Hey Bernie, go to hell and take all of your Bros with you

[SlackerInc]

DoggyDunnit, you want to unload a hardcare, ultraleft, Chomsky/Zinn/Rage Against the Machine type rant against the U.S., that’s fine. I too have read the People’s History of the U.S., and there’s definitely some validity to that perspective.

But where you go astray is, in the same post where you’re all (paraphrasing) “burn the muthafucka down! All you wealthy white liberals and middle class blacks can have creative metaphorical forms of violence happen to you while I try to help Trump get elected and laugh at your misery”…you also say (again paraphrasing) “even though you outnumber us on the left fringe, we will not compromise: if you bow down and let us step in and choose the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, we will deign to vote for that nominee—otherwise, forget it.”

Wow, what an enticing offer! Not. I think you’re failing to consider a couple things:

(1) The percentage of the electorate that is this radical left is quite small.

(2) What numbers you do have tend to be concentrated in deep blue states (for obvious reasons) and in certain red states like Texas (for less obvious but interesting reasons). Not a lot of radical leftists in Florida or Ohio. (Yes, there are always going to be some—I understand.)

(3) If we let firebrands like you run the party, even setting aside the fact that we set the precedent of letting a distinct minority of our caucus bully the rest of us, we are going to lose centrist voters to the Republicans. And that hurts as twice as much as getting your vote, because each of you adds one to our tally whereas a marginal Democratic vote that switches to a Republican vote loses us one AND gains them one, which is equivalent to losing two votes.

So: thanks for the offer, but no thanks. Buh-bye now!

@Whack-a-Mole

That said any reading of the civil rights record of Sanders and Clinton will have Sanders way out ahead of Clinton. It is kinda his thing at the center of who he is and he’s been a staunch advocate for civil rights since…well…his whole career. He doesn’t waver on it for political reasons either. He has Clinton beat hands down no matter how you slice it on this issue. That is not to say Clinton has been bad about it but nowhere near Sanders.

If black people wanted a champion for minority rights then Sanders was the better choice. Period. No two ways about it.

Bullshit. You stating it emphatically as an indisputable fact does not make it so. Bernie joined some marches fifty years ago when that was what all the young white lefties did. Then he moved to lily-white Vermont and didn’t interact with black people for a half century. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton got out of law school and went undercover as a “civil rights secret agent” (Hillary Clinton Undercover Civil Rights Work) and then continued to maintain ties with the black community through her years in Arkansas and beyond.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[k9bfriender]

@SlackerInc

DoggyDunnit, you want to unload a hardcare, ultraleft, Chomsky/Zinn/Rage Against the Machine type rant against the U.S., that’s fine. I too have read the People’s History of the U.S., and there’s definitely some validity to that perspective.

But where you go astray is, in the same post where you’re all (paraphrasing) “burn the muthafucka down! All you wealthy white liberals and middle class blacks can have creative metaphorical forms of violence happen to you while I try to help Trump get elected and laugh at your misery”…you also say (again paraphrasing) “even though you outnumber us on the left fringe, we will not compromise: if you bow down and let us step in and choose the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, we will deign to vote for that nominee—otherwise, forget it.”

In this thread, I am mostly on your side, but I don’t think that that is an accurate or fair “paraphrasing”

Wow, what an enticing offer! Not. I think you’re failing to consider a couple things:

(1) The percentage of the electorate that is this radical left is quite small.

And cannot be relied upon to vote for the party.

(2) What numbers you do have tend to be concentrated in deep blue states (for obvious reasons) and in certain red states like Texas (for less obvious but interesting reasons). Not a lot of radical leftists in Florida or Ohio. (Yes, there are always going to be some—I understand.)

This is true, sometimes I feel as though I am the most radical leftist in Ohio, and I feel pretty moderate most days.

(3) If we let firebrands like you run the party, even setting aside the fact that we set the precedent of letting a distinct minority of our caucus bully the rest of us, we are going to lose centrist voters to the Republicans. And that hurts as twice as much as getting your vote, because each of you adds one to our tally whereas a marginal Democratic vote that switches to a Republican vote loses us one AND gains them one, which is equivalent to losing two votes.

At least it would be more exciting. The one criticism I could agree with about Clinton is that she is boooooring, and I like policy wonks.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton got out of law school and went undercover as a “civil rights secret agent” (Hillary Clinton Undercover Civil Rights Work) and then continued to maintain ties with the black community through her years in Arkansas and beyond.

This is why I don’t understand why anyone criticizes her on racial issues. She was fighting for equal rights before it was cool, it’s one of the big things that made her so detested on the right, when she took on the plight of african americans against the wishes of the populace.

[DoggyDunnit]

@SlackerInc

DoggyDunnit, you want to unload a hardcare, ultraleft, Chomsky/Zinn/Rage Against the Machine type rant against the U.S., that’s fine. I too have read the People’s History of the U.S., and there’s definitely some validity to that perspective.

But where you go astray is, in the same post where you’re all (paraphrasing) “burn the muthafucka down! All you wealthy white liberals and middle class blacks can have creative metaphorical forms of violence happen to you while I try to help Trump get elected and laugh at your misery”…you also say (again paraphrasing) “even though you outnumber us on the left fringe, we will not compromise: if you bow down and let us step in and choose the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, we will deign to vote for that nominee—otherwise, forget it.”

Wow, what an enticing offer! Not. I think you’re failing to consider a couple things:

(1) The percentage of the electorate that is this radical left is quite small.

(2) What numbers you do have tend to be concentrated in deep blue states (for obvious reasons) and in certain red states like Texas (for less obvious but interesting reasons). Not a lot of radical leftists in Florida or Ohio. (Yes, there are always going to be some—I understand.)

That “minority” part was sarcastic in response to John_Stamos’_Left_Ear; our numbers are there. Are we an absolute majority? No, else this country’d be a lot more civilized. But for that matter, neither is the alt-right, and they managed to get their guy in there, now didn’t they? Absolute majorities, or even relative majorities, are not needed - unity and will are. If the left in this country was to drop the sectarianism, we’d steamroll the right, because unlike them, the differences between the libertarian left and the authoritarian left are not irreconcilable - we all believe in actual civilization, like Nature intended - unlike the differences between the libertarian right and the authoritarian right. There’d be difficulties, especially when it’d come to keeping the tankies seated at the table, but it’s possible with enough effort.

@SlackerInc

(3) If we let firebrands like you run the party, even setting aside the fact that we set the precedent of letting a distinct minority of our caucus bully the rest of us, we are going to lose centrist voters to the Republicans. And that hurts as twice as much as getting your vote, because each of you adds one to our tally whereas a marginal Democratic vote that switches to a Republican vote loses us one AND gains them one, which is equivalent to losing two votes.

So: thanks for the offer, but no thanks. Buh-bye now!

Ha, them centrists… let’s say that us on the real left managed to take over the Democratic Party. Them centrists, they’d have a choice to make. They could either get on the side of civilization and justice for all and support the left, or they can keep on down the road they’ve been on for ages and continue to be crypto-fascists because they’re afraid of the scary An-tee-fuhhs who would, if in power, take away their ability to drown out the less fortunate in the comfort of their McMansions (eek!). If they choose the latter, we all can enjoy more Trump and more Trumpistas and the continued and accelerated decline of the country. And when it’s finally in ruins - perhaps even with Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Belarus, and other hostile powers having divvied up this place like a pie at Thanksgiving time, I’ll be able to point right at the centrists, with my squeaky clean hands.

Also, I’m not “part of your caucus”. I’m not a Democrat and haven’t been since 2015. But, the simple fact of the matter is, we’ve grown recently and y’all need us to get y’all’s people into office - just as the Republicans need the alt-right these days.

@SlackerInc

Bullshit. You stating it emphatically as an indisputable fact does not make it so. Bernie joined some marches fifty years ago when that was what all the young white lefties did. Then he moved to lily-white Vermont and didn’t interact with black people for a half century. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton got out of law school and went undercover as a “civil rights secret agent” (Hillary Clinton Undercover Civil Rights Work) and then continued to maintain ties with the black community through her years in Arkansas and beyond.

(A) Believe it or not, there are black people in Vermont. Not that many, but we do exist up there. Hell, I’d join them, but I ain’t fond of small towns.

(B) The Clintons, not Bernie, were responsible for a lot of racist mess, and a lot of classist mess. But poor Blacks being hurt by them don’t apparently count, I suppose, so long as the privileged ones prosper. Meanwhile, Bernie worked tirelessly in the House AND Senate for the good of ALL Black people.

[ElvisL1ves]

“You Picked a Fine Time to be a Dumb Ass” - still a classic.

[SlackerInc]

DD, your type of hardcore, Chomsky/Zinn/RATM leftist is no more than 5% of the population. And that is being generous.

So: hard pass. C ya!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DoggyDunnit]

@SlackerInc

DD, your type of hardcore, Chomsky/Zinn/RATM leftist is no more than 5% of the population. And that is being generous.

So: hard pass. C ya!

Yup, see ya at Trump’s 2021 inauguration!

[Whack-a-Mole]

@SlackerInc

Bullshit. You stating it emphatically as an indisputable fact does not make it so. Bernie joined some marches fifty years ago when that was what all the young white lefties did. Then he moved to lily-white Vermont and didn’t interact with black people for a half century. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton got out of law school and went undercover as a “civil rights secret agent” (Hillary Clinton Undercover Civil Rights Work) and then continued to maintain ties with the black community through her years in Arkansas and beyond.

And Clinton once met Dr. King and then worked for Barry Goldwater.

Sanders may not be a messiah for civil rights but the Clintons were provably bad and arguably ruined more minority lives than any other administration in the last 50 years. Yes, that was mostly Bill Clinton but Hillary was supporting him in it.

The numbers simply do not work out for the Clintons. Black lives did not improve overall under their rule.

[k9bfriender]

@DoggyDunnit

Yup, see ya at Trump’s 2021 inauguration!

Does that mean that you are planning on voting for him again?

[DoggyDunnit]

@k9bfriender

Does that mean that you are planning on voting for him again?

If the Democrats nominate another crypto-fascist rather than Bernie or someone like Bernie, I’m going third party again.

[k9bfriender]

@DoggyDunnit

If the Democrats nominate another crypto-fascist rather than Bernie or someone like Bernie, I’m going third party again.

Democrats aren’t going to nominate a socialist, so, I guess you will not be supporting the democratic party.

Thank you for letting us know that we do not have any reason to pay any attention whatsoever to your opinions on the direction of the party, any more than we would listen to the opinions of republicans on where the party should go.

I’d like someone further to the left of Clinton too, but I’m not willing to destroy the country to get it, politics is supposed to be a game for adults. I’ll send some nice chocolate cake with two scoops of icecream over to you at the children’s table.

[SlackerInc]

@Whack-a-Mole

The numbers simply do not work out for the Clintons. Black lives did not improve overall under their rule.

This is just flat out false, unless you are going to claim the Federal Reserve Bank doesn’t deal in factual “numbers”, in which case there’s no reasoning with you (and that wouldn’t shock me).

“After narrowing sharply following the passage of the Civil Rights Act 1964, the wage gap between black and white males remained essentially constant—at about 30 percent—fore nearly 20 years. Since 1992, however, the black-white wage gap has narrowed substantially, and as of 1998, was at its lowest level in history.”

And just as importantly, just look at the VOTING numbers. African American primary voters who were adults in the job market, raising families, etc. during the Clinton presidency overwhelmingly voted for Hillary in the primaries. Those who were children in the 1990s were more split between Hillary and Bernie.

I wonder, too, if you realize that the infamous crime bill garnered the votes of two-thirds of the Congressional Black Caucus. How do you explain that? Was Bill Clinton supposed to have a better idea of what was good for African Americans than the overwhelming majority of African Americans in Congress did?

BTW, yes: it’s embarrassing that Hillary was a “Goldwater girl”. But she was a teenager at the time and was still following the influence of her conservative Republican father. I think it’s more impressive for someone like that to become a liberal Democrat by senior year, than for someone to have been from a liberal Democratic family and stay there all along, which is what I did.

I also note that a lot of the same people who loved Bernie are also fans of Elizabeth Warren. Warren was a Republican until 1995, when she was 46 years old! So she voted for Nixon in ‘72 when Bill and Hillary were working for McGovern. She voted for Reagan twice, when she was in her thirties, and Bush twice, the last time being in her forties. And she apparently voted for Republicans in the 1994 midterms at age 45, helping make Newt Gingrich Speaker of the House. Then, and only then, did she finally say “whoopsie”. WTF is that?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Whack-a-Mole]

@SlackerInc

This is just flat out false, unless you are going to claim the Federal Reserve Bank doesn’t deal in factual “numbers”, in which case there’s no reasoning with you (and that wouldn’t shock me).

Nope. You’re wrong (bolding mine):

Bill Clinton presided over the largest increase in federal and state prison inmates of any president in American history. Clinton did not declare the War on Crime or the War on Drugs—those wars were declared before Reagan was elected and long before crack hit the streets—but he escalated it beyond what many conservatives had imagined possible. He supported the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity for crack versus powder cocaine, which produced staggering racial injustice in sentencing and boosted funding for drug-law enforcement.

Clinton championed the idea of a federal “three strikes” law in his 1994 State of the Union address and, months later, signed a $30 billion crime bill that created dozens of new federal capital crimes, mandated life sentences for some three-time offenders, and authorized more than $16 billion for state prison grants and the expansion of police forces. The legislation was hailed by mainstream-media outlets as a victory for the Democrats, who “were able to wrest the crime issue from the Republicans and make it their own.”

When Clinton left office in 2001, the United States had the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Human Rights Watch reported that in seven states, African Americans constituted 80 to 90 percent of all drug offenders sent to prison, even though they were no more likely than whites to use or sell illegal drugs. Prison admissions for drug offenses reached a level in 2000 for African Americans more than 26 times the level in 1983. All of the presidents since 1980 have contributed to mass incarceration, but as Equal Justice Initiative founder Bryan Stevenson recently observed, “President Clinton’s tenure was the worst.”

Some might argue that it’s unfair to judge Hillary Clinton for the policies her husband championed years ago. But Hillary wasn’t picking out china while she was first lady. She bravely broke the mold and redefined that job in ways no woman ever had before. She not only campaigned for Bill; she also wielded power and significant influence once he was elected, lobbying for legislation and other measures. That record, and her statements from that era, should be scrutinized. In her support for the 1994 crime bill, for example, **she used racially coded rhetoric to cast black children as animals. “They are not just gangs of kids anymore,” she said. “They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.” **

<snip>

An oft-repeated myth about the Clinton administration is that although it was overly tough on crime back in the 1990s, at least its policies were good for the economy and for black unemployment rates. The truth is more troubling. As unemployment rates sank to historically low levels for white Americans in the 1990s, the jobless rate among black men in their 20s who didn’t have a college degree rose to its highest level ever. This increase in joblessness was propelled by the skyrocketing incarceration rate.

<snip>

When Clinton left office in 2001, the true jobless rate for young, non-college-educated black men (including those behind bars) was 42 percent. This figure was never reported. Instead, the media claimed that unemployment rates for African Americans had fallen to record lows, neglecting to mention that this miracle was possible only because incarceration rates were now at record highs. Young black men weren’t looking for work at high rates during the Clinton era because they were now behind bars—out of sight, out of mind, and no longer counted in poverty and unemployment statistics.

To make matters worse, the federal safety net for poor families was torn to shreds by the Clinton administration in its effort to “end welfare as we know it.” In his 1996 State of the Union address, given during his re-election campaign, Clinton declared that “the era of big government is over” and immediately sought to prove it by dismantling the federal welfare system known as Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC). The welfare-reform legislation that he signed—which Hillary Clinton ardently supported then and characterized as a success as recently as 2008—replaced the federal safety net with a block grant to the states, imposed a five-year lifetime limit on welfare assistance, added work requirements, barred undocumented immigrants from licensed professions, and slashed overall public welfare funding by $54 billion (some was later restored).

SOURCE: https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/

So tell me again how the Clintons were friends to African Americans…

[Banquet_Bear]

@Do_Not_Taunt

I haven’t exactly been defending Sanders in this thread - or elsewhere - but I have no problem with the part you quoted. The question was about how Trump communicated, and why that held appeal to ‘some folks.’ Sanders responded to that. And I have no doubt that part of what appealed to some about Trump was a blunt and ‘politically incorrect’ manner of speaking.

Now, Democrats don’t need to call Haiti a shithole country or Mexicans rapists to keep up - and, in fact, they should not - but they do need to find a way to appear genuine. Obama managed to do it while holding a standard Democratic agenda.

…I have every problem with the part I quoted. The question wasn’t just about how Trump communicated. It was also about the very real fear felt by muslim-Americans and other minorities. What appealed to some voters was Trump’s “blunt and ‘politically incorrect’ manner of speaking”. Bernie didn’t denounce what Trump said. He did the opposite.

Democrats aren’t going to appear “genuine” if they throw black and muslim-American voters under the bus.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Whack-a-Mole

A guy with 35 years in public office and one quote tells you all you need to know about him.

…no, it wasn’t a single quote that told me “all I needed to know about him.” That single quote though summed it all up.

To each their own I guess.

Indeed.

So tell me again how the Clintons were friends to African Americans…

Do you honestly think black people are fucking stupid?

Did you not think that they knew all of this before they overwhelmingly voted for Hillary?

It wasn’t about who was a “better friend to African Americans.” It was about who was less likely to fuck things up. It should say everything to you that the Clintons did so much damage to the black community and they still voted for Hillary over Bernie. This isn’t about you. This isn’t about what you think. If you want to understand why black voters by and large didn’t support Bernie then listen to what black voters had to say.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Banquet_Bear

Do you honestly think black people are fucking stupid?

Did you not think that they knew all of this before they overwhelmingly voted for Hillary?

It wasn’t about who was a “better friend to African Americans.” It was about who was less likely to fuck things up. It should say everything to you that the Clintons did so much damage to the black community and they still voted for Hillary over Bernie. This isn’t about you. This isn’t about what you think. If you want to understand why black voters by and large didn’t support Bernie then listen to what black voters had to say.

This again…

I do not think black people are fucking stupid. I think your average voter is fucking stupid regardless of race.

Look who is currently president and tell me again how smart American voters are.

As for being less likely to fuck things up I just posted a citation of how the Clintons fucked things up for black people in a big way. Sanders has well over 30 years in office. Do tell how he is known for fucking things up. Surely with a record that long you can find plenty to show how bad he was.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Whack-a-Mole

This again…

…yes this again. Can you guess why its come up again?

I do not think black people are fucking stupid. I think your average voter is fucking stupid regardless of race.

Do you think black people were stupid for voting for Clinton over Sanders? Do you think they “voted against their interests” when they voted for Clinton over Sanders?

Look who is currently president and tell me again how smart American voters are.

Were the black voters who voted for Clinton “not smart?”

As for being less likely to fuck things up I just posted a citation of how the Clintons fucked things up for black people in a big way. Sanders has well over 30 years in office. Do tell how he is known for fucking things up. Surely with a record that long you can find plenty to show how bad he was.

You seem to be misunderstanding who has the burden of proof here. Black people mainly voted for Clinton. They voted for her despite your citation of how the Clintons “fucked things up for black people in a big way”. Black people looked at Sanders record. And they voted for Clinton. I don’t need to show “how bad he was.” You’ve already shown it. You’ve been told why they voted the way they did. You are just choosing not to listen.

[DoggyDunnit]

@k9bfriender

Democrats aren’t going to nominate a socialist, so, I guess you will not be supporting the democratic party.

Thank you for letting us know that we do not have any reason to pay any attention whatsoever to your opinions on the direction of the party, any more than we would listen to the opinions of republicans on where the party should go.

I’d like someone further to the left of Clinton too, but I’m not willing to destroy the country to get it, politics is supposed to be a game for adults. I’ll send some nice chocolate cake with two scoops of icecream over to you at the children’s table.

Thanks in advance for the treats; I’m happy to be seated at the bastion of sense and humanity that you think constitutes “the children’s table”. If the Dems fuck up again, I’ll be happy to remind you of what’s behind Trump’s re-election in a couple years and change.

[Chisquirrel]

@DoggyDunnit

Thanks in advance for the treats; I’m happy to be seated at the bastion of sense and humanity that you think constitutes “the children’s table”. If the Dems fuck up again, I’ll be happy to remind you of what’s behind Trump’s re-election in a couple years and change.

Petulant children, yet again?
Do you wonder why you’ve been resigned to the kiddy’s table?

[asahi]

@Whack-a-Mole

Nope. You’re wrong (bolding mine):

So tell me again how the Clintons were friends to African Americans…

There’s one little detail your article left out.

Bernie Sanders actually voted for that legislation that Bill Clinton - not Hillary Clinton, who wasn’t even holding elected office - signed.

One of the biggest problems I have with Bernie Sanders’ supporters is that they often come to the debate table with a lot of hot rhetoric, but they sometimes - frequently - don’t come to the table armed with the facts. And they’re into revisionist history and conspiracy theories.

As for the “super predators” remarks, that was blatantly taken out of context. Much of the congressional black caucus also supported the crime bill that later incarcerated many blacks because their communities were being terrorized by gun violence, which Clinton actually helped to suppress with a) more funding of programs to prevent crime with early interventions, b) bans on weapons, and c) crack downs on repeat offenders, many of them violent.

But with regard to exploding prison populations, much of that - most of that - occurred at the state level, where the overwhelming majority of inmates are warehoused.

[asahi]

@Whack-a-Mole

Sanders has well over 30 years in office. Do tell how he is known for fucking things up. Surely with a record that long you can find plenty to show how bad he was.

He had 30 years as a Senator, a position with much less individual responsibility and accountability than an executive, or even a Secretary of State. If you want to criticize Hillary Clinton for her decisions as Sec of State, that’s fair game - there’s a lot to criticize there.

For the record, I like Senator Sanders and consider him a good influence. But Banquet Bear has a point in that a lot of the Sanders’ activists - not necessarily you - have an air of condescension when discussing black people voting for Hillary Clinton over Sanders.