US Politics - Term of surrender? Or is it wise to follow the Dumpty?

[Darryk]

21 hours ago, Kalbear said:

And in other fuck Sanders news, it's gonna be interesting to see how he spins supporting George Wallace in 1972. It's also interesting to read how his views are really unchanged - both in his class struggles against the rich, and his being completely fine with open racism if it's popular. 

https://twitter.com/doctor_eon/status/1222983729905197056?s=20

Haha, Bernie Sanders, who got arrested for taking part in the civil rights march, and has been talking about race issues for decades, does not have anything to prove regarding his record on race.  

People going after his policies is one thing, but when people suggest he's racist, misogynist or whatever other nonsense Hillary and her MSNBC proxies have cooked up is when you know they just have some weird personal thing against him, and are more interested in smearing his character than having a policy debate.

[Fez]

22 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I just read her statement and it’s so full of s***.

I said it before and I’ll say it again, Democrats suck at messaging, and they allowed the Republicans to frame their behavior as the partisan when in fact Republicans just did the single most partisan I can think of, they protected their party rather than upholding their oaths of office. F*** them!  

Its probably not intentional, but you can pretty easily read her statement as one attacking her fellow Republicans; that they are the ones not allowing a fair trial to occur in the senate so there's no point in continuing the farce any longer.

[Paladin of Ice]

1 hour ago, Darryk said:

Haha, Bernie Sanders, who got arrested for taking part in the civil rights march, and has been talking about race issues for decades, does not have anything to prove regarding his record on race.  

People going after his policies is one thing, but when people suggest he's racist, misogynist or whatever other nonsense Hillary and her MSNBC proxies have cooked up is when you know they just have some weird personal thing against him, and are more interested in smearing his character than having a policy debate.

I don’t think he’s racist, I think he’s completely clueless about how to fix racism, he cares about doing so far less than he does economic issues, and he’s willing to excuse racism lite (or not so lite, depending on the case) in his followers if it means he can push towards his solutions for economic issues.

And cut it the fuck out with the whole standard “Oh but Bernie marched with MLK, of course he isn’t the tiniest bit racist” line. Mitch McConnell marched with King too, so what’s your point? It’s not a lifelong get out of jail free card.

Bernie means well enough on race, but he’s a tone deaf old white guy whose solutions come straight out of the tone deaf old white guy’s book of solutions. It’s a flaw, everyone has them. Accept it and move on.

[Kalbear]

49 minutes ago, Darryk said:

Haha, Bernie Sanders, who got arrested for taking part in the civil rights march, and has been talking about race issues for decades, does not have anything to prove regarding his record on race.  

AA people appear to largely disagree. 

 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

59 minutes ago, Darryk said:

Haha, Bernie Sanders, who got arrested for taking part in the civil rights march, and has been talking about race issues for decades, does not have anything to prove regarding his record on race.  

People going after his policies is one thing, but when people suggest he's racist, misogynist or whatever other nonsense Hillary and her MSNBC proxies have cooked up is when you know they just have some weird personal thing against him, and are more interested in smearing his character than having a policy debate.

It's desperation from neo-liberals to try and paint Bernie as a racist. I do think it's not hard to agree he is more interested in issues of class than race, but that is not to say he is not concerned about issues of race. In a capitalist country where wealth inequality is so great that people like Richard Wolff say it's not been paralleled since ancient Egypt--in this kind of system, you can't see any meaningful change if you don't address the control of the elite first. It is not the only systemic tool of inequality in this country, but until you start fixing it, nothing will truly change for those in need. 

We could post evidence (on top of evidence) disproving the issues people claim Sanders has with race (in fact that's been done), but the neo-liberal ideology will not shift how they view this. Bernie is a threat to the neo-liberal foundation of the Democratic party.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Absolutely! Biden also completely sucks here! How is this a defense of Sanders?

Why is it so hard to say "yes, this sucks".

Fair enough, Biden being even shittier (and lying about his civil rights involvement) is absolutely not a defense of Sanders.  

Sanders is making gains though with non-white voters.  

Quote

Black Democrats are considerably less likely to feel this way. And Hispanic Democrats are even more open to an ideological purist.

In the CNN survey, nonwhite voters were in fact more likely to say they would be enthusiastic or at least satisfied with Mr. Sanders as their nominee (82 percent) than to say the same of Mr. Biden (74 percent).

Steve Phillips, the founder of Democracy in Color, an advocacy group focused on race and politics, said Mr. Sanders had room to grow with voters of color, whose votes are habitually taken for granted by Democratic candidates. But, Mr. Phillips emphasized, he will need to earn it.

“He’s closer to the mark than others are in terms of expanding the electorate and bringing new voters in,” Mr. Phillips said, referring to Mr. Sanders’s efforts to engage first-time voters, a cornerstone of his campaign. “He still could do more.”

Your previous statement that he's "completely fine with open racism as long as it's popular" is at best hyperbolic and inflammatory, and completely without support.  Sanders may be "tone deaf" on racism like @Paladin of Ice said upthread, but no moreso than any of the other candidates.  

 

[James Arryn]

Murkowski has looked at the situation and gotten seriously pissed and vowed to take action...about people criticizing Roberts. Oh, the impeachment? Yeah, she thinks it’s a shame how partisan everything is and has decided to do nothing other than be sad. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Its probably not intentional, but you can pretty easily read her statement as one attacking her fellow Republicans; that they are the ones not allowing a fair trial to occur in the senate so there's no point in continuing the farce any longer.

I had that thought too, but in the end it doesn’t matter. She’s forever part of the cover-up now.

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Its probably not intentional, but you can pretty easily read her statement as one attacking her fellow Republicans; that they are the ones not allowing a fair trial to occur in the senate so there's no point in continuing the farce any longer.

I think that’s slightly refuted by her reference to taking it to the SC, which would only be something the Democrats would have to do.

[Kalbear]

55 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Your previous statement that he's "completely fine with open racism as long as it's popular" is at best hyperbolic and inflammatory, and completely without support.  Sanders may be "tone deaf" on racism like @Paladin of Ice said upthread, but no moreso than any of the other candidates.  

Has he denounced Joe Rogan's previous statements on islamophobia? If not, I stand by my statement.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

It's desperation from neo-liberals to try and paint Bernie as a racist.

To be really, really clear, I don't think Sanders is particularly racist. Or at least, as non-racist as most white people can be.

I just don't think he cares that much one way or another. I don't think he's a champion of minority issues any more than McConnell is. And I think that he will sell any other issue out if it means gaining on his primary issue of wealth inequity. 

My stance - shared with people like Warren, another neo-liberal shill famous for exacerbating wealth inequity - is that racism and sexism in the US is not a product of wealth issues. It is a systemic, cultural issue that cannot be addressed simply by looking at improving income levels, and any serious evaluation of these issues requires more nuance and actual discussion and improvement. And I think if you aren't willing to do that - if you aren't willing to talk about these issues because they are alienating some other voters - that's going to not result in improvement.

[Ran]

I think Matthew Yglesias at Vox makes an important point about the current Democratic coalition and what it means for how to view the Joe Rogan moment, namely that there are already many groups who identify as Democrats who are significantly heterodox in various ways. It was noted elsewhere -- I can't find it off-hand, but I think it was a tweet thread from a political scientists whose recent study suggested a moderate like Biden was the likeliest to win against Trump (it may have been RTed by Jonathan Chait) -- that among the many groups Biden does well in, besides African-Americans,  are race-resentful whites, aka people who have some issue with other races. This may seem paradoxical, but of course these various groups are discreet interest groups and their interests align enough  to put them in the "like Biden" umbrella even if other interests are opposed. 

So, the only issue I have with the Sanders campaign promoting Rogan's endorsement is to what degree it may scare off voters from voting for the Democrats when the general election happens. My guess is it will lose very, very few voters who otherwise would have voted Dem, whereas it could well gain substantially more voters who would normally not vote. (Though truth be told I think only Sanders would benefit from that; any other candidate is unlikely to get the Rogan endorsement.)

[Paladin of Ice]

57 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Has he denounced Joe Rogan's previous statements on islamophobia? If not, I stand by my statement.

And using the n-word about a thousand times. And being a birther. And about a dozen other -isms that Rogan has a history of.

[Rippounet]

46 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

My stance - shared with people like Warren, another neo-liberal shill famous for exacerbating wealth inequity - is that racism and sexism in the US is not a product of wealth issues. It is a systemic, cultural issue that cannot be addressed simply by looking at improving income levels, and any serious evaluation of these issues requires more nuance and actual discussion and improvement. And I think if you aren't willing to do that - if you aren't willing to talk about these issues because they are alienating some other voters - that's going to not result in improvement.

Sure. But what's "nuance and actual discussion and improvement" exactly, in concrete terms? What's a presidential candidate supposed to say that would be more than talk? Assuming Bernie's "clueless" about how to fix racism, well who isn't, and what are 21st century solutions that can be implemented by government?
Racism or sexism are certainly about more than economics, but it still seems to me that the most pressing issues are all linked to economics. And I don't know if anyone ever claimed that racism and sexism are the products of wealth issues, socialism (or at least "old-school" socialism) claims the reverse, and suggests addressing economic inequalities will go a long way toward actually improving the lives of people who are discriminated against. It doesn't tackle the origins of the problem, but within the context of an election, what do virtue-signalling and purity tests achieve?

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

To be really, really clear, I don't think Sanders is particularly racist. Or at least, as non-racist as most white people can be.

I just don't think he cares that much one way or another. I don't think he's a champion of minority issues any more than McConnell is. And I think that he will sell any other issue out if it means gaining on his primary issue of wealth inequity. 

My stance - shared with people like Warren, another neo-liberal shill famous for exacerbating wealth inequity - is that racism and sexism in the US is not a product of wealth issues. It is a systemic, cultural issue that cannot be addressed simply by looking at improving income levels, and any serious evaluation of these issues requires more nuance and actual discussion and improvement. And I think if you aren't willing to do that - if you aren't willing to talk about these issues because they are alienating some other voters - that's going to not result in improvement.

Ninjaed by @Rippounet but when it comes to race and policy what is the difference between Warren and Sanders?  No one has solved racism in the US, and there are plenty of non-white people who seem to think that Sanders is the candidate whose policies are best for them.  What would Sanders selling out minorities for economic goals look like to you?  I mean I would in a heartbeat take universal healthcare or a more progressive tax system, affordable education, or stop denying prisoners the right to vote -- if the trade-off is Bernie doesn't criticize Joe Rogan.  What is Warren or Klobuchar or Biden going to do beyond that?  Some lip service that doesn't materially deviate in results?

Reparations?  

 

[A True Kaniggit]

6 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Sure. But what's "nuance and actual discussion and improvement" exactly, in concrete terms? 

Education is the first thing that comes to mind.

I started elementary school in 1996. I live in an area with a 54% AA population. Yet somehow my classes, for eight years, had a +80% white composition.

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Ran said:

I think Matthew Yglesias at Vox makes an important point about the current Democratic coalition and what it means for how to view the Joe Rogan moment

Ugh.  Yglesias' argument is a bunch of bullshit.  Take this:

Quote

But if Democrats tried to demand unanimity on these very basic points from actual voters, they’d lose huge swathes of their base. The idea that there should be “zero tolerance for bigotry” or that some things should be beyond pragmatic politics might sound nice, but if you actually intend to live by them, get ready to lose every election ever — something that I don’t think will be very helpful to the people who anti-bigotry politics is supposed to protect.

As a candidate, you don't need to "demand unanimity" from voters, just don't associate yourself with people that are influential and that's influence at least somewhat derives from their bigoted perspective.  That's a pretty simple request, one would think.  More importantly, to the bolded - yes, I would think any candidate I would ever consider supporting should hold "zero tolerance for bigotry."  At least publicly, which is what we're talking about here.  In terms of pragmatism, Yglesias is exactly wrong in this point.  Can you imagine a politician being like "well, I don't like bigots, but I will tolerate them if they vote for me"?  Even Trump wouldn't be that open about it. 

Appealing to voters that still hold racial resentment is one thing, but Yglesias is going way overboard here.  "Get ready to lose every election ever"?  What?  Get the fuck out.  Pointing out Rogan's bigotry is not going to lead to the Democratic party losing every, or any, election.  In fact it might even gain you some net traction for, ya know, telling the truth as a politician.  The idea you shouldn't speak out against bigotry in the interest of pragmatism is just an absurdly stupid premise.  Then Yglesias continues being an idiot:

Quote

Sanders isn’t embracing a political activist. In fact, Rogan’s political views seem mostly confused. He thinks of himself as an enemy of the establishment, but his main conviction is the extremely centrist view that we should worry about the excesses of political correctness. He does political episodes occasionally, but never really on specific policy topics. Somehow out of that heady brew pops the idea that he likes Sanders because he seems him as a man of integrity and conviction who stands apart from other politicians.

I still have a bad taste in my mouth for "radical centrism" during the aughts and Tom Friedman justifying the Iraq War even though he knew he was full of shit and was just scared to say otherwise.  Anyway, Rogan isn't an "extreme" or radical centrist in terms of how he expresses his political opinions.  He's just an asshole that whines about political correctness.  I, too, think PC culture has gone overboard, it can annoy me sometimes.  But that's not an excuse if I made bigoted statements.  This defense is ludicrous. 

That Yglesias is kinda trying to play up Sanders in this instance, or specifically Rogan's endorsement of Sanders, at the end of the quote above is literally nauseating.  If you think Rogan's endorsement isn't a big deal, fair enough.  That's true, it's not, most people don't give a shit.  But trying to defend it in this way?  It just reveals how full of shit Sanders is, where he's happy to reap any (again, probably little) benefits Rogan's endorsement gives him without confronting Rogan's role in perpetuating bigotry.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Well it's official, 49-51. Rubio especially covered himself in glory:

Quote

"Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office. ...

"... I will not vote to remove the President because doing so would inflict extraordinary and potentially irreparable damage to our already divided nation."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/31/politics/marco-rubio-donald-trump-senate-impeachment-trial/index.html

[Kalbear]

40 minutes ago, Ran said:

So, the only issue I have with the Sanders campaign promoting Rogan's endorsement is to what degree it may scare off voters from voting for the Democrats when the general election happens. My guess is it will lose very, very few voters who otherwise would have voted Dem, whereas it could well gain substantially more voters who would normally not vote. (Though truth be told I think only Sanders would benefit from that; any other candidate is unlikely to get the Rogan endorsement.)

That's entirely fine and reasonable, but it is also entirely in line with my statement that Sanders is happy to accept racists if it helps his cause. 

27 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Sure. But what's "nuance and actual discussion and improvement" exactly, in concrete terms? What's a presidential candidate supposed to say that would be more than talk? Assuming Bernie's "clueless" about how to fix racism, well who isn't, and what are 21st century solutions that can be implemented by government?
Racism or sexism are certainly about more than economics, but it still seems to me that the most pressing issues are all linked to economics. And I don't know if anyone ever claimed that racism and sexism are the products of wealth issues, socialism (or at least "old-school" socialism) claims the reverse, and suggests addressing economic inequalities will go a long way toward actually improving the lives of people who are discriminated against. It doesn't tackle the origins of the problem, but within the context of an election, what do virtue-signalling and purity tests achieve?

You're making a false equivalence and I'm gonna call you on it. You assume that if you're not addressing class issues and wealth inequity and you are in favor of dealing with racism/sexism, the only thing you're doing is lip service to those things and you cannot make any structural changes, and thus anything is lip service or purity tests.

I disagree, flat out, and think that is entirely bullshit. 

As to what can be done, there's a whole LOT of information about improving inequity, and as usual Warren has a lot of plans for that. More importantly is that she's been willing to talk to leaders in this area to get things done and figure out plans - and not include people who are actively opposed to precisely these sorts of things. These aren't purity tests; these are concrete goals and things she regularly talks about. 

As to you feeling that the most pressing things are economic, well, that's cool and all. Is that the view of the AA population? Of the undocumented immigrant population? Of the LGBTQ population? You might be right that it's the most important thing for the largest population (I'd personally disagree; I would say that they SHOULD be more focused on climate change, and they care most right now about medical costs), but it certainly isn't going to be the case across the board.

[Ran]

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

Can you imagine a politician being like "well, I don't like bigots, but I will tolerate them if they vote for me"?

"Even bigots are welcome to vote for me, but they're not necessarily going to be happy with all of my policies" seems like the actual reality of these things. 

Quote

Pointing out Rogan's bigotry is not going to lead to the Democratic party losing every, or any, election.

It's not Rogan's vote that is being appealed to by the campaign. It's the votes of his viewers, who are not necessarily in alignment with him on all of his particular ideas (though no doubt the average viewer on average shares an affinity for them) but may be willing to countenance that Sanders is the right way to go.  You can't appeal to the viewers of a person by telling the viewers that the person is a stupid bigot, however. 

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

in line with my statement that Sanders is happy to accept racists if it helps his cause.

Every single Democrat in the race has some racists prepared to vote for them. Every single Democrat in the race has some homophobes and transphobes prepared to vote for them, too. You're not saying anything that doesn't apply to everyone else. Rogan's vote is not the one being sought and is immaterial. That of his audience is.