***Official Political Discussion Thread***

Hope you all have a prosperous and successful day. Leaving this here to encourage all of you to not only be your best today but BE BEST.

6JEOWgSgpxIy6NLiumtJeC-lGIivFqBtt1K8DlGzEBk.jpg




D1vQRP-UYAAHy1k.jpg
 
RustyShackleford said:
1. The Harris clip was like 5 seconds, Bernie's clip was just over a minute and a half. Harris was being criticized for a sentiment she didn't even come close to saying, her words were completely misrepresented. The first part of Bernie comment is what people have issue with. Him putting responsibility for not getting shot on potential victims

It is a reach to imply people are being hypocrites for not liking the first part of Bernie comment, and calling out someone for completely misrepresenting Harris's words.

2. He apologized, good for him.. It doesn't negate the bad take

3. I disagree with you Obama example but I am not gonna go down that rabbit hole with you. The dynamics at play in 2008 is not something I think you can cleanly point to. More importantly, Sanders did not say business friendly, he said conservative black candidate.

As a counterpoint I would like to bring up the the GOP, especially Ford was considering Edward Brooke as a VP candidate and chose not to go that route because he was a moderate that was for civil rights and party moderates felt their grip on the party was being lost to conservatives, so they had to appease them in some way. Conservatives like Reagan that got their in by riding the wave of white resentment.

So yeah, I think Bernie is downplaying the impact of race in politics and thinks everything always circles back to class, like he always does, and that's people issue. I will say this, Sanders seems to have talked more honestly about race in the 1980s that he did in later parts of his career.

4. People are taking issue with it because he says that how he will be an improve race relations under Obama. It is not only ignores basic civics, implies something false about Obama, but it implies that the racial tension that exists in this country, and even flared up under Obama, is somehow just a matter of economics.

Racial tensions in America, and under Obama, were driven by ****ty white people, I don't think this is even debatable. With that given, look at all the ways someone can read Sanders comment:

At best his comment is erasing race from a question specifically about race, which is problematic.

He is saying improving the economic standing of poor whites will lower racial tensions, which is problematic because it is not really true.

Improving the economic standing of minorities will make white people chill, which is also problematic because it lets white folk off the hook for their nonsense.

The honest answer to the question is, I'm white, Obama is black, so many more white people will be more comfortable with me running things. The implication that white supremacy swelled under Obama because he was not left enough on economic is top tier nonsense that Bernie has been implying for years. He is flat wrong on this.

5. So what if he praised Abrams and Gilliam, that is not people's beef with that comment. Everyone knows he supported them. It was him gain excusing racism by problematic white voters. Him excusing Trump voters of their racism was an issue people, especially in here, had with him too.

It points to a pattern of behavior that people find problematic, and people are frustrated with it.

At a minimum if someone keeps saying stupid ****, even if they apologize, maybe folk are tired of them doing.

Like geez, if Bernie has hinting at something else, or alluding to a grander point, how about he just ****ing make the point instead of making people listen to his inarticulate bad takes over and over and over. Then having to apologize and clarify later.

It seems while you view each instance in isolation, others that are not supporters of Sanders view his bad takes as a pattern of problematic behavior. So naturally they will have a stronger reaction to stuff than you. You see these as a few instances that are greatly outweigh by his other stellar instances. Others view them as rhetoric that undermines this other better rhetoric.

Yes you have criticized Sanders too, but you seem to always take issue that people in here don't put the a more innocuous interpretation on his bad takes, and give him the benefit of the doubt time and time again.

People's beefs with Bernie are legit at the end of the day.

Like if Democratic voters are demanding national Dems do better, why can't the same demands be made of Bernie. Why must it somehow be on balance with criticism of others for it to be deemed valid or reasonable?

Either way, the criticism of Sanders for all the video was so extremely mild, so I don't see why there is an issue.
Click to expand...
  1. My point was that the first part of Bernie's comments that were included in the tweet represented only a fraction of his stated position on the issue, and, as such, offered a misrepresentation of his stated position—similar to the tweeted clip of Harris. But more importantly, what exactly is the issue with what he said? He was asked what he would tell his son what to do if he were pulled over by the police, and he responded by stating that his son should (1) try to identify the officer, (2) be respectful and cooperate, (3) to try to minimize the potential that the police would shoot him, (4) because we know that police officers sometimes shoot people, (5) so as a society we must find ways to hold them accountable for their actions, and (6) understand that such accountability is rooted in our rights. Fam, what do you want him to say? Seriously. What would you tell your son, to not "be very cautious in terms of dealing with" the police, as Bernie stated? How in the world is this blaming the victim?
  2. Agreed.
  3. Bernie invoked a "conservative" black politician and used former Philadelphia Mayor Wilson Goode, a Democrat, as an example. He wasn't just alluding to some hypothetical black GOP hack, but a business-friendly politician who wasn't going to upset the status quo of inequality, as his follow-up comments made very clear. Obama is certainly a business-friendly politician who did not upset the status quo of inequality, nor was his political program (regardless of GOP stonewalling) committed to doing so. So yeah, there's a pretty "straight line" between Bernie's comments and Obama. I certainly don't disagree with your points about the GOP's Southern Strategy and such, and conversations in this line are absolutely essential. But Bernie was engaging in just such a conversation and, because you and others don't view things in exactly the same way, choose to simply deride and dismiss his views. I've said this before in here and I'll say it again, the notion that people have to see things in exactly the same way as a precondition to engaging in discourse and working towards solidarity is a poisonous notion that we can't rid ourselves of fast enough.
  4. Fam, what exactly did Bernie imply about Obama, basic civics, in the fragments of quotes from that screenshot? How is he "erasing race" from the conversation when he references "low-income kids... hanging out on street corners" in response to a question about improving race relations? What the hell does it even mean to "improve race relations"—making racist white folks chill? Please, you or anyone else is free to enlighten us all about how this can be accomplished, particularly via politics and particularly coming fresh out of the Obama administration. I'm all ears. Because I haven't heard one compelling political program that speaks to this yet. The argument that I've made in here before is that ideologies like white supremacy follow primarily from people trying to make sense of and justify inequality, so the best political approach to dealing with white supremacy from my perspective is to fight inequality. Perhaps Bernie's position comes from that same logic, perhaps not. But either way, Bernie says that he wants to give low-income black youth jobs—something that 90% of working-age black teenagers in Chicago and roughly 60% of black youth 20–24 in Chicago lack—so that they're engaged and have an alternative to being on the streets and the response is derision and accusations of colorblindness and Obama bashing? Lord. Also, notice how dude says "us thugs" when Bernie says "low-income kids." How is this clearly not an intentional misrepresentation of what he said?
  5. I agree that I wish Bernie articulated this differently. People can take issue with it—hell, I do. But many folks seem to have a problem not only with his statement that those voters "aren't racist" but also of the insinuation that it would ever be possible for them to behave any differently (the second part of his statement). This is a consistent, if not constant, undercurrent in here—that white folks, especially poor and working-class whites, are reflexively and irredeemably racist. This is an inaccurate, ahistorical, essentialist position that undercuts any possibility for solidarity and dismisses all historical and contemporary examples of such solidarity.
So I take issue with the characterization that Bernie "keeps saying stupid ****." Most of what's being cited under that rubric doesn't belong there, and this narrative directly feeds the rampant pearl-clutching when it comes to seemingly any and everything Bernie in this thread over the past three years. The response to the initial post in here was followed by roughly a dozen posts piling on before I even chimed in. We both have written many paragraphs in response to much less.
 
Harris is still trash. She is someone who ascribes bad outcomes for black people to a lack of virtue and for that reason she is a white supremacist.

Unlike the hard right style white supremacist, she does not attribute that lack of virtue to biological factors. Oh no, she's a kinder, gentler and more "woke" white supremacist. She attributes the lack of virtue to historical discrimination which deprived black people of the high quality schools.

In the world view of Harris (and of millions of affluent, urban liberal white supremacists), the rich and powerful never have to give anything up. The rich and powerful: the landlords and developers, who charge high rents; the bankers, who charge usurious interest, and the bosses; who underpay workers, they are all just doing their thing and they are not well off due to the suffering of others. Meanwhile, those who are suffering are suffering because they did not "level up." If black and brown folks, especially working class, black and brown men, choose to up skill, they would be making eight figure VC deals in Mountain View or San Francisco, same as a fifth generation Stanford grad.

When you believe that education is a great leveler, you can wash your hands of capability for disparate economic outcomes. In addition and more poignantly for Harris, you now have a free hand, morally, to torment those at the bottom.

When I say that Kamala Harris is a cop, it is about much more than the fact that she was a fairly conservative district and attorney general. It is about the fact that she wants to use the powers of the state's criminal punishment system to discipline, surveil, sanction, harass, remove and enslave those at the bottom. Again, like most urban, liberal PMC and capitalists, all of that is morally acceptable because those at the bottom choose to be at the bottom.

So while that clip wasn't completely accurate relative to here entire statement, that clip does encapsulate how Harris and most of society's winners view those at the very bottom. The people at the bottom were unwilling or unable to get educated and get jobs at startups in and open plan office building located in a refurbished old factory and therefore, those people deserve whatever barbarism the state will dish out.
 
rexanglorum said:
Harris is still trash. She is someone who ascribes bad outcomes for black people to a lack of virtue and for that reason she is a white supremacist.

Unlike the hard right style white supremacist, she does not attribute that lack of virtue to biological factors. Oh no, she's a kinder, gentler and more "woke" white supremacist. She attributes the lack of virtue to historical discrimination which deprived black people of the high quality schools.

In the world view of Harris (and of millions of affluent, urban liberal white supremacists), the rich and powerful never have to give anything up. The rich and powerful: the landlords and developers, who charge high rents; the bankers, who charge usurious interest, and the bosses; who underpay workers, they are all just doing their thing and they are not well off due to the suffering of others. Meanwhile, those who are suffering are suffering because they did not "level up." If black and brown folks, especially working class, black and brown men, choose to up skill, they would be making eight figure VC deals in Mountain View or San Francisco, same as a fifth generation Stanford grad.

When you believe that education is a great leveler, you can wash your hands of capability for disparate economic outcomes. In addition and more poignantly for Harris, you now have a free hand, morally, to torment those at the bottom.

When I say that Kamala Harris is a cop, it is about much more than the fact that she was a fairly conservative district and attorney general. It is about the fact that she wants to use the powers of the state's criminal punishment system to discipline, surveil, sanction, harass, remove and enslave those at the bottom. Again, like most urban, liberal PMC and capitalists, all of that is morally acceptable because those at the bottom choose to be at the bottom.

So while that clip wasn't completely accurate relative to here entire statement, that clip does encapsulate how Harris and most of society's winners view those at the very bottom. The people at the bottom were unwilling or unable to get educated and get jobs at startups in and open plan office building located in a refurbished old factory and therefore, those people deserve whatever barbarism the state will dish out.
Click to expand...
6JEOWgSgpxIy6NLiumtJeC-lGIivFqBtt1K8DlGzEBk.jpg




She's a COP.
 
red mpls said:
  1. My point was that the first part of Bernie's comments that were included in the tweet represented only a fraction of his stated position on the issue, and, as such, offered a misrepresentation of his stated position—similar to the tweeted clip of Harris. But more importantly, what exactly is the issue with what he said? He was asked what he would tell his son what to do if he were pulled over by the police, and he responded by stating that his son should (1) try to identify the officer, (2) be respectful and cooperate, (3) to try to minimize the potential that the police would shoot him, (4) because we know that police officers sometimes shoot people, (5) so as a society we must find ways to hold them accountable for their actions, and (6) understand that such accountability is rooted in our rights. Fam, what do you want him to say? Seriously. What would you tell your son, to not "be very cautious in terms of dealing with" the police, as Bernie stated? How in the world is this blaming the victim?
  2. Agreed.
  3. Bernie invoked a "conservative" black politician and used former Philadelphia Mayor Wilson Goode, a Democrat, as an example. He wasn't just alluding to some hypothetical black GOP hack, but a business-friendly politician who wasn't going to upset the status quo of inequality, as his follow-up comments made very clear. Obama is certainly a business-friendly politician who did not upset the status quo of inequality, nor was his political program (regardless of GOP stonewalling) committed to doing so. So yeah, there's a pretty "straight line" between Bernie's comments and Obama. I certainly don't disagree with your points about the GOP's Southern Strategy and such, and conversations in this line are absolutely essential. But Bernie was engaging in just such a conversation and, because you and others don't view things in exactly the same way, choose to simply deride and dismiss his views. I've said this before in here and I'll say it again, the notion that people have to see things in exactly the same way as a precondition to engaging in discourse and working towards solidarity is a poisonous notion that we can't rid ourselves of fast enough.
  4. Fam, what exactly did Bernie imply about Obama, basic civics, in the fragments of quotes from that screenshot? How is he "erasing race" from the conversation when he references "low-income kids... hanging out on street corners" in response to a question about improving race relations? What the hell does it even mean to "improve race relations"—making racist white folks chill? Please, you or anyone else is free to enlighten us all about how this can be accomplished, particularly via politics and particularly coming fresh out of the Obama administration. I'm all ears. Because I haven't heard one compelling political program that speaks to this yet. The argument that I've made in here before is that ideologies like white supremacy follow primarily from people trying to make sense of and justify inequality, so the best political approach to dealing with white supremacy from my perspective is to fight inequality. Perhaps Bernie's position comes from that same logic, perhaps not. But either way, Bernie says that he wants to give low-income black youth jobs—something that 90% of working-age black teenagers in Chicago and roughly 60% of black youth 20–24 in Chicago lack—so that they're engaged and have an alternative to being on the streets and the response is derision and accusations of colorblindness and Obama bashing? Lord. Also, notice how dude says "us thugs" when Bernie says "low-income kids." How is this clearly not an intentional misrepresentation of what he said?
  5. I agree that I wish Bernie articulated this differently. People can take issue with it—hell, I do. But many folks seem to have a problem not only with his statement that those voters "aren't racist" but also of the insinuation that it would ever be possible for them to behave any differently (the second part of his statement). This is a consistent, if not constant, undercurrent in here—that white folks, especially poor and working-class whites, are reflexively and irredeemably racist. This is an inaccurate, ahistorical, essentialist position that undercuts any possibility for solidarity and dismisses all historical and contemporary examples of such solidarity.
So I take issue with the characterization that Bernie "keeps saying stupid ****." Most of what's being cited under that rubric doesn't belong there, and this narrative directly feeds the rampant pearl-clutching when it comes to seemingly any and everything Bernie in this thread over the past three years. The response to the initial post in here was followed by roughly a dozen posts piling on before I even chimed in. We both have written many paragraphs in response to much less.
Click to expand...
1. I addressed my issue Bernie's comments in the post under the longer one.

2. Cool.

3. You are trying to shift the definition of a conservative into something Obama fits. Conservative Dems are far less prevelant now that they were in the 1980s, but being a Dem especially in the 80s definitely doesn't exclude some being conservative.

Obama even on economic is firmly left and less business friendly of conservative, and centrist Dems of old. Your point about the status quo goes back to previous arguments we have had with what defines challenging the status quo. You want to continuously put the bar where leftist want it, but if we go into the details of Obama's economics I know bar would be reset. Obama put forward budget proposals and state of the economy reports anyone can read. So I'm sorry the assertion you are making about Obama, even with his faults, doesn't really line up with reality to me.

This is a leftist rabbit hole I have travelled down one too many with you and rexanglorum rexanglorum . So I am not interested in exploring Socialist Wonderland today.

And I am sorry but you don't apply the same criteria to liberals politicans you don't like. Let Beto, or Pete, or Biden make a take you think it is wrong and you will deride them at length. Hell, you proudly champion using a purity regarding M4A. So you dismiss and take issue with people and politicans whose views don't align with yours all the time.

Seems like you mainly object to this poisonous notion when it comes to Bernie, and or a leftist. I don't need Bernie to agree 100% with me, hell I agree with Bernie on a lot, I don't dismiss him totally, I dismiss his poor takes. Like most others in here do.

4. Because the president can't unilaterally increase taxes. That is ignoring basic civics to imply that he can, and Obama opted not to. Also Obama did propose large increases in tax on the rich to find social programs for lower income people, so there is that btw. So that is what I was getting at.

Secondly Bernie did said low income kids on street corner, not black. I was kinda clear he was talking about minorities here though. So that is why I said he was erasing race from the answer.

I do not even know what argument you are trying to put in my month with the second part of your comment. I never asserted that a political program would make white people chill. I am saying given that problematic white people are the driver's of racial tensions, Bernie's answer is so short sight, that one of the guesses at to what he was getting that was the "making white people chill". That if he is trying to say giving poor black kids jobs will improve how white people act toward them general, then that not only not true but is problematic because it lets white people off the hook for having those problematic thoughts in the first place.

I am not saying a politicial program the solution.

If I were to give him the benefit of the doubt it sounds like he misinterpreted the question. Instead of addressing the friction that exist between races, he seems to think the question is how will you improve things for people of a certain race. I am or anyone else are not against him being in favoring of improving the economic prospects of poor black kids, it was giving that answer given the question is the problem that was asked.

5. No one in here argues that white people, especially poor white people, are inherently racist or irredeemable. The times there have been people saying that there has been push back. One member I think "daddystayle" got piled on by everyone when he tried to make that argument. People in here are pushing back on rhetoric peddled by Sanders that is patently false about white voters with regressive racial views. The issue is not that they are not redeemable, the issue is that the rhetoric used to try to get them to change their ways is based on a lie, that Sanders and other want to insist is the truth. Economic anxiety is not what motivated them to vote for Trump is mostly a lie. The argument the Democratic Party turned their back on rural whites and that's why they vote GOP is a lie.

Btw, the same people you call out are the same ones that jump on Pete when he peddled the same nonsense too.

And what piling on? A couple dudes just made it clear they didn't like Sanders comments, it wasn't much and it wasn't serious. And to claim that we don't do it for other candidates is patently false. Hell when we went in on Gabbard, you had an issue with that too.
 
Last edited:
rexanglorum said:
Harris is still trash. She is someone who ascribes bad outcomes for black people to a lack of virtue and for that reason she is a white supremacist.

Unlike the hard right style white supremacist, she does not attribute that lack of virtue to biological factors. Oh no, she's a kinder, gentler and more "woke" white supremacist. She attributes the lack of virtue to historical discrimination which deprived black people of the high quality schools.

In the world view of Harris (and of millions of affluent, urban liberal white supremacists), the rich and powerful never have to give anything up. The rich and powerful: the landlords and developers, who charge high rents; the bankers, who charge usurious interest, and the bosses; who underpay workers, they are all just doing their thing and they are not well off due to the suffering of others. Meanwhile, those who are suffering are suffering because they did not "level up." If black and brown folks, especially working class, black and brown men, choose to up skill, they would be making eight figure VC deals in Mountain View or San Francisco, same as a fifth generation Stanford grad.

When you believe that education is a great leveler, you can wash your hands of capability for disparate economic outcomes. In addition and more poignantly for Harris, you now have a free hand, morally, to torment those at the bottom.

When I say that Kamala Harris is a cop, it is about much more than the fact that she was a fairly conservative district and attorney general. It is about the fact that she wants to use the powers of the state's criminal punishment system to discipline, surveil, sanction, harass, remove and enslave those at the bottom. Again, like most urban, liberal PMC and capitalists, all of that is morally acceptable because those at the bottom choose to be at the bottom.

So while that clip wasn't completely accurate relative to here entire statement, that clip does encapsulate how Harris and most of society's winners view those at the very bottom. The people at the bottom were unwilling or unable to get educated and get jobs at startups in and open plan office building located in a refurbished old factory and therefore, those people deserve whatever barbarism the state will dish out.
Click to expand...
I feel you are being hyperbolic and unfair about Harris but I have no appetite to defend her as I feel you are just using her as symbol to criticize liberal you don't like anyway. That being said, you are clearly misrepresenting Harris' views.

However, let me ask...

So does Bernie's comments about Chicago's culture being the reason for gun violence make him a white supremacists too?

Since he is clearly blaming outcomes on lack of virtue.
 
Last edited:
northoaklandfc said:
Labeling Kamala Harris a white supremacist is so far beyond hyperbole and unfairness imo.

It's actively in disservice to the true fight against WS experienced by black and brown folks in this country.
Click to expand...
You're right

Especially since he did it by misrepresenting Harris's views too.

Took the worst views of some liberals and just dumped it all on Harris.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

KingdomFlatbush
Am I wrong for still being annoyed about this?
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
Comparison Ford
Comparison Ford
tupac003
***Official Los Angeles Dodgers 2024 Thread*** Thank you Fat Joe: Los Angeles Dodgers World Series Champions!!!!
339 340 341
Replies
9K
Views
551K
Rockabilly Zombie
Rockabilly Zombie
aNYone
OFFICIAL NFL THREAD 2024-25: Week X Vol: TNF
543 544 545
Replies
14K
Views
356K
rolaholic
rolaholic

Latest News

View All News

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

Site contents may not be incorporated into AI training data or any other derivative works without prior express written consent.

Links to participating merchants may generate referral or affiliate commissions that help support our community. See our policies for details. NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

| Xenforo Add-ons © by ©XenTR | Media embeds via s9e/MediaSites
Back
Top Bottom