All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[Tazirai]

Dude, he said he was there.

That's not true at all. I don't have a clue where you are pulling this from. When PUMAS were so aggressive to Obama, and many of those same women and men, created the mythic Bernie Bros is problematic. That side tends to create a lot of sexist tropes against their political enemies.
Especially when 25% of Clinton Supporters refused to support Obama. Only 12% of Bernie supporters vote Trump, whose more open minded?

The Internet and this thread are not indicative of the world or US as a whole. So yeah you temper your words about us, but I sense a lot of contempt within. So if you had a bad interaction with a Sanders supporter, that's rough, but don't blanket the side you will need votes from with whoever is the nominee.

I literally understood that, which Is why I posted the bolded section.

My own direct experience on the Huffpost and Salon (and CBR) forums during the 2016 elections.

You're just further proving my point about Sanders' supporters "beliefs" overriding individual perspectives -- just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it false.

For example: I posted the links to Huffpost's coverage of Sanders but rather than research the info, you immediately defend Sanders and call me "disingenuous".

So when I say that it seems cult-like, that is exactly what I mean.

Same thing about both of us. You do seem to harbor some ill will to Sanders and his supporters. It's rare to see you not call us a cult or cult like. I guess no other candidate or Democrat has that same effect?
Just Sanders... I got it mate.

You have your belief and I'll leave it to that.


Anyway. I do love this smackdown by Harris to Mccain.

[Tazirai]

I find it rather baffling that some people apparently think you can have social justice without economic justice.

Agreed.

As a black man. I find it funny that some think speaking on economic justice is different than social justice, or racial justice. They are all intertwined. There's a politician who I won't name who speaks on those same issues as one because they are one. But gets lambasted for being a single note.

A lot of racial and social animous goes away when people feel like the "Other" isn't above them, but treated as equal. I realize that a lot of people don't understand that when communities of colour and genders have equality of opportunity, that community grows, and the people around them aren't that different.

Racial and Economics have always been intertwined.

One of the reasons the Slaves weren't freed when the Constitution was written was because America owed France a **** ton of money. We needed people to work in those fields.

Then when the time came to free them, The South was like If we free the negro, they're gonna take your stuff and rape your women and steal your jobs. (Racial, Social, and economics all in one.)

[aja_christopher]

I literally understood that, which Is why I posted the bolded section.


Same thing about both of us. You do seem to harbor some ill will to Sanders.

Nah, there's no "ill will" here so stop misrepresenting me -- I don't wish you "ill" nor would I have a problem with Sanders becoming President, but likewise I'm going to call out "Sanders" supporters when they continually attack "Democrats" (for a candidate who isn't even a Democrat) and lie about the "media" as if Sanders was somehow treated worse than "unlikable" Hillary Clinton with regards to scandals (Benghazi, emails, Whitewater, Lewinsky, etc) and biased coverage, again putting the entire election in jeopardy.

For whatever reason, you choose to see an objective response (complete with links to Huffpo) that shows no such anti-Sanders bias as an attack on Sanders, which just confirms that this is more about your own personal feelings than the actual facts at hand.

[KOSLOX]

I find it rather baffling that some people apparently think you can have social justice without economic justice.

I think it's baffling so many white people can't seem to figure out most minorities haven't had either.

Most efforts to improve the plight of "the people" have historically made explicit efforts to exclude "all of the people".

But, some animals are more equal than others I guess.

[Tazirai]

[Tazirai]

Nah, there's no "ill will" here so stop misrepresenting me -- I don't wish you "ill" nor would I have a problem with Sanders becoming President, but likewise I'm going to call out "Sanders" supporters when they continually attack "Democrats" (for a candidate who isn't even a Democrat) and lie about the "media" as if Sanders was somehow treated worse than "unlikable" Hillary Clinton with regards to scandals (Benghazi, emails, Whitewater, Lewinsky, etc) and biased coverage, again putting the entire election in jeopardy.

For whatever reason, you choose to see an objective response (complete with links to Huffpo) that shows no such anti-Sanders bias as an attack on Sanders, which just confirms that this is more about your own personal feelings than the actual facts at hand.

They did worse to Sanders than Hillary. They ignored him. There was a media blackout when they competed. They treated Hillary somewhat better. Unlikable is a word that should not be use for any female candidate Hillary included. Their Policy position is what's important.

I looked at your Huffington Post link and the majority of it is from THIS and LAST year.
When Bernie was running is what I'm talking about, when he ran against Hillary. THERE WERE NO GLOWING ARTICLES. Because there were no articles, and the ones that existed were NEGATIVE. But the thing now is that Bernies POLICIES are exceedingly popular and becoming the Democratic norm, which it should have always been.

So "Attacks" on Democrats, are based on Policy, not Personality. They SHOULD ALL be "Attacked" on POLICY, Sanders, Gabbard, Warren, Harris, Booker, whoever. But I notice the term "Attack" Is always used when it comes to some corporate democratic Policy. Even when Sanders "ATTACKED" Clinton it was on POLICY!

Obama did worse, He called her "Likable Enough" Bernie never did that!

So yes every single politician even the ones I personally like, should be "ATTACKED" but on Policy and their history in Politics. It matters.

Also, You're correct, Bernie is not a Democrat. Joe Manchin is a Democrat. Heitkamp is a Democrat, Feinstein is a Democrat, Donnelly is a Democrat, McCaskill is a Democrat. But one of these people acts more Democratic than the others. Also one of these people votes more in Line with Democrats than Others.

But Dammit, he doesn't have that Tribal (D)emocrat in his title. Maybe he should run like a Republican... Oh wait that was the other people I listed.

[Tazirai]

I think it's baffling so many white people can't seem to figure out most minorities haven't had either.

Most efforts to improve the plight of "the people" have historically made explicit efforts to exclude "all of the people".

But, some animals are more equal than others I guess.

This... All this.

[Mister Mets]

It's interesting but Gabbard has no real prospects of winning. Imo the most likely are either Warren, Biden, or Harris. Warren touches the sentiments of the progressives while not scaring off the establishment, Biden can tap into the Obama coalition, and Harris has all the big money donors and the establishment backing her. Sanders would probably be on the next tier, but I think too many establishment types just see him and have bad blood over 2016. Booker and Gillibrand probably have next to no shot. Beto is way too young and he's going to have issues outside of Texas if he actually runs. Bloomberg thinks he has a shot but nobody really is going to vote for a curmudeonly old billionaire. Julian Castro is just not a candidate for this era and he'll be knocked out right away.

I think Gabbard's got no shot either. She's seen as a friend of dictators at a time when the Democratic party is freaking about a Republican President being too friendly with dictators. You could imagine her having a shot under different circumstances (if President Romney had an aggressive foreign policy.)

Obviously other women are going to run for the Democratic nomination, and a few have a better chance. I'd add Klobuchar to the category given the lack of baggage, electability argument, and potential appeal in Iowa.

I just think it's nice that multiple women with political experience are running for President. It hasn't really happened before. Elizabeth Dole was the only woman in the 2000 Republican primary, and Carly Fiorina was the only major woman in the 2016 Republican primary. Hillary Clinton was the only woman running in the 2008 and 2016 Democratic primaries.

It's a good milestone, and I don't see the country going back in crowded primaries.

[Gray Lensman]

I think Gabbard's got no shot either. She's seen as a friend of dictators at a time when the Democratic party is freaking about a Republican President being too friendly with dictators. You could imagine her having a shot under different circumstances (if President Romney had an aggressive foreign policy.)

Obviously other women are going to run for the Democratic nomination, and a few have a better chance. I'd add Klobuchar to the category given the lack of baggage, electability argument, and potential appeal in Iowa.

I just think it's nice that multiple women with political experience are running for President. It hasn't really happened before. Elizabeth Dole was the only woman in the 2000 Republican primary, and Carly Fiorina was the only major woman in the 2016 Republican primary. Hillary Clinton was the only woman running in the 2008 and 2016 Democratic primaries.

It's a good milestone, and I don't see the country going back in crowded primaries.

She wasn't even that to start with. The first set of debates (IIRC) she was 'at the little kids table', metaphorically speaking. She just trounced the JV team at the debate at got moved up for the next one.

[aja_christopher]

They did worse to Sanders than Hillary. They ignored him.

Now you're being "disingenuous" and the link I provided (twice) proves that -- they covered him from start to finish in Huffpost, often to the detriment of Hillary.

-----
"Bernie Sanders Announces He Is Running For President In 2016"
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...n_6391086.html

"2016 General Election: Trump vs. Sanders"
https://elections.huffingtonpost.com...ump-vs-sanders

"Move Over, Trump: Polls Show Bernie Sanders Is 2016’s Most Popular Candidate"
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b06f35cb6fad0a

"It’s undeniably to Sanders’ advantage that he’s a fresh face, especially in a year brimming with anti-establishment energy. In a recent Fox (!) News poll, 70 percent of voters said Sanders had the integrity to serve effectively as president, while just 48 percent said the same of Clinton...

No matter which Democrat would be a stronger candidate in November, arguing about it is unlikely to give them much of a boost in the meantime."
-----

That you refuse to even objectively address the links provided -- to hundreds of positive Sanders Huffpo stories from the 2016 election and beyond -- just proves why it's often a waste of time to try to reason when it comes to Sanders.

If you want to see the above facts as "ill will" it's solely because you feel you need something to "fight" against -- which is exactly the problem at hand when you continually choose to "fight" with the same Democrats and moderates that your candidate needs to win elections.

[Tazirai]

This is probably the most Nuanced reaction and discussion I've seen so far. It's worth a watch.

[Tazirai]

Now you're being "disingenuous" and the link I provided (twice) proves that -- they covered him from start to finish in Huffpost, often to the detriment of Hillary.

-----
"Bernie Sanders Announces He Is Running For President In 2016"
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...n_6391086.html

"2016 General Election: Trump vs. Sanders"
https://elections.huffingtonpost.com...ump-vs-sanders

"Move Over, Trump: Polls Show Bernie Sanders Is 2016’s Most Popular Candidate
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b06f35cb6fad0a

"It’s undeniably to Sanders’ advantage that he’s a fresh face, especially in a year brimming with anti-establishment energy. In a recent Fox (!) News poll, 70 percent of voters said Sanders had the integrity to serve effectively as president, while just 48 percent said the same of Clinton...

No matter which Democrat would be a stronger candidate in November, arguing about it is unlikely to give them much of a boost in the meantime."
-----

That you refuse to even objectively address the links provided -- to hundreds of positive Sanders Huffpo stories from the 2016 election and beyond -- just proves why it's often a waste of time to try to reason when it comes to Sanders.

If you want to see the above facts as "ill will" it's solely because you feel you need something to "fight" against -- which is exactly the problem at hand when you continually choose to "fight" with the same Democrats and moderates that your candidate needs to win elections.

It wasn't only the Huffingtonpost, I first mentioned the MEDIA, then I mentioned HuffPO. But this is it for me on this. Take this as you will. I'm done.

Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours/

MAY 25, 2016
The Myth That Sanders Hasn’t Been Criticized Won’t Go Away

Hillary Clinton wrong that no negative ads have hit Bernie Sanders

"Let me say that I don't think (Bernie Sanders has) had a single negative ad ever run against him."
— Hillary Clinton on Sunday, May 22nd, 2016 in an interview on "Meet the Press"

Our ruling

Clinton said, "Let me say that I don't think (Sanders has) had a single negative ad ever run against him."

The number of attack ads against Sanders pales in comparison to the number against Clinton, but she’s wrong that he’s been completely spared.

Democratic groups, including one supporting Clinton, and Republican outfits alike have gone after Sanders.

We rate her claim False.

Update, May 23, 2016: This report has been updated to include a response we received from Correct the Record after initial publication.

[aja_christopher]

It wasn't only the Huffingtonpost, I first mentioned the MEDIA, then I mentioned HuffPO.

Which doesn't at all discount the fact that you were incorrect about Huffpo, nor that Huffpo wasn't the only "left-wing" media outlet attacking the "centrist" Clinton while supporting the "progressive" Sanders -- Salon was even more aggressive in supporting Sanders and the mainstream media focused more on Hillary's scandals than anything else during the election: if anything, Sanders benefited from all of that, including the support of both Trump and the Russians against said candidate.

That said, if you're going to posit a false accusation, don't try to slander your "opponents" as "disingenuous" just to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

[numberthirty]

I have no problem with Sanders, which is why the attacks on me with regards to me being biased against him are ridiculous. My main concern is that he might be too far to the left for the average American voter, which could be an issue in the general election, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't support him nor that I don't think said platform shouldn't be given a "vote" on a national level, if that's what the "Democratic" party supports (via primary).

I feel like the country could use a little "balance" after so many years of right-wing dishonesty and obstructionism and someone like Sanders or Cortez might be exactly what we need right now, if only to shift things back towards the "center".

But, overall, people didn't support Sanders in the primary so it doesn't make sense to act as if he can somehow work a miracle in the general election -- doesn't mean people shouldn't make the effort, but it likewise doesn't mean that everyone else has to buy into said "progressive" ideology, especially if they are more moderate or conservative, regardless.

This only makes sense if you are going to actually turn a blind eye to reality.

If you are framing it as "Sanders Can Somehow Work A Miracle..." in an election where most of the folks who voted for HRC on this forum have repeatedly pointed out how close it was, you are on some nonsense.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

January is too soon to be deciding on one candidate or the other. I’ll wait until the full field has been revealed first.