All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Kieran_Frost]

Ok, I get what your saying now. Your talking about social privileges. Which is fair and all though I find them somewhat irrelevant when people are starving to death. Feels like dealing with a papercut when you've got a stab wound if you know what I mean. Not saying their not important of course, but that we've got bigger fish to fry

The point is why not do both? Why must one be left by the way-side in favour of the other? BOTH can be champion. So let's live by that philosophy; and not give into hyperbole.

So you'll take money from a racist to fight a racist? From an authoritarian to fight one?
WOW!
OK!

Surely it's a better use of the money than anything else than could be done with it? The best thing to do with racist money is use it to combat racism. The same way you would help to stop pollution by heavily taxing the polluters and use that money to invent into greener programs.

[ed2962]

Ah, I see. So just to be clear: in terms of the military following the orders of the queen to stand down, you have no actual evidence to support the theory the majority wouldn't?


As with all things you can be working class and still have privilege. A white working class person has more privilege than a black working class person, for example. Privilege doesn't mean everything is hunky dory and life's a bowl of candy. It just means we have privileges others do not; and it's important we don't forget that when listing our woes. And in the UK we are very privileged in regards to the idea of "being under a dictatorship". We have such colossal privilege over the countless countries that actually have a dictatorship, who don't have genuine democratic elections, who can't voice unhappiness about the government without very real consequences. And we must remember how fortunate we are and not use hyperbole to accent our woes; because it just shows a disregard for said privilege (which in of itself is a huge privilege to be able to do). If that makes sense? It's late, so my brain is a little quiffy right now.


Again, I'm not sure the "fighting back" is a fair characterisation. The people objecting to the nastiness from Sanders camp is a reaction (and effect). They wouldn't have done that without the rhetoric being there in the first place (the cause). Sanders supporters weren't "fighting back", they were retaliating to comments aimed at their behaviour. This thread is evidence of that. I only got involved recently in all this hoo-ha because a Sanders supporter came into an LGBT+ thread to viciously slag off a gay man. That was the cause... my presence here is an effect.


Ahhhhhh I see. Oh thank-you for this, I had no idea. Very interesting to know.

Yeah, I'm sure these things are different in the UK, but since Trump got elected, online you see folks saying stuff "Oh, the democrat party started the KKK." And the correct and answer is "Yeah, 150 years ago! What about the last 60 yrs of history? Richard Spencer ain't trying to vote for Booker or Sanders!"

[Steel Inquisitor]

Except racism and economics are linked, the banks have red lining policies designed to try to keep African Americans in poverty:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chi...outputType=amp

You would have to take on the banks to deal with structural racism.

They are linked, however, the cause is the racism the banks are a vector for that racism. They're not doing that because they're bankers, they're doing it because they're racist. This is a small part of institutionalised racism in the country.

Surely it's a better use of the money than anything else than could be done with it? The best thing to do with racist money is use it to combat racism. The same way you would help to stop pollution by heavily taxing the polluters and use that money to invent into greener programs.

They'd rather lose than win while compromising their values. Ignoring the fact that winning allows them more room for progressive moves in politics.

[The Overlord]

They are linked, however, the cause is the racism the banks are a vector for that racism. They're not doing that because they're bankers, they're doing it because they're racist. This is a small part of institutionalised racism in the country.

They are doing it for racism and profit. I think there a lot of cynical business men and politicians are more casual racists, but realize racism is a powerful motivator for their base that keeps them in power. That is the GOP's M.O, use racism to distract people from their economic woes, make sure their base blames immigrants for losing their jobs, not CEOs. Structural racism has its profiteers.

[Steel Inquisitor]

They are doing it for racism and profit. I think there a lot of cynical business men and politicians are more casual racists, but realize racism is a powerful motivator for their base that keeps them in power. That is the GOP's M.O, use racism to distract people from their economic woes, make sure their base blames immigrants for losing their jobs, not CEOs. Structural racism has its profiteers.

It's the racism that let them exploit the profit. If profit were their main motivator they won't be targeting minorities they'd be targeting anyone and everyone, instead they leave white people alone. The GOP is another matter, these aren't Republican politicians or operatives, they're bankers. Not everything racists do is a distraction, it's the point.

[AnakinFlair]

I just don't get where this confidence that Biden can beat Trump comes from. At the end of the day, the Democrats still have to run an actual candidate, Generic Center Left Bot isn't actually running, a possibly senile and never all that bright guy with a spotty record and a litany of awkward gaffes is, and Trump must be licking his chops at all the lame, but effective, put downs he'll get to throw Biden's way. And, oh yeah, Burisma is going to make Hillary's email fiasco look like a picnic by the time we're over and done with.

I keep hearing this argument. The thing is, I think this argument had merit- BEFORE 2016. But we've been living with a senile, not that bright guy with a spotty record and a litany of awkward gaffes as President. And while we all know that Joe could possibly embarrass America in the future with his behavior, I think we all realize it would be more of a down-home, folksy, aww, Grandpa got into the bourbon again kind of embarrassment rather than the **** show we've been living with.

[Gray Lensman]

Yeah, I'm sure these things are different in the UK, but since Trump got elected, online you see folks saying stuff "Oh, the democrat party started the KKK." And the correct and answer is "Yeah, 150 years ago! What about the last 60 yrs of history? Richard Spencer ain't trying to vote for Booker or Sanders!"

As has been said on here before, the conservative party in the 1800's started the KKK, the progressive one opposed it. They wore different names back then but that's the jist.

My gaming group (before it broke up) had a guy who always tried to play that card - I pissed him off by interrupting him with a loud cry of "The British are coming!" By his logic, they were enemies once, that means they must always be since nothing ever changes, apparently. When he told me that was stupid I replied that it was only marginally less so than what had just come out of his mouth.

[The Overlord]

It's the racism that let them exploit the profit. If profit were their main motivator they won't be targeting minorities they'd be targeting anyone and everyone, instead they leave white people alone. The GOP is another matter, these aren't Republican politicians or operatives, they're bankers. Not everything racists do is a distraction, it's the point.

But the structural racism makes their profiteering easier, they can't put everyone in prison, so they target minorities for their private prisons, because structural racism already targets them. The profit motive makes it worse.

That's what I say these issues are linked, but they are not the same per say. Racism in the US comes from the legacy of slavery and slavery had a profit motivate. These issues feed into each other, it's no coincidence that racism tends to get worse in economic downturns ( the Nazis took over Germany in bad economic times) when the economy gets the worse, the hate mongers blame minorities for it.

I think you have to deal with these issues at the same time, because they are related. A more economically just society would take away some of the pillars that support structural racism, you cannot have racial justice if red lining, the Southern Strategy and mass incarceration still exist.

[aja_christopher]

I think you have to deal with these issues at the same time, because they are related. A more economically just society would take away some of the pillars that support structural racism, you cannot have racial justice if red lining, the Southern Strategy and mass incarceration still exist.

No, you can stop cops from harassing black people before you try to force that minimum wage hike through Congress.

Doing both is fine, but you don't have "deal with these issues at the same time".

On a side note, Maddow is on MSNBC asking Sanders about his supporters calling Warren a snake.

I'll give him credit -- he's highly practiced at dodging questions he doesn't want to address directly.

[numberthirty]

Do you guys think Biden picking Bloomberg as his VP would be a bad move? I have a couple of big time Sanders supporters as friends, and the basically said it would put off progressives even more if he went that route. But, his money would really help Bidens campaign, right?

It would be a horrible move. It won't just put off progressives, it'll put off a good chunk of minorities, women, and moderates as well.

I think it would be a horrible move. Bloomberg is not a Democrat but has little appeal to swing state Republicans. The guy is an out of touch billionaire who can't create a cult following like Trump and wanted to regulate soda cup sizes. Biden has plenty of appeal to the middle himself. He needs either Bernie or Warren as VP to bring together as strong a coalition as possible to bear on the election.

On what is in blue, that probably would be the smartest play if Sanders stay even remotely competitive going forward. If you take that Sanders has right around half of the delegates right now, I don't know that I could see just ignoring that reality heading into a General. It seems like you are just asking for trouble.

As for Bloomberg as the VP...

While I can accept Biden as the "Business As Usual..." candidate that intentionally gets nothing done and probably sets Republicans up to be in good shape for the next Presidential election, Bloomberg on the ticket would probably be the one scenario where I'd have to think about just sitting things out.

[The Overlord]

No, you can stop cops from harassing black people before you try to force that minimum wage hike through Congress.

Doing both is fine, but you don't have "deal with these issues at the same time".

Really, you do not think left wingers do not take on police violence and only deal class reductionism?

I do not think you know what the leftist movement is, if you think I they do not care about police violence.

Also there is nothing stopping someone from dealing with both those issues, one may be more pressing, but we can still deal with both issues, it does not have to be one or the other.

[4saken1]

I have seen elsewhere that either a Biden or Bernie nomination will assure a Trump victory. the truth is nobody knows **** about what will happen.

Funny thing is, so far, in states with completely open Primaries, Biden leads Sanders by about a million votes. In states with semi-closed primaries (ones that registered Republicans can't vote in), Sanders leads by about half of that (450,000+/-). Seems to me, the logic that Sanders can beat Trump is somewhat hinged on the notion that Independent voters will come out in droves and vote for Bernie. I find this laughable, seeing as many of them apparently can't even seem to be bothered to vote for him in the Primary to ensure that he becomes the nominee!

[aja_christopher]

Really, you do not think left wingers do not take on police violence and only deal class reductionism?

I do not think you know what the leftist movement is, if you think I they do not care about police violence.

Also there is nothing stopping someone from dealing with both those issues, one may be more pressing, but we can still deal with both issues, it does not have to be one or the other.

Ok -- let's see Sanders do it.

[Mister Mets]

How Elizabeth Warren destroyed Mike Bloomberg's campaign in 60 seconds

Replace Bloomberg with Trump, and this is what Warren could have done if given the chance. I'd have payed good money to see Elizabeth tear Trump apart. Looks like that isn't likely to happen.

There are two major differences.

Warren went after Bloomberg in front of a Democratic primary audience. What persuades voters in primaries might not work in a general election, and she would be vulnerable to arguments about her policies that are unpopular in a general election setting.

Trump is shameless. If Warren talks about getting fired as a teacher decades ago because she was pregnant, Trump would not hesitate to call her a liar. Bloomberg would worry about whether he's saying the truth and how it would play with primary voters. Trump wouldn't worry about whether it's true and the voters he's trying to persuade are more conservative.

Trump will lose the popular vote, again. The American voters will pick Biden (or Sanders) Trump might squeeze out n Electoral win again, that is the danger.

So?

It's not exactly a secret that presidential elections are determined by the electoral college.

The whole Sanders Campaign has always sounded very much like the Neo Jacobin group from the French Revolution. Economy over class or race, and that's the rub right there. Most places are built around othering people and the economic aspects follow that. There's a lot of things out there that everyone would agree on in regard to over all, it's the way that it's presented and showing that there's something there in place to start with that can get approved. Saying it's the Establishment, when you are part of the Establishment and have been for years, is not helping matters. There is no, Establishment, because that keeps constantly changing. You want people to go for Universal Healthcare, set up a full on, with examples, easy to access moblie phone website that uses gameification to teach people what your benifits are. Also what doesn't help in the case of going after Obama is that it's an old white guy going after a black president. That does not look good in some peoples optics, especially when he's the first person of color to hold the seat. Say what you will about Clinton or other sitting presidents, sure, but targeting Obama is not the best look. Yes you can comment on his policies, but keep in mind who you are saying it to and the view of it.

Again, I wlll state, if Warren was a man, there would be no contest here on who would be nominated at this point.



Regarding Theleviathan's point above. One of the reasons why Younger voters don't come out is because they already have a lot to think about right now. Not just "Fun" things, they also have to consider their jobs, college or not, family, and so much more in the world globally that older voters didn't have to think about. Then there's the "Well I can sit out this and wait four years."

If politicans really wanted to court the younger crowd, instagram, youtube and snap chatting. Using social media platforms and making themselves out to be the SM politician that understands how younger people communicate. Become, as weird as this sounds, a SM influencer that talks about things. Such as, I don't know, putting on make up and using it to explain Health plan policies. Having a ASMR video about dealing with climate change. Vlog a campaign trip using public transportation and talk to people on the road and sit and chat with them. Do a, whatever healthy (not cinnimon or tide pods) challenge with the crew to set up for a ralley and talk about your experinces. Fashion haul discussing unionization and issues with lobbiest. ETC. As weird as those sound, it can work because it puts it in a more personal scope for younger viewers who may be watching those things.

Has any man with something like Warren's background been nominated?

Wonks don't always do well in presidential primaries.

[The Overlord]

On what is in blue, that probably would be the smartest play if Sanders stay even remotely competitive going forward. If you take that Sanders has right around half of the delegates right now, I don't know that I could see just ignoring that reality heading into a General. It seems like you are just asking for trouble.

As for Bloomberg as the VP...

While I can accept Biden as the "Business As Usual..." candidate that intentionally gets nothing done and probably sets Republicans up to be in good shape for the next Presidential election, Bloomberg on the ticket would probably be the one scenario where I'd have to think about just sitting things out.

I like Sanders, but he is too old to a VP, give him something, but probably out someone younger in the VP slot.