Sanders pretty much said the same. There are many other items on Sanders's policy wish list -- including a massive increase in taxes on the wealthy -- which are also quite likely dead-on-arrival on Capitol Hill. But, that hasn't stopped the self-styled Sanders revolution from including them in the Sander's platform.

It is as if the campaign believes that voters -- particularly voters of color -- are supposed to reorder their priorities to align with Sanders'. They are to simply suspend their own knowledge of their own experiences with the real and continued meaning of race, the persistence of pervasive racial and ethnic stereotypes, and the policy that this combination has spawned.

All of that, quite frankly, is far easier to do when a voter is white.

Sanders fans will no doubt point out that Sanders has a racial justice plan posted on his website. They will say that it speaks to economic inequality but also the ways in which environmental toxins and degradation, disparities in the criminal justice system and voter suppression activities continue to unfairly shape and limit the lives of voters of color. And even those who do not count themselves among Sanders's devoted fans will have to admit that in recent months, it's to the issues of police mistreatment and mass-incarceration that Sanders is most likely to turn if confronted with direct questions about what his administration might do about racial inequality.

That's precisely what Sanders did -- rather awkwardly -- during a CNN town forum Wednesday night.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...res-why/?postshare=9981454619320936&tid=ss_tw
 
Bernie Sanders' problem is entirely pragmatic. It's the same problem believe it or not Barack Obama had trying to get black votes from Hillary.

(Think I'm lying? Check this out.

Can't find it at the moment - my google fu seems not up to the task, but there were even articles about how Obama was failing with black voters for a good while against Hillary.

Why?

For many black voters, it's not as much love for Democrats, as hoping to survive against a party that implicitly (if not explicitly) hates them, vilifies them, and sometimes even seeks their destruction. Therefore, the Democrat with the best chance of winning gets the vote. Obama had to demonstrate that he was more able to win than Hillary before he got the black vote. Sanders is only starting to do that and it might be too late, but we'll see.
 
This is how I look at it. Looking at it realistically. Bernie Sanders would be the perfect candidate in about 20 years.

Bernie Sanders is so far to the left that if he did get elected. My biggest fear is that he'd end up being a 4 year lame duck president. A republican congress won't work with him simply based on his stances right now. Not to mention he's a self proclaimed "socialist". Look at Obama now. He's a left leaning moderate. It's hard for him to get shit done NOW and I would say most Obama proposals have been reasonable.

Now I'm someone who agrees mostly with Sanders, but saying you want free schooling, free healthcare, and raising taxes just isn't going to fly with a lot of people. Not right now at least. Also alot of the AA community just isn't feeling Bernie. Either they just don't know him or whatever.

I've also said his supporters are going to be the ones that get in his way. I follow some on twitter and friends with them. I'd say 95% of them bring up him marching with MLK as a reason to support him when I tell them my issues with voting for him.
 
Bernie Sanders' problem is entirely pragmatic.

For many black voters, it's not as much love for Democrats, as hoping to survive against a party that implicitly (if not explicitly) hates them, vilifies them, and sometimes even seeks their destruction. Therefore, the Democrat with the best chance of winning gets the vote. Obama had to demonstrate that he was more able to win than Hillary before he got the black vote. Sanders is only starting to do that and it might be too late, but we'll see.

This is pretty much how I see it. There's really nothing inherently off-putting with Sanders himself, it's just that the confidence he can take it just isn't there. It's not like Trump where assholes support him because he's their kind of asshole; strident Sanders supporters aren't a reflection on the man himself. I doubt many people are honestly turned away from considering Sanders because of them, although they definitely aren't helping general perception.
 
Your original assertion was that there was no dialogue. There is one, but you don't agree with it.

nitekrawlwer said:
I don't understand how you can say that given the candidates responses to BLM. One was ready to talk policy and the other decided not to talk at all.

I assumed I had made it clear that I was referring to the event Where BLM took to his stage. In that instance there was no dialogue.

My understanding of Campaign Zero is that though born of activists from BLM it is it's own separate entity which was at times thought of as contentious to BLM. So communicating with them did not appear to be a dialog with BLM for me. I greatly apologize if I have been unclear and caused unnecessary confusion to my point.
 
I think it's a mix of a cultural disconnect, a belief that he can't win an election, and unfamiliaraity

I feel like this is the main thing for me when it comes to Bernie. The more I find out about him the more he seems like someone who just can't win a general election. My latest concern with him in the general election is his religious beliefs, especially considering that America has a horrible track record of electing politicians that don't belong to traditional religious groups or more specifically Christianity.

Personally I don't have a problem with his somewhat vague statements about spirituality and I'm not saying that he should lie about his beliefs either, but as someone who really needs a Democrat in office next year, I'd rather have Hillary in the general election talking about Jesus in the morning, Jesus in the evening, and Jesus at supper time.

Electability aside, I feel like the Flint, Michigan comparison still stands out to me as a good example of why Hillary is just better prepared to be the president. Bernie still feels to me like someone I would have voted for a decade ago when I was horribly uneducated about U.S. politics.
 
I like Bernie. A lot. I agree with most of his policies. I have been in favor of universal healthcare...forever. Anyone that is truly paying attention, though, understands that Bernie has an optics problem. It doesn't help that his most fervent supporters are insufferable twats. I'm still on the fence about my vote in the primary. I supported Hillary in the 2008 primary and support her now, but something has got to give if he expects to get votes outside of white America. After New Hampshire, there is no doubt that he's in trouble.
 
Bernie Sanders' problem is entirely pragmatic. It's the same problem believe it or not Barack Obama had trying to get black votes from Hillary.

(Think I'm lying? Check this out.

Can't find it at the moment - my google fu seems not up to the task, but there were even articles about how Obama was failing with black voters for a good while against Hillary.

Why?

For many black voters, it's not as much love for Democrats, as hoping to survive against a party that implicitly (if not explicitly) hates them, vilifies them, and sometimes even seeks their destruction. Therefore, the Democrat with the best chance of winning gets the vote. Obama had to demonstrate that he was more able to win than Hillary before he got the black vote. Sanders is only starting to do that and it might be too late, but we'll see.

This is how a lot of people feel.

It's not a lack of love for Bernie, or a great love for Hillary. It's a lack of trust in Bernie. In the general election, Hillary is a safer candidate and most of what she says in her speeches is simply pragmatic. She doesn't promise much, so she seem far more realistic to an older minority demographic.

I've said this before: Bernie is Hope and Change Primary Obama. Hillary is Obama in the Presidency.
 
I assumed I had made it clear that I was referring to the event Where BLM took to his stage. In that instance there was no dialogue.

My understanding of Campaign Zero is that though born of activists from BLM it is it's own separate entity which was at times thought of as contentious to BLM. So communicating with them did not appear to be a dialog with BLM for me. I greatly apologize if I have been unclear and caused unnecessary confusion to my point.

My understanding is that, at least at the time, the BLM had different factions with different ideas about how to proceed. This is evident in twitter accounts supposedly belonging to BLM activists that were completely contradicting to each other. I wouldn't expect campaign staff to keep track of it all and and know who is who and what is what.

Anyway, in the incident you referenced, it seemed clear to me that Bernie was never given the opportunity to adress the activists. How do you have a dialogue when people take the mike and podium and shout you off? At one point Bernie actually tried to talk to one of the women and she shouted him away. Then they went on to call the whole crowd racists. I empathize with the movement. The idea that my brother and sister can be shot in the streets because of the color of their skin enrages me, but it didn't look to me as if they were interested in actually talking to Bernie. So how could there be dialogue?

In the case of Hillary, it was in a different state and under different circumstances. They didn't raid her poduim and shout her off. They met her backstage, shook hands, and were very cordial.
 
Bernie Sanders' problem is entirely pragmatic. It's the same problem believe it or not Barack Obama had trying to get black votes from Hillary.

(Think I'm lying? Check this out.

Can't find it at the moment - my google fu seems not up to the task, but there were even articles about how Obama was failing with black voters for a good while against Hillary.

Why?

For many black voters, it's not as much love for Democrats, as hoping to survive against a party that implicitly (if not explicitly) hates them, vilifies them, and sometimes even seeks their destruction. Therefore, the Democrat with the best chance of winning gets the vote. Obama had to demonstrate that he was more able to win than Hillary before he got the black vote. Sanders is only starting to do that and it might be too late, but we'll see.
I can vouch for this. As a black man, it took me a long time to believe that Obama had a realistic chance to win. I didn't think it was real until he won Iowa.
 
This is how a lot of people feel.

It's not a lack of love for Bernie, or a great love for Hillary. It's a lack of trust in Bernie. In the general election, Hillary is a safer candidate and most of what she says in her speeches is simply pragmatic. She doesn't promise much, so she seem far more realistic to an older minority demographic.

I've said this before: Bernie is Hope and Change Primary Obama. Hillary is Obama in the Presidency.
Others will have their reasons for not backing Bernie, but this is definitely my primary one. And it is a lack of trust not just in Bernie Sanders, either, but in (mostly white) America not to elect someone like Trump, Cruz or Rubio over him once the attacks begin and Bernie Sanders' name is smeared to high heaven. I simply don't have that sort of faith in this country right now, and Sanders unfortunately doesn't instill enough confidence to make up for it.
 
My understanding is that, at least at the time, the BLM had different factions with different ideas about how to proceed. This is evident in twitter accounts supposedly belonging to BLM activists that were completely contradicting to each other. I wouldn't expect campaign staff to keep track of it all and and know who is who and what is what.

Anyway, in the incident you referenced, it seemed clear to me that Bernie was never given the opportunity to adress the activists. How do you have a dialogue when people take the mike and podium and shout you off? At one point Bernie actually tried to talk to one of the women and she shouted him away. Then they went on to call the whole crowd racists. I empathize with the movement. The idea that my brother and sister can be shot in the streets because of the color of their skin enrages me, but it didn't look to me as if they were interested in actually talking to Bernie. So how could there be dialogue?

In the case of Hillary, it was in a different state and under different circumstances. They didn't raid her poduim and shout her off. They met her backstage, shook hands, and were very cordial.


That makes a lot of sense. Given I could be confused while vaguely following the movement someone who isn't at all familiar wouldn't know.

You appear to be right in your assesment after watching a video instead of reading biased words about the event. It wasn't a real attempt at a dialogue in the first place. I apologize for continuing a narrative of the events that seems a bit divorced from the reality of them.
 
That makes a lot of sense. Given I could be confused while vaguely following the movement someone who isn't at all familiar wouldn't know.

You appear to be right in your assesment after watching a video instead of reading biased words about the event. It wasn't a real attempt at a dialogue in the first place. I apologize for continuing a narrative of the events that seems a bit divorced from the reality of them.

I am very glad that we could come to an understanding. Seriously, this is very refreshing given the constant bickering that happens in these kinds of threads. Thank you.
 
I am very glad that we could come to an understanding. Seriously, this is very refreshing given the constant bickering that happens in these kinds of threads. Thank you.

You're welcome. Thanks for engaging in respectful discourse in addition to bringing me new data to help shape my views. I appreciate it. If I think people should always be open to reexamining the things they believe they know I must be willing to do the same myself.
 
I can if I'm engaged in hair splitting to distinguish two situations that are substantively the same. Not a big fan of doing that, though.

So making a bill what it is and voting for it because it has some good, important parts while denouncing the horrible stuff is the same?
 
Is it safe to simply discuss the topic yet or are we still meta bickering about all the meta bickering?

Hopefully this will improve his standing in South Carolina and the southern states on Super Tuesday. I'm not black nor do I think for black people but I personally think it would be great for America if he wins those primaries but he really needs an upswell of support before SC on the 27th!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom