-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Joe Biden Draws Fire From Rivals Over Remarks About Segregationist Senators (See Staff Post)
- Thread starter DisasterMaster
- Start date
The reason why people are angry is because the policies he tried to pass with James O. Eastland were racist policies like fighting for keeping busing segregated. People are angry because he talks about working together with Eastland as if that's a good thing in itself, when what he did was kowtow hard for racist policies. People are angry because he talks about how no one called him boy when boy was used in a racist connotation so obviously a white supremacist won't call a white man boy. People are calling him good as a racist because he publicly supported racist policies in the past, and brings up the moment as a time of fond remembrance of "working together". And whether or not he is personally racist, does it really matter if he pushes for racist policies?
And the posters are repeatedly asking you for substance because all you've been doing is refusing to see why people are angry and instead attacking people (including African American whose policies Biden pushed for would have hurt directly) for daring to be angry as if the fact we are angry means we are automatically lesser. You brought nothing to the conversation but your own self-inflated ego while demanding everyone see you as the calm rational man.
I love her! She brings the thunder. Doesn't hold her tongue and tells it like it is. And it all thought out and spot on.
Thats right cover up his tone deaf racism in favor of being a presidential candidate.... Results will follow...
Not really advocating for it because I know what would happen if he did. More so annoyed at how fucked up it is that we have to listen to people humanize the most heinous and have many not recognize how wrong that is or outright celebrate it as what should be the norm.
His dumbass is humanizing someone that called for genocide that he was friendly with and views it as a shame that people don't want to tolerate that anymore to "get things done." Simultaneously, he's telling a black person rightful disgusted by his fucked up worldview they're the one that's wrong and should apologize for insinuating that he is a racist because he is an unapologetic racist.
Joe's right though, I too long for the days of old. Adding another member or members of my family to the list of those lynched is worth it for civility./s
In the bungled framing of what he said (which I agree was poorly stated and followed by an even worse response), do you at least acknowledge that there is merit in the message that in our politicized environment, in order to actually make actual progress we're going to somehow work together, even with people we disagree even on a fundamental basis?
Who do you mean by people we disagree with? People who literally call for genocide like Biden's bosom companion? I would rather burn the whole thing down than try to work with someone who supports genocide.
then he should've used an example that actually involved working across the aisle or legislation he got passed that helped people. He said neither of those things, so what's the message? He misses working with racist democrats? Who is he actually criticizing when his example is from his party?
My response to this is the same as below.
There's no bungled messaging because he said what he meant to say. I'd rather have deadlock than progress of stripping people of their rights or enacting stupid policies. Hell, compromise with the entire ideological framework of the modern Republican party has benefited the American populace in what net positive ways?
Edit:
Also to julian's point, not even of a different party but the same which should mean there's an even greater need to push back against bullshit.
Last edited:
I'm not going down that road. Biden's not my preferred candidate.
My question was a higher level which few candidates in the primary have even attempted to tackle due to the fear of certain factions of the Democratic electorate. My question is do we have to acknowledge the fact that we're going to have to play ball with politicians whose views and beliefs are starkly different than ours in order to continue to move forward?
You can say yes and still hate Biden, I'm just wondering if it's not just him and his words, but that message also that's frowned upon.
The thing is, you can either be righteously outraged or read the article which is not linked in the Tweet and realize the headline is kind of clickbaity. Guess how many people will take that extra step?
I would make efforts to get his vote if I thought it was the only path to passing something like a healthcare bill. But I don't think that means I need to praise him for his civility when he said at a rally to "abolish the Negro race" with "guns, bows and arrows, slingshots, and knives."
I also believe every single other candidate would do the same, and I bet that would never involve humanizing a literal segregationist.
Last edited:
Literally WHO are you talking about? Start naming them. Republicans took control of the entire government and in just a few years we have concentration camps. I don't want to work with any of them. They should all be voted out and half of them should be in prison. We should be making it so uncomfortable for these people that they flee to South America like the OG Nazis did.
Multiple posters in this thread have defended AOC for doing that with Ted Cruz. Biden's point is nonsense - you could even read it as a criticism of Democrats.
AoC working with Ted on ending Congresspeople from becoming lobbyists is not remotely comparable to this shit
"Gotta vote Biden because he's E L E C T A B L E and the only way to beat Trump."
I hope people begin to see how this was all 100% bullshit. The Dems don't want us criticizing him. He avoids exposure. IT'S FOR A FUCKING REASON. Nobody likes the real Joe Biden. If he gets the nom, people are going to tear him apart - let alone Trump during the general. Trump will go populist again like he's everyone's friend, and Biden will be hung out to dry with his racist friendly and austerity policy ass out. Voting will be suppressed and it will benefit Trump. Same as Hilary, but potentially worse in some ways. Democrats perfecting the art of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, because there's no way in hell they can have candidates that actually redistribute power in a radical way that tangibly and substantially improves the lives millions in a durable structure. That is what speaks to people.
DO NOT NOMINATE JOE BIDEN. IT'S LITERALLY DANGEROUS
Last edited:
Imagine coming to the defense of Pelosi here with the summation of her actions being "thats who he is, its not my place to decide if thats right or wrong" over literal fucking racism. Is this seriously the best defense moderate dems have to come back with here? That its not so bad the leader of the dems is giving a collective shrug over whether racism is actually bad and its not her place to decide?
Just so were clear, you think not calling out racism because a person might become president makes you not a garbage person? That makes you a garbage person. In fact that strategic racism in and of itself.
Were not the ones being hoodwinked here. Especially when pelosi is straight up lying in this instance about reaching across the isle when it was a fellow democrat.
I'm not defending Biden, but I've seen a few people in here saying he was against desegregation of bussing. Like, against Rosa Parks. That's not accurate. What he worked with shitbags to do was stop children from being bussed into other school districts in order to increase diversity in schools on opposite sides of housing redlines.
It's still shitty, and it's kind of an old controversy that younger people might not remember, but I think it's important to know what it actually was.
It's still shitty, and it's kind of an old controversy that younger people might not remember, but I think it's important to know what it actually was.
By "people we disagree even on a fundamental basis" do you mean Republicans who dispute the right of trans people to exist? Or who believe that women don't deserve control over their own bodies? What about people who don't believe that Palestinians, black Americans, or Latinos deserve human rights? Or do you just mean "moderate" Republicans like Mitt Romney, a guy who has based his entire political and corporate career around enriching the .1%, while pushing the middle class into uncertainty, poverty, and whose ilk has destroyed the social safety net that would have protected regular Americans, and STILL supporting most of the vile social policies of the alt-right?
No, I don't think there's merit in that message. I think the correct message is that "our side", by which I mean the greater left, has been disenfranchised by structural bullshit like the electoral college and the Senate. If we really want to make America better we should push for PR/DC statehood and abolish the EC. Reaching across the aisle is a fucking pipe dream.
Just to be clear, that's my point. Trying to spin criticizing this as being against compromising with Republicans ever is nonsense.
It will be Hillary all over again. It will be that blind loyalty to cover for Joe all in favor of the presidency...
it's an entire faulty example no matter what because in the era he was talking about 1) the parties and factions within them were less ideologically divided than they are now so there was more overlap and 2) the overlap and the compromises born from that were largely of the sort that resulted in racist legislation biden supported
Absolutely true. I don't know if it's been covered in the thread, but there is a VERY relevant Martin Luther King Quote that's applicable here:
Biden is EXACTLY the sort of White Moderate that King was frustrated with, and for very good reason. For Biden and those like him, it was worth "working with" openly racist men as long as it preserved the peace he was used to. So what if the Negro never achieves actual equality so long as the trains run on time. "Getting things done" was a worthwhile compromise in exchange for completely neutering the progress that needed to be made.
But he worked with segregationists to pass segregationist laws. Do you not get what he did, he did not work with republicans to pass some abstract spending deal he worked with Democrats to pass racist policies.
Which is why republicans are loving finally having a fair point to use in their party of Lincoln arguments.
I don't think Biden is a shoe-in. The most important piece for Dems in a lot of these Midwest states, and really most of the states that can be flipped back, is an economic message that resonates with rural Americans (especially white, probably male). Biden superficially is the most obvious candidate with his lumbering centrism, but somebody like Elizabeth Warren has a message that can win these people over.
I want Trump to lose but can we also not have Biden win?
I want Trump to lose but can we also not have Biden win?
Feinstein, in particular, is a vociferous cheerleader. Most of these older senators that have worked with him have an affinity for him in one way or another.
But there are some matters where they really shouldn't add their voice. I think the term is "out of touch."
Well atleast they allowed other people to actually run this time
Progress!
Those quotes are unbelievable. We're all supposed to shed a tear for poor Joe because he got criticized by other candidates in a primary.
This headline automatically biases the reader against the entire Democratic party with that subtle wording. "Democrats" don't want Booker et al to stop attacking Biden. Those attacking him are Democrats. The only ones holding him accountable for his diet and not so diet racism are Democrats.
Meanwhile, no other Democratic candidate has had as many hit pieces with their name on it by the mainstream media as Sanders, closely followed by Warren. Not a peep from the DNC. Heck, they're even fine with having meetings on how to stop him. But poor Biden doesn't deserve to be called out for his lousy political record or never-ending gaffes? But remember, it's a big tent party promoting unity, everyone! Puh-lease.
Yes yes, all the African Americans in here who take offense to Joe Bidens statement are 100% wrong because this African American says otherwise. We get your game.
It's really frustrating how all of biden's defenders just recontextualize Biden's comments for everything, and then proceed to set up strawmen.
Yes, both biden and lewis worked with bad people to try to do good. But did Lewis befriend those people, work with them to stop desegregation, and then nostalgically pitch a return to those times in a bid to become president in 2020?
Yes, both biden and lewis worked with bad people to try to do good. But did Lewis befriend those people, work with them to stop desegregation, and then nostalgically pitch a return to those times in a bid to become president in 2020?
This is such a pathetic way to dismiss a different perspective.
Are you saying "this African American's" opinion doesn't matter?
I think Biden is fucking disgusting and should drop out. He's a racist collaborator and painfully, dangerously out of step with where we need to be.
That said John Lewis isn't "this African American." He's a civil rights icon whose bona fides are impossible to ignore. I do disagree with him on this for sure but he's coming from a place of experience that is unparalleled.
Some of these defenses of Biden are sounding very similar to defenses that have been used for Trump and other far right-wingers.
John Lewis seems to be misunderstanding what the problem is many have with Biden's remarks. No one has any problem with working with the other side and many realize that means working with racist and other terrible people at time. It is his history of what he has worked with the other side/racists on that is the problem. It also doesn't help his continuous praise (this isn't a one off deal with him) of them, has considered some of them close friends and uses a racists example for why they were civil.
John Lewis seems to be misunderstanding what the problem is many have with Biden's remarks. No one has any problem with working with the other side and many realize that means working with racist and other terrible people at time. It is his history of what he has worked with the other side/racists on that is the problem. It also doesn't help his continuous praise (this isn't a one off deal with him) of them, has considered some of them close friends and uses a racists example for why they were civil.
How is "Barack Obama is the first articulate, fresh clean Black guy in the mainstream" not a racist statement? People knew Joe was a fool back then.
And Strom was a "former" Klansmen who very well may have beaten, killed, or raped Black people at some point. Black folks are just expected to shut up and take indignities from "our party".
Naturally. Liberals, especially white liberals will use Rep. Lewis to shut us up.
Not to me!
- Resident Resetera African American
Edit: Sorry to quip at you, but the way that Lewis' words were wielded as a weapon in this thread to fight back dissent was fcking wack.