benjipwns
Banned
Hope you enjoy President Carson you traitor.
-
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.
Sanders campaign throws pro-palestine group out of campaign event
- Thread starter B-Dubs
- Start date
- Status
Veritigo_X
Member
The Republican Party thanks you from the bottom of their hearts.
It's still 2000 somewhere.
I can't decide which part of this post is the funniest.
Except those are all things Hillary proposed too. The question is if Bernie really will do more to help black people than Hillary. And the answer is...they'll do about the same?
AnotherDayAnotherDollar
Banned
As a person with recent interest in politics who will, probably, be a first time voter in 2016, who just registered independent (who may or may not change so I can vote in the primaries), and probably leans a bit left but will always vote for a candidate and not a party, I think this is a non issue for me because, honestly, I'm very ignorant on some of the foreign happenings and have no idea where I stand on this issue.
Jag
Member
Not sure if serious.
A low level staffer kicks out a pro-Palestinian group. The staffer then gets fired and the head of the campaign apologizes. Soooo, this makes him a pro-ethnic cleansing candidate how?
Bernie's policies are way more progressive and would have a much greater effect on the economy if acted, though to play devil's advocate they probably have less of a chance of being passed so maybe you're right.
benjipwns
Banned
Spider from Mars
tap that thorax
Both parties are the sameeeeee!!!!!!
All will be consumed by the void. Oblivion's long fingers enclose about us.
Pretty idiotic sentiment to have honestly.
"met and discussed" is certainly one way to phrase it.
Considering Bernie's rhetoric has never been anti-Palestine and has hedged closer to anti-Israel than many candidates, you should probably not treat this as an "issue" if his campaign is saying that there was nothing wrong with the sign and they banned the staffer.
I get that GAF loves to make the Bernie fanboys nerd rage, but this is a such a non-event.
Well, I think a lot the people initially showing up to Sander's rally's were and are children of middle and upper middle class college educated boomers who stuck with Democrats through the Reagan era. That population does skew heavily white. I guess you could add a smattering of union supporters too. I agree with you about his outreach, though. I think its both his path to victory in the primary and the only way for Democrats to assemble a coalition that can govern. It's also possibly the only way for Democrats to hold onto the Presidency on a consistent basis- in my view, anyway.
Wanting to see what the man himself has to say about the incident before passing judgement is idiotic?
The Republican Party thanks you for your support.
Commanche Raisin Toast
Member
benjipwns
Banned
I don't know...you know who else wants to reform the US Criminal Justice System: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tHVVm_fWC8
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Individual votes in a presidential election are worthless statistically, there's no point shaming someone over picking third party.
And it only took 2 pages for the conspiracy theories to arrive.
The fact that he straight up told Jeb! to check his privilege was amazing in the last debate.
Veritigo_X
Member
You must not remember 2000. I'll shame them all day.
dehydratedbabies
Member
You are too much. The first debate hasn't even happened yet!
User 463088
Banned
Oh, I agree, this is not the nail in his coffin. As I said before, it's all about perception. If he were running against someone other than Hillary, I think he'd have a better chance to overcome some of these perception issues. Because opinions of her are so entrenched, good or bad, I don't see him being able to sway a lot of peoples minds.
However, I do take issue with the gun control issue not being a big problem for him. Here's one statistic from a Pew Poll:
Sanders cannot, and will not, win the Democratic primary if he does not do better with minorities. Period. Hands down. His stance on guns will be used against him if he started making inroads with minority voters. He cannot simply say "Black lives matter" and then, in the same breath, try to defend the proliferation of guns in our society. This is an argument he will not win against Hillary, Biden or, hell, O'Malley. His economic message means shit if we have kids dead in the streets because of gun violence. Sandy Hook could have been the most progressive, racially equal, income level adjusted school in the country. Wouldn't have stopped the massacre. It wouldn't have saved those people in Aurora. It wouldn't have stopped Oregon. So, Sanders has to get off his economic saopbox for a few minutes, and attempt to woe people on other issues. I don't see him doing that.
It just doesn't make any sense to me. Even if Bernie himself was like get the fuck outta here with those signs that doesn't give any indication that he's pro-ethnic cleansing...Like that's such a crazy jump to make. I've been following Bern for a while and he seems much more isolationist on the whole, which has a negative connotation for some reason when it shouldn't. Let's fix our shit over here instead of constantly meddling in over other country's issues since our economy and spending affects every else anyway.
Yes, I'm sure you'd pass judgement after he makes a statement and not liken a protester being requested to leave an event to ethnic cleansing
Oh wait
User 463088
Banned
Welcome to politics.
You're arguing with a group that legitimately believes that Bernie can win the Democratic Primary despite having almost no support outside of young white liberals. This is a losing battle.
The problem with isolationism is that we can't operate in a vacuum in the modern world, the ship on that sailed after WW2 and at the start of the Cold War. The world we live in is way too interconnected for that to ever be a feasible option again.
This thread is a shitshow. Half the story is posted and the guy who points that out on page 1 is quickly dismissed, and what's more troubling is this repeated shit about "whiteness" and how white progressives are bad people.
I'm quickly coming to the realization that GAF is not a healthy place to discuss politics.
I'm quickly coming to the realization that GAF is not a healthy place to discuss politics.
Coriolanus
Banned
When a bubble bursts, one's numbers go down. That isn't what has happened with Sanders, whose numbers simply failed to continue growing.
There are other democratic candidates that would warrant such a description, though.
But real talk, your problem with sanders is that he's sanders, and you deem him unelectable in the general.
Oh, the typical "you criticized Bernie but what about Hillary?!".
I think Bernie Sanders cares much more about black people than Clinton, given that he's much less of a pro-establishment candidate. His criminal justice policies are more progressive than Clinton's, especially when it comes to drug law.
Hillary Clinton obviously has much stronger community ties to the African American community, but I don't see how her policies are pro-Black at all.
Do provide an alternative to both that we might elect and stands on the right side of all issues.
Literally no one has said this, but thanks for coming in with a victim complex.
Half the story? The original article does have Bernie's campaign apologizing and all that stuff, but it still doesn't make the initial event any better. All it does is show that they realized that they fucked up when they kicked those guys out. His campaign keeps making the same damn mistake over and over. They never should have done it in the first place.
Pretty much. An insignificant and irrelevant number of people care about these incidents because an insignificant and irrelevant number know about these incidents in the first place, and from there you have to get down to the people who may find out about the events and actually care after learning.
Events like this don't matter. They are never going to matter. Only in the small pockets of the internet where some people find them to be supremely important do they matter. This subsection of this one website being one of those corners, thus the incorrectly outsized view of the event's significance to some.
He wins or loses the primary based on achieving enough name recognition, his positions on issues, performance in the debates, if any sort of scandal erupts to damage Hillary enough for him to make in-roads, and if he can convince enough people that he's a better choice than Hillary (whether true or false), and not just "the other guy" in the debates. Seems highly unlikely this will happen. But a random staffer tossing some students out of an event and the optics from that? Not even a papercut to contribute to a death by a thousand papercuts type problem.
Denial of the Palestinian state and it's supporters is absolutely endemic of the ethnic cleansing that enforces it's continued destruction, they are one in the same and cannot exist without the other. One one hand you have the military force that enforces it and the other you have the rhetoric that supports it and regardless of it's sterilized and normalized politician speak is just as abhorrent to me as a voter as the former.
Your first point is flat out wrong. Many high-profile Democrats have A/A+ ratings from the NRA. Harry Reid has a B rating:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2...o-oppose-obamas-gun-violence-prevention-plan/
I'm the wrong person to ask because I'm personally conflicted on gun ownership. But I oppose Hillary Clinton because she has a prediliction for military force, she has a cozy relationship with the Wall St banks, she served on the board of Walmart, she has a history of working for union-busting corporate law firms, she ran to the right of Obama on health care reform, and she's a major proponent of the corporate education 'reform' which is decimating urban public schools.
The choice is not between Clinton and Sanders.
User 463088
Banned
Good point.
If only there were some media narrative about another potential challenger entering the race, who, as we have seen, disproportionately draws support from Clinton and not Sanders. And if only this unknown, unquantifiable potential third challenger weren't polling ahead of (or statistically tied with) Bernie Sanders.
In case you didn't know, I'm talking about Deez Nuts
What candidate isn't pro-israel?
I'm all for calling out Sanders on this as much as any other politician, but can we look at how so few voters are probably even picking a candidate to back with this particular issue in mind?
A pro Palestinian foreign policy I do not believe exists in any American politician's platform. Am I incorrect?
I'm all for calling out Sanders on this as much as any other politician, but can we look at how so few voters are probably even picking a candidate to back with this particular issue in mind?
A pro Palestinian foreign policy I do not believe exists in any American politician's platform. Am I incorrect?
No. Individual votes aren't necessarily individual, because people are more likely to do so if they think that's a popular action.
Explaining why third-party voting can be dangerous can do a lot of good, because multiple people will hear your message.
Are you agreeing with him about the gun issue?
Even though last Thursday, Bernie said on MSNBC:
Just because Bernie isn't going BAN ALL GUNS!, he's still pushing for gun control, which if you haven't seen his NRA rating, any gun control is bad gun control to them. He's fighting the fight the way it should have been being fought by "responsible gun owners". You will make zero progress on guns without making progressive steps, of which we've made virtually zero, which is why we're in such a shitty place right now.
I'm on mobile, otherwise I'd post a link to the stories coming out about the gun control plan he is planning to release. Its gonna be to the "right" of Hillary, but it will still contain some items gun control advocates have asked for. From what I have read, he is going to sell it as a moderate compromise that he thinks will satisfy the interests of both gun control advocates and reasonable gun owners in rural areas. Based on statements I have heard him make to the press, he is going to use his experience as a politician from a rural area as evidence he can broker a compromise.
I apologize for the lack of links. Again, I am on mobile. I also apologize if I don't respond for awhile because I am about to get called away.
I don't think he has a good chance of winning, but I still chose to vote for who I think is the best candidate despite that....And even though I don't agree with all of his stances, I'm now pro-TTP for example, I still think overall you do have to look at the other candidates and aside from Jill Stein if she's running there's no one else who's more in line with my opinions.
benjipwns
Banned
Their votes didn't matter then either.
If anything that recount and other recent close ones should have illustrated to everyone how little their individual votes matter. Why else would recounts come up with vastly different numbers in the same precincts over and over. The final tally is just that, the last time they counted the votes
Veritigo_X
Member
Good that he changed his mind. His voting record doesn't exactly support his current beliefs. And he's no stranger to the NRA: http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...1be26c-2bfe-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html
hmm...
"Literally no one"
You don't have to pretend, every single Bernie thread on GAF is eventually up-ended with a "white progressives are the problem" post, if it isn't the OP itself.
Also, just for the record, I don't think Sanders can win with " just young whites". If you held a gun to my head and asked me to pick who I think would win the primary, it would be Hillary. She would also be my second choice among the people running. I would have thought my posts in this thread would have implied the first point, but I guess I understand if that wasn't clear upon a quick reading of the thread.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked