Those are some unsubtle dogwhistles.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT | Hickenlooper makes it to the debate
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
There is a gradient between "color blind" and "color primary", and Bernie very obviously lives between these extremes, based on his policies and overall approach. The actual economic rhetoric SHOULD be mostly presented in universal and general terms, however, because that is how genuine issues-based coalitions, and not loosely affiliated, personality-driven voting blocs (i.e. the Obama coalition), are built. Material self-interest, presented in terms that are easy to communicate and understand (i.e. not means-rested, complex public/private technocratic Frankenstein monsters), is the key.
I mean, Bernie acknowledged that social policy will have to carry equal weight with any economic policy, so I'm not sure what "real issues" you think he's avoiding.
Case in point, from his MLK day speech last month:
Case in point, from his MLK day speech last month:
You're not wrong about Bernie's poor choices of words being a part of politics and him needing to work on that, but it does need to be stated (because apparently this forum seems to be oblivious to this) that his policy platform is actually pretty robust and comprehensive when it comes to intersectionality of addressing structural and institutional racism. He specifically worked with BLM on these issues and from what I've seen from the platform so far, it's looking pretty good.
It is factually inaccurate to say that Bernie currently only believes that racism is fundamentally a classism issue. There's enough evidence in his current platform and his more recent speeches to indicate that he has evolved his approach in terms of policy positions that deal with racism. Of course, Bernie still needs to get better about being conversant on these issues (which is one of the reasons why he wouldn't be my preferred candidate), but the criticisms of Bernie not understanding that economic equality isn't a catch-all solution just don't line up with the current evidence and is the result of repeating rhetoric without ever updating it in light of new evidence.
Yup.
Last edited:
"Establishment," "neoliberal," "centrist" have all been completely drained of meaning and really only reflect on people using those terms, not on the folks they're targeting.
To be fair the old site was one of the top redirects to Hillary Clinton's campaign so we would have controlled the presidency if it weren't for those heroic 4channers. Saved America from having BronsonLee on the Supreme Court. Maybe Bernie can be the next to stop the PoliERA war machine.
And that´s why i was not posting anything after i came back after months just lurking. I think i have a strong opinion on this issue but i was not expecting this type of reaction.
Bernie is great and is the only candidate in the race willing to take on moneyed interests in politics. The thing that's been funniest about all the old videos of Bernie dredged up over the last few weeks by #stillwithher diehards is that they've only solidified how consistently he's been on the right side of history and how little his beliefs have "evolved" over time.
(also one of the top 5 for Bernie's!)
If you didn't expect a conspiracy theory that a wide-open primary where no one's busting 30% had already been decided by party illuminati to not go over well, that reflects only on you.
Well that's what you get for saying that the Dems primary voters are somehow plotting against Sanders and that civil rights and women's rights aren't "real issues"
Guy with only 25 posts
You posted a conspiracy theory.
What reaction were you expecting?
As a black person this is definitely my view of Bernie. After his greatest hits speech last night, I'm not holding out hope that he's changed since 2016.
Were we really???!
Why was GAF/ERA so disproportionately powerful, in gaming and (apparently) US politics? Why do people care what we, a bunch of nerds, think?
Is this what it feels like to live in Iowa?
Someone mentioned on Discord that image links might have counted, which would make the ranking make a lot more sense.
So the narrative shifts from Beto being the hand-picked establishment chosen to Harris. If anyone not named Bernie wins, then they were the hand-picked establishment choice all along. War never changes.
We would be lucky to have any of the democratic hopefuls over Trump imho however Ill be very interested to see how they hold up to intense scrutiny when election season ramps up
As if there wasnt enough mud being flung in here.
It still says a lot about the level of source-less, empty sophistry political discussion on the rest of the internet.
it's not like trump was adverse to controversy lol
it was a combination of factors that led to hillary losing the election; things like exaggerated concerns about her health, a perception of her holding milquetoast political positions, and her lack of charisma were also contributors
OP
OP
Yeah, that explained a lot to me. GAF wasn't influential, we just loaded a lot of pages.
I love the title change hahahahahahahaha
Warren should just bow out. There is no recovery from that,
Warren should just bow out. There is no recovery from that,
hell, he even explicitly drew on MLK in his state of the union response
Remember kids, if you mention MLK, that completely erases the problematic aspects of your policies. It's like a magic spell that causes a certain segment of the population to nod their heads, and go "yes, he's dealing with racial issues. Remember, he marched for civil rights 55 years ago. That totally means he's dedicated to civil rights, and the problems PoCs face in this country."
This is a strawman argument; nobody is making this argument. The Black Lives Matters movement explicitly helped revise his policies with respect to racial issues, so if you feel that you can do better than them, by all means let Bernie know. Don't expect everyone to just lap up misinformation, however.
That's what we all said about Benghazi and the Access Hollywood tape
I was expecting something like "i don´t agree" or "i think you´re are wrong on this one", not the jokes about my skills to comment on politics to look like i´m so dumb that i shouldn´t be expressing my opinion at all.
I thought opinions about the 2016 primaries being rigged were common, i thought this wasn´t 100% conspiracy, considering the email hacks, the West Virginia situation and the interviews mentioning that the DNC never really gave Bernie a chance in 2016, but i guess i was wrong.
If you´re a critic of identity politics, it doesn´t mean the rest doesn´t matter. The critic was never intended to diminish those movements. I don´t think thousands of posts on my record would make any difference, i never understood why people like to point out the number of posts to judge if said person should or shouldn´t be joining the conversation.
My mistake on this one, i should have mentioned that i was reflecting on this Politico story https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/28/wall-street-2020-economy-taxes-1118065 where Wall Street execs were pretty clear that they would support anyone but Sanders or Warren.
If you´re on the group that hates what Wall Street is doing, you believe they are handpicking a candidate to eliminate the chances of Sanders, and to an extent Warren to get the nomination.
They might be common in some circles, but that doesn't make them not conspiratorial trash that will rightfully be decried as the conspiratorial trash it is. Bernie lost by 12%, and he lost primarily because he wasn't able to win over black voters. http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/how-clinton-won/ Obama won a lower % of white voters than Bernie but won the nomination because he got 90% of black voters in 2008. Bernie stopped campaigning in the South after he lost South Carolina badly, and effectively conceded the election at that point in doing so.
some have Teflon but Warren is plagued by a John Kerry effect of not being able to unstick things tacked on by opponents
she doesn't have Teflon
nice strawman
more like: "when someone has stated & evidenced that they are dedicated to social justice for decades, and have done nothing to suggest otherwise, it's reasonable to infer that they are"
The primary was cleared of any legitimate challengers because it was Dear Mother's turn and the DNC, both minority leaderships, and their media contacts put the full breadth of their support behind her. Bernie doesn't really factor into it beyond being an anomaly that wasn't accounted for. But because they weren't literally jacking votes you'll have a bunch of ill-informed pedants who were Wrong in 2016 try to make you feel stupid. Don't let it get to you too much
Only among crackpot tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists. Anyone who holds that insane conspiracy theory view is embarrassingly delusional. There is NOTHING to back it up.
Hillary got 12% more in the popular vote. Votes weren't rigged.
Depends on what you define as the "average."
Some key policies that she's running on that some may appreciate (I'll undoubtedly miss a few):
- Tuition-free college
- Medicare-for-all (broad brush, yes. But she expressed willingness to get rid of private health insurance)
- Criminal Justice reform.
- Minimum-wage increase.
- Equal pay for women.
- Racial discrimination protections.
She has a very strong progressive agenda.
And she is charismatic as hell and tough as nails.
electiablity is more than just being "LEFT"
she has the credibility factor and has substance
she's not an empty avatar or a slogan. She knows her shit
I guess we shouldn't let party members choose their own candidate. They clearly don't know what's best for them.
User Banned (2 Weeks): Inflammatory False Equivalence and History of Trolling
Putin got 65% more in the 2018 Russian presidential election. Vote share is not a particularly good way of rebutting the claim there were shenanigans of some sort that favoured one candidate.
Are you seriously claiming the vote total was altered like in fake elections like in Russia?
Are you being serious right now?
No - I'm saying using the percentage of the vote a candidate got makes no sense as a rebuttal to the claim that something underhanded may have been done to swing a vote in that direction.
Not only that but the DNC doesn't control the voting process. And then the people who do are then subdivided into various independent entities.
The DNC couldn't rig anything even if they wanted too much less in a covert way
Except you got nothing but tinfoil hats.
Nothing hampered Bernies ability to run and raise money and he had an equal shot at winning the primary.
Hillary got more votes, a lot more votes, fair and square. And you don't got one single iota of a shred of evidence to even claim there was anything underhanded going on to impact the actual election voting results.
This nonsense sounds like a MAGA fan ranting about Quanon and is no less insane.
If she were a more exciting candidate, I would agree... But Warren isn't charging anyone in the party to go out and get her elected.
Harris, if she sticks to the policy ideas that she outlined in her town hall, basically ends her candidacy right there because they're basically the same candidate. Throw this shit on top of the fire and I'm wondering if she should just drop out now.
Honestly the way some people refer to the 2016 primary I don't understand why they would even want Bernie to run again? What has magically been fixed this time that won't result in DNC stealing it from him once again, because I rarely see anyone pinpoint the exact machinations that rigged it against him? Like, Bernie had a very uphill battle in the sense that he was an unknown candidate on the national stage, not having the media clout of established names. That was on him to improve, and he just didn't have the time.
Which is why I think he has a much better shot going into this primary if he decides to run.
Which is why I think he has a much better shot going into this primary if he decides to run.
I didn't claim it was?
My post was pointing out that I don't understand the claim myself
Why was the deck cleared internally? It's actually super simple!
1.Obama backed Hillary as his successor.
2. No one in the party wanted to fight the hyper-popular Obama on this internally, Biden wanted to challenge but his family didn't want him running.
3. The end.
Seriously. It's not that complicated.
1.Obama backed Hillary as his successor.
2. No one in the party wanted to fight the hyper-popular Obama on this internally, Biden wanted to challenge but his family didn't want him running.
3. The end.
Seriously. It's not that complicated.
He doesn't. His coalition from 2016 consisted of lefties, young voters, and socially conservative Is was glued together by non-ideological anti-establishment sentiment. Without the deck cleared for a single challenger, that glue is gone, and it's why you see his support collapsed not only in general polling relative to 2016, but also in polls of activists like MoveOn and DailyKos who were going for him overwhelmingly in 2016.
It's a better situation to let someone like Bernie run as a Dem than to have him running 3rd party.
- Status