On American Appeasement

ElectricFetus said:
No no Tiassa said "why wouldn't I and why would bells".

You two appear to me to intentionally be officiating, so I demand a simple yes or no answer, is that so hard?
Click to expand...
I'm an Australian citizen, EF. Why would I be voting for Bernie Sanders in an American election?

You do understand that Australia is not a part of the United States, yes? That I would be committing a crime if I voted in any of your elections?

And as Tiassa said, why wouldn't he be voting for Sanders.. That is pretty self explanatory. You have decided, for some ungodly reason, to invent that we would not because 'something something'.. No, really, you are literally lying and making crap up to whine about.

ElectricFetus said:
You two seem to imply you would not, even going so far as implying he is a misogynist for a decades old article about how traditional gender role force people to closet their desires, because you two believe that issues of sex and race are more important then class. But please if I'm wrong please explain otherwise. Do you not believe sex and race is more important then class?
Click to expand...

When Tiassa said "why wouldn't I?", he was saying that he would vote for Sanders, because there would be no reason for him to not vote for Sanders. That is what "Why wouldn't I" means.....

And I can tell you with absolute certainty that I would not vote for Bernie Sanders. Just as I would not vote for Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump or any other candidate that may or may not run in your elections. The reason for that is really quite simple. I am an Australian citizen. I am not allowed to vote for anyone in the US. Do you understand now?

And once more, the issues of class in the US has everything to do with gender and ethnicity. Gender and ethnicity is what causes the class divide in the US. If you refuse or fail to acknowledge the cause, you will never 'fix' the class divide.

ElectricFetus said:
And yet refer to Bernie as a misogynist in the next breath, very confusing.
Click to expand...
His refusal to address women and the issues affecting them directly and his failure to address his misogynist voting base immediately during the primaries shows that he attempted to pander. As a result, women (and minorities because of his failure to address what actually affects minorities) deserted him. For example:

For all of Sanders’ talk of a “political revolution” and economic inequality, the candidate never seemed to understand that it’s all but impossible to make it out of the Democratic primary without winning over black women—especially those over 35 years old. Perhaps he didn’t have staffers telling him that 70 percent of black women voted in 2012, beating out any other voting demographic; some voter turnout experts argue that black people overall outvoted white men and women in 2008. Keep in mind that black voter turnout has been increasing since at least 1996, with black women leading that charge.

Ask Barack Obama. Black women win presidencies.

But, for some reason, the Democratic Party, Sanders and his supporters seem more interested in converting racist Donald Trump supporters while dismissing the electoral power of black female voters who’ve never wavered in their support of a party that consistently treats them like side pieces. Sanders told CBS News in November that he comes from the white working class and that he was “deeply humiliated” that the Democratic Party (you know, the party he refuses to join) lost its support to Trump.

Hmm. I guess he wasn’t humiliated by the fact that those working-class white folk voted for a man who essentially advocated for resurrecting Jim Crow.

If Sanders is supposed to be the Democratic front-runner, why is he so invested in earning votes from racist white folks who despise minorities, the most loyal voters in the Democratic Party?

[...]

And it showed. Sanders was crushed Super Tuesday, with Clinton winning black female voters over with more than 85 percent of the vote in most states. Sanders and his supporters assumed that black voters would be easily drawn to his economic-justice policies. On paper, they were pretty impressive and should have had black women on the fence. Though, when challenged on how his policies would specifically help black people in prime-time moments, he faltered. Badly.

During a campaign stop at an economic forum in Minneapolis in February of 2016, a black American woman confronted Sanders on his inability to address anti-blackness and economics. The question focused on a garbage incinerator in the city causing health problems for local residents. Felicia Perry said that her son has asthma and the incinerator was making him sick.

Given that black children are twice as likely to suffer from asthma, it made perfect sense for her to ask the “political revolutionary” what his plans were to address environmental racism. In her question, she also took on what she felt was his refusal to address anti-blackness head on:

My black son. I know you’re scared to say black, I know you’re scared to say reparations. But it seems like every time we try to talk about black people and us getting something for the systematic reparations and the exploitation of our people, we have to include every other person of color. ... Can you please talk about specifically black people and reparations?​
That was a perfect opportunity to display empathy for the specific plight of black mothers who have to raise children in unsafe areas plagued by environmental racism. But, in typical Sanders fashion, he got defensive and refused to take on her challenge that he lacks a racial analysis:

What I just indicated in my view is that when you have ... you and I may have disagreements because it’s not just black, it is Latino; there are areas of America, in poor rural areas, where it’s white.​
That exchange pretty much convinced me that Sanders wasn’t ready for prime time. If you can’t tell a black woman raising a black kid with asthma how your policies will combat environmental racism, you can’t claim to be a political revolutionary.​
Bye bye to that big chunk of black voters.. You are pushing for the same failed political rhetoric.. You are too intent trying to win over the white racist votes. If you keep insulting and abusing the minority voter base of the Democrats, if you keep ignoring what causes the inequality to begin with, then you will never be able to fix the inequality issues. Your rhetoric is like a leaking tap.. The kitchen tap is leaking, and instead of fixing it, you change the kitchen pipes, you change the tap itself and it just keeps leaking. So you get a new tap. Still leaks.. You buy a different brand of tap. And it still leaks. You fail to notice that the reason the tap is leaking is because the washer has worn through and needs to be replaced. You can change as many taps as you want. If you do not fix the broken washer, the tap will continue to leak regardless. The same goes with your rhetoric. You cannot fix the economy and create economic equality if you do not address and fix what causes economic inequality to begin with.

You want to know how and why Trump won?

Fully 12 percent of people who voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries voted for President Trump in the general election. That is according to the data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study — a massive election survey of around 50,000 people. (For perspective, a run-of-the-mill survey measuring Trump's job approval right now has a sample of 800 to 1,500.)​

Do you want to know how that translates?

Michigan:

Sanders Primary votes: 598,943
His primary voters who ended up voting for Trump instead of Clinton: 8% (47,915 voters)
How much Trump won the State by: 10,704

Pennsylvania:

Sanders Primary votes: 731,881
His primary voters who ended up voting for Trump instead of Clinton: 16% (117,100 voters)
How much Trump won the State by: 44,292

Wisconsin:

Sanders Primary votes: 570,192
His primary voters who ended up voting for Trump instead of Clinton: 9% (51,317 voters)
How much Trump won the State by: 22,748​
 
This and That

​

ElectricFetus said:
Once again Tiassa you are incapable of separating winning elections from your ideology. You say justice can't be stratified, ok fine, keep that too yourself though, because if you don't prioritize economic justice when campaigning and instead tell white people that microaggression as just as important as their lack of a good job, then we get what we presently have, total republican domination and a pig boar as president.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I thought.

(1) Like I said, I didn't think you were capable of explaining yourself.

(2) Changing the subject doesn't really help.

(3) The problem with handing you the obvious point is that you don't actually know what it means, and here's the proof:

You say justice can't be stratified, ok fine, keep that too yourself though, because if you don't prioritize economic justice when campaigning and instead tell white people that microaggression as just as important as their lack of a good job, then we get what we presently have, total republican domination and a pig boar as president.

→ To "prioritize economic justice" at the expense of other aspects of justice is no justice at all. There is a reason, sir, why people who actually know this history are wary↱. And it would be one thing to presume you know better than them all, but at the same time you are apparently clueless.

↳ Here is the obvious answer↱ you apparently don't know: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." The term "economic justice" is effective in the way a phrase like "social justice" can be, but they are both merely adjectives attached to an important word, "justice". Both aim toward inclusion and participation, which is a key element of their common aspect, "justice". As a real application, though, in living experience, diverse aspects of "justice" cannot be parsed and parceled; Justice either walks or does not.​

• • •​

Bells said:
His refusal to address women and the issues affecting them directly and his failure to address his misogynist voting base immediately during the primaries shows that he attempted to pander.
Click to expand...

You're being kind. I didn't think Sanders could get any more clear than telling women to stop moaning about misogyny.
____________________

Notes:

Detusch, Barry. "The Democrats' Invisible Coalition". The Nib. 31 August 2017. TheNib.com. 3 September 2017. http://bit.ly/2gtZoB2

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. Manifesto of the Communist Party. 1848. Marxists.org. 3 September 2017. http://bit.ly/2f7vcN6
​
 
Tiassa said:
You're being kind. I didn't think Sanders could get any more clear than telling women to stop moaning about misogyny.
Click to expand...
Hmm...
On Tuesday, MSNBC anchor and news correspondent Andrea Mitchell interviewed presidential candidate and proud progressive Bernie Sanders.

As Mitchell tried to discuss the challenges that fellow Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton has come up against -- especially where misogynist rhetoric from Republican frontrunner Donald Trump is concerned -- Sanders responded with a phrase that could have come from Trump himself: "Do not moan to me about Hillary Clinton's problems."

[...]

Sanders is not the first (and won't be the last) person to reduce a woman's experience to the act of "moaning." And regardless of shared political affiliations and goals, when a man tells a woman that she is "moaning," like Sanders did to Mitchell, he is discrediting her opinion and shutting her down -- and, in this case, also invalidating Clinton's particular experiences as a woman running for public office.

Sanders may not fully understand Clinton's roadblocks in this election. After all, Sanders seems to be able to show up just about anywhere, disheveled and shouting -- only to be the more charming for it. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton can't so much as get a hair cut without attracting swarms of criticism.

People (mostly men, but also some women) are especially keen on telling women to stop "moaning" or "nagging" when women speak up about instances of inequality and injustice. A quick browse through "moan"-worthy headlines in the past two years shows that demanding equal pay, for example, makes men particularly defensive.

What makes Sanders' statement so disappointing is that throughout his campaign, he has cemented himself as the prophet of progressives. And yet not even he -- Civil Rights protestor, socialist, feminist -- is immune to nullifying a woman's opinion with coded language. Whatever his disagreements with Clinton's policies -- or Mitchell's interpretation of the presidential race -- may be, shrugging off a woman's opinion as a mere "moan" is never OK.

As long as men hold on to positions of power while women are simultaneously held to higher standards, there will be plenty of "moaning." And only when a woman can run for president without being told to "smile" will the days of "moaning" be over.
​
It's not that I am being kind. It is that this is such a common argument when it comes to politics and when I see people like Bernie Sanders touting himself as the king of the progressives, pushing for economic reform and being incapable of addressing the causes of economic inequality, I just roll my eyes, because it is simply yet another one.. He was not the first and will not be the last. EF is simply parroting it. Been there, done that.

It was his (Sanders) little winking at his 'Bro's', this subtle/not subtle misogyny, this disregard for what women actually go through, that saw so many of his voters vote for Trump instead of Clinton.. Similar ideology in a lot of ways when it comes to his Bro's. What happened after Nevada said it all, really:

It’s been five days since the conflagration at the Nevada State Democratic Convention, and the embers are still burning. Much of it has singed Senator Bernie Sanders. The intimidation of speakers and the misogynist death threats against party chair Roberta Lange have led to a wave of critical pieces by Bernie supporters—some of them now former Bernie supporters. Sanders’s loyal CNN backer Sally Kohn wrote in Time: “I Felt the Bern But the Bros Are Extinguishing the Flames.” Esquire’s Charles Pierce, who voted for Sanders, weighed in Tuesday: “It’s Time for Bernie’s People to Calm Down.” Sanders supporter Harold Meyerson now insists, “The Bros Are Undermining Bernie.”

[...]

But the Sanders camp is defiant, with the senator himself condemning the threats and reports of violence, but—and you never add “but” to a sentence that’s condemning threatening behavior—insisting party leaders had it coming, because convention rules were less than fair or “transparent.” Sanders has continued to rip the Democratic Party for unfairness, and his supporters are now telling reporters there will be trouble at the convention in Philadelphia over the “rigged” primary process.​

Walsh criticised the way in which the DNC handled the fracas, with quite a bit of merit. That the conflict that arose after the Nevada count should have been de-escalated, and instead, the DNC tried to fight back tit for tat and also how hard the DNC makes registration in many areas. However Ms Walsh makes a very pertinent point about Sanders and how he and his campaign handled it and how it came across.. In particular, how it came across to minorities and women:

You don’t have to like closed primaries, but they were established long before Sanders came along, and acting like they “disenfranchise” his independent or non-aligned voters is an insult to the mostly African-American and poor people who are truly disenfranchised in this country.

[...]

...What will be fatal to Sanders’s future as a mass-movement leader—as opposed to the messiah of an angry, heavily white, and male cult—is his continued insistence that his enemy now is not so much the corporate overlords, or income inequality, or the big banks, but a corrupt Democratic Party, epitomized by Wall Street flunkie Hillary Clinton, that has “rigged” the election to thwart him—as he raged in a tone-deaf speech Tuesday night, as cable news was showing the texted death threats to Roberta Lange in the background (which Sanders did not even mention).

[...]

Though Sanders supporter Charlie Pierce wondered why the campaign would make such a ruckus over only a few delegates in Nevada, I’m starting to believe that the point wasn’t the actual delegates—he trails her by about 280 at this point—but creating the appearance of a rigged system. Sanders himself entered the land of either fantasy or prevarication Thursday when he thanked supporters Thursday for a “victory” in Kentucky—even though he lost narrowly there to Clinton. The campaign said it was pondering a recount and would decide on Wednesday, but there’s still no word on that. Some of his backers have been alleging “fraud” in Kentucky, with absolute no evidence.

This is starting to get delusional, and dangerous to the American movement for social justice.

First of all, I don’t accept the presumption of moral and ideological superiority from a coalition that is dominated by white men, trying to overturn the will of black, brown, and female voters or somehow deem it fraudulent. There’s a growing element of male entitlement in the Sanders “movement” that supporter Sally Kohn articulates well:

It’s also too easy to suggest that Sanders’ supporters are a different kind of angry than Trump’s. Are we entirely sure about that? The populist right may be more inclined toward misogyny and xenophobia, but the populist left is not immune from these afflictions. And as I’ve written before, when you see progressive white men—many of whom enthusiastically supported Barack Obama’s candidacy—hate Clinton with every fiber of their being despite the fact that she’s a carbon copy of Obama’s ideology (or in fact now running slightly to his left), it’s hard to find any other explanation than sexism. Either way, the brutish, boorish behavior of Bernie Bros (and their female compatriots, too) was a huge reason I was reluctant to seemingly side with them in endorsing Sanders—and has been the only reason I have ever questioned my decision to do so since.​

In a way, Sanders entire campaign was his telling women to not moan about misogyny and minorities to not moan about racism and bigotry. Dismissing these causes of economic inequality as not being important was essentially that. It's not a matter of being kind. It's a matter of been there, done that, and seen all of this before. Just watching yet another politician sell one thing while doing everything he can to maintain and protect the status quo. It is why he was so intent on going for the male white vote.
 
Bells said:
—hate Clinton with every fiber of their being despite the fact that she’s a carbon copy of Obama’s ideology (or in fact now running slightly to his left), it’s hard to find any other explanation than sexism.
Click to expand...
However sexist I might be, it wasn't sexism that caused me - and many others - to decide that Clinton's vote to give W&Cheney unlimited war powers in Iraq was the bridge too far.

Clinton's political track record was miserable up to that point. At that moment it became unforgivable.

Of course misogyny and related slander-inculcated hatred, completely unwarranted personal antipathy based in gender and lies, was a key factor in Clinton's loss. Likely the key factor. But Clinton's supposed ideology does not bail out her record - there are reasons to dislike Clinton, even strongly dislike Clinton, that have nothing to do with sexism.
 
parmalee said:
You cannot possibly be this incapable of comprehending the written word. I mean, sure, it's possible--plenty of people are functionally illiterate--but a person functioning at that level, in a context which relies almost wholly upon the written word, is apt to stand out.

So, I can only conclude that you are willfully trolling, yes?
Click to expand...

No, please tell me what I'm not understanding.
 
Instead of going over and over again, why not have someone else argue my points.

http://www.salon.com/2017/09/02/tim...ics-its-dragging-the-progressive-agenda-down/

Time to give up on identity politics: It’s dragging the progressive agenda down

Identity politics has only served to disempower the left and fuel the rise of white nationalism. Can we move on?

---

I realize that everything I’m saying here has a sense of futility about it, because when an entire generation is indoctrinated in a certain way of thinking, only a catastrophe of the first order can compel people to reconsider; we are certainly not at that point yet, and we may never get there. But for what it’s worth, let me mention some key points about why I think identity politics, wherever it has manifested, has been absolutely devastating to the cause of liberty.

  1. It privileges culture, instead of politics. My first point is that when you fight for identity, you’re giving up politics in favor of culture. And that’s exactly where neoliberalism wants you, fighting for your culture (or what you imagine is your culture), rather than the arena of policies, where the real consequences occur. You may gain some recognition of your identity, but you may also have to pay the price of losing everything else that makes life worth living.
In many American cities, as in mine, the fight is on for transgender bathrooms, even as local government leaders, who often fit the bill where identity politics is concerned, have worked closely with supercapitalists to gentrify the urban centers, leading to the mass eviction of working people who created the interesting cultural realities in the first place. You can have your bathrooms, but gay people can’t live where they want to. During the Obama years, a crisis of affordable housing arose all over the country, which has gotten little attention because that is a policy discussion not suited to identity politics.

---

What could be a greater indictment of identity politics than the utter hollowing-out of the Democratic Party, its rank electoral defeat at every level of government, which began in earnest with Bill Clinton’s commitment to neoliberalism in 1991-1992, going hand in hand with identity politics of a kind that had little patience with actual poor people? That period is especially revealing, because Clinton went out of his way, as he would during his entire administration, to celebrate identity politics for the right people, namely, those who are good capitalists, doing everything he could to suggest, by way of policies, that the unreformable poor were no longer welcome in the party.

The result is the evisceration of the Democrats as a party with even a rhetorical claim to the working class, as it has become a club for egotistical, self-branding urbanites who pay lip service to identity politics while having no sympathy for real wealth redistribution. This loss of even the semblance of a liberal policy framework in the domestic and international arenas continued apace during the Obama administration. Obama was immune to liberal criticism, because he fit the identity politics matrix so perfectly. He may have ruthlessly deported millions of people, kept in place and strengthened the entire extra-constitutional surveillance apparatus, and escalated illegal drone attacks and assassinations, but the color of his skin provided immunity from real criticism.

---

  2. Not only politics, but economics is taken out of the equation. It’s astonishing, even after living under the principles of neoliberalism for around 40 years, how few liberals, even activists, are able to define our economic system with any sense of accuracy. They keep acting as if the fight is still on between the old New Deal liberalism (laissez-faire economics slightly moderated by some half-hearted welfare programs) and a right that wants to shred those welfare mechanisms. In fact, both parties are committed to slightly different versions of neoliberalism, and their transformation proceeded apace with the rise of identity politics. Politics was freed to take its course, because culture became the site of contestation, and this meant an unobstructed opportunity to redefine economics to the benefit of the elites.
Consider that in the last election, the contest became mostly about Hillary Clinton’s personality — she’s a woman, therefore I must be with her — versus Donald Trump’s personality — he’s a misogynist, therefore I must oppose him. Hillary Clinton’s neoliberalism, reflected in over 30 years of policy commitments, got little attention from the media, just as the economic dimensions of Trump’s proposals got barely any attention.

---

Liberals seem to be trying to cure racism at the metaphysical level — in people’s hearts and souls — instead of limiting politics to where it should be limited, i.e., the arena of democratic policymaking. But this can only come about when politics becomes again the explicit target of attention, so that obstacles to democracy — from gerrymandering to money in politics, from voting machine unreliability to widespread disenfranchisement — can be overcome.

What identity politics has done is to take the shine off the political process itself. This is more than a consequence of identity politics. It is because identity politics has garnered so much attention that political reform, which needs to be ongoing and consistent, has stalled for nearly 30 years. Instead of campaign finance reform of the McCain-Feingold brand, which sought to make a little advance toward taking money out of politics, we went, during the period of identity politics’ ascendancy, to the total capitulation of politics to money. The same process has held true in every arena of policymaking. Even issues like climate change are framed in cultural terms — i.e., as identity politics, because today culture cannot be spoken of without being defined by identity politics — and therefore overwhelmed by paralysis.

---

Liberals have been on a relentless mission to transform people’s souls — to rid them of impure ideas about race and sexuality — for exactly the period of time that neoliberalism has deprived them of actual power to do anything about class inequality. The neo-Nazis are latecomers to this game; they have only recently adopted the cultural techniques that have already been mastered by the liberals.

When Richard Spencer, an originator of the term “alt-right,” discusses race as destiny, he is no different than liberals who have been articulating every aspect of identity, split into narrower and narrower niches, in precisely the same terms. Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, who has been trying to lend a respectable veneer to racism for more than 30 years, suddenly finds his thought in sync with the “alt-right,” his ideas gaining traction because he can now ask his audiences, “Isn’t what we white nationalists seek exactly what every other race wants in America?” And he’s right, on that score, because separatism, or the privileging of biological destiny, is a notion popularized by liberal identity politics.

---

The identitarians, if pressed to the wall on this, will say that these emphases are not exclusive, but in reality they never do it, because there is no mental space left to pursue classical economic issues. If they think of inequality, they think in terms of racial inequality as the fount of all inequality, not the concrete economic terms in which equality can be achieved. Partly this is because of the institutional context in which modern identity-politics warriors operate; for them to ask for economic equality aside from identity would be to challenge the core of the institutions that patronize and legitimize them. Identity politics, it should be noted, is not an outsider’s movement; it is the ultimate insider’s game. More than mental space, however, it is a question of outlook; identity politics simply comes from a different part of the brain than the economic interpretation of society.




 
Tiassa said:
Trying to raise the respectability of supremacism is not a solution.
Click to expand...

Utter strawman.

In fact I would say that it is you, and people like you, that has raised the respectability of supremacism: your ilk has helped bring trump to power and helped power the revival of white identity and white supremacist. Go ahead read that article, counter it points.
 
Last edited:
ElectricFetus said:
Utter strawman.
Click to expand...

Utter ignorance; equivocation is, for the ethically low, promotion; when equivocation requires presuming greater respectability, equivocation aims to raise respectability.

Liberals have been on a relentless mission to transform people's souls — to rid them of impure ideas about race and sexuality — for exactly the period of time that neoliberalism has deprived them of actual power to do anything about class inequality. The neo-Nazis are latecomers to this game; they have only recently adopted the cultural techniques that have already been mastered by the liberals

When Richard Spencer, an originator of the term “alt-right,” discusses race as destiny, he is no different than liberals who have been articulating every aspect of identity, split into narrower and narrower niches, in precisely the same terms. Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, who has been trying to lend a respectable veneer to racism for more than 30 years, suddenly finds his thought in sync with the “alt-right,” his ideas gaining traction because he can now ask his audiences, “Isn't what we white nationalists seek exactly what every other race wants in America?” And he's right, on that score, because separatism, or the privileging of biological destiny, is a notion popularized by liberal identity politics.

(Shivani↱)​

When people describe equality as some threatening existential puritanism, they are telling us how they view the concept of equality.
____________________

Notes:

Shivani, Anis. "Time to give up on identity politics: It’s dragging the progressive agenda down ". Salon. 2 September 2017. Salon.com. 4 September 2017. http://bit.ly/2vZynv1
 
ElectricFetus said:
Trump came in and hammered at the issues most Americans care about: economics.
Click to expand...

Delete "economics" and put in "bigotry" and you got it. In May 2015 he was in the back of the Republican pack until in June 2015 he began his infamous attack on Mexico. And that lite the fuse in his hate fuled rocket and by July 2015 guess who was at the top of the pack? So it wasn't economics that boosted him. The truth is much uglier.

Poll: Trump surges to big lead in GOP presidential race

That is the highest percentage and biggest lead recorded by any GOP candidate this year in Post-ABC News polls and marks a sixfold increase in his support since late May, ​
 
ElectricFetus said:
What could be a greater indictment of identity politics than the utter hollowing-out of the Democratic Party, its rank electoral defeat at every level of government, which began in earnest with Bill Clinton’s commitment to neoliberalism in 1991-1992, going hand in hand with identity politics of a kind that had little patience with actual poor people?
Click to expand...
The primary advocate and employer of identity politics in 1992 - as in every year since 1968 - was the Republican Party, with its white male identity focused media arm featuring Limbaugh et al.
Meanwhile, the left was trying to block, oppose, and otherwise amend Clinton's "neoliberalism" - which took the form of old fashioned conservative and prudently managed rightwing authoritarian domestic and foreign policy in practice, plus a continuation of "neo-liberal" economic policy he inherited from Bush, established as Reaganomics.
ElectricFetus said:
What identity politics has done is to take the shine off the political process itself. This is more than a consequence of identity politics. It is because identity politics has garnered so much attention that political reform, which needs to be ongoing and consistent, has stalled for nearly 30 years.
Click to expand...
White male identity politics, first and foremost and ongoing. The Republican Party's longstanding white male identity focused strategy.
ElectricFetus said:
More than mental space, however, it is a question of outlook; identity politics simply comes from a different part of the brain than the economic interpretation of society.
Click to expand...
Or as the author put it: "What's The Matter With Kansas".
It has nothing to do with "the left".
ElectricFetus said:
The neo-Nazis are latecomers to this game; they have only recently adopted the cultural techniques that have already been mastered by the liberals.
Click to expand...
Bullshit. The Republican Party has been running - and winning - on White Male Identity politics since 1968, and the neo-Nazis have been on board that entire time.
 
Last edited:
douwd20 said:
Delete "economics" and put in "bigotry" and you got it. In May 2015 he was in the back of the Republican pack until in June 2015 he began his infamous attack on Mexico. And that lite the fuse in his hate fuled rocket and by July 2015 guess who was at the top of the pack? So it wasn't economics that boosted him. The truth is much uglier.

Poll: Trump surges to big lead in GOP presidential race

That is the highest percentage and biggest lead recorded by any GOP candidate this year in Post-ABC News polls and marks a sixfold increase in his support since late May, ​
Click to expand...

Yeah sure that why we did not have a black president for 8 years. The average American voters hates politicians, you can google that if you don't believe me, congressional approval is at 20%. The reason for this is decades of stagnant wages for the middle class and multiple election cycles of both republicans ansddemocrat promising to make it better and then not doing as they promised. Then came Trump, never held office, does not speak or lie like politicians (oh he lies just not in the manner the american people are inoculated by politicians) who claims he is going to do things differently and honestly speaks his tiny pig mind almost like he has tourettes so that people assume this guy actually means what he says.

If you don't believe me listen to this economist who predicted trumps win a year before the election:


Tiassa said:
​
When people describe equality as some threatening existential puritanism, they are telling us how they view the concept of equality.
Click to expand...

So is your counter argument is that this person does not believe in equality? You have no counter argument to their argument, you just imply they are a racist, sexist, homophobe, nazi, what ever label you want.
 
ElectricFetus said:
No, please tell me what I'm not understanding.
Click to expand...
The English language:
ElectricFetus said:
Look Tiassa & Bells answer me this one question:
If it was to come down to Donald Trump vs Bernie Sanders in 2020, would you vote for Bernie?
Click to expand...
Tiassa said:
Try thinking that one through.

No, really, why wouldn't I, and why would Bells?
Click to expand...
ElectricFetus said:
Why would you our Bells not? Are you implying Bernie Sanders is equivalent to Trump?
Click to expand...
ElectricFetus said:
Also why have you not answered my questions? If it comes down to Bernie vs Trump in 2020, will you vote for Bernie?
Click to expand...
Despite his having already answered it here:
Tiassa said:
Try thinking that one through.

No, really, why wouldn't I, and why would Bells?
Click to expand...
But you pressed on.. When Tiassa replied that this was already answered, your failure to understand the English language made your stupid question even more farcical:
Tiassa said:
Already answered↑ Why are you unable to be honest, ElectricFetus? All you're accomplishing is reminding everyone how low one has to go, how much one must hate basic living reality, in order to accommodate the right wing.

I know you think you're taking it out on ilk you disdain, but, really, self-denigration seems your basic M.O., and that just isn't especially effective or efficient about anything except humiliating yourself.
Click to expand...
ElectricFetus said:
Except that is not an answer, just an assortment of ad homiems and slander. Try this, answer my question without referring to me, try arguing against my argument, rather then me.
Click to expand...
And on and on it goes.

Not only do you not understand that you cannot fix or address economic inequality if you do not and refuse to acknowledge what causes economic inequality, but you also do not understand the English language.. Or perhaps you just prefer to be dishonest and make crap up to keep whining. Which would you prefer I use to describe you? That you do not understand? Or that you prefer to just make things up to fulfill your own twisted little fantasies?

ElectricFetus said:
Instead of going over and over again, why not have someone else argue my points.
Click to expand...
Because yours was a winning strategy?

ElectricFetus said:
In fact I would say that it is you, and people like you, that has raised the respectability of supremacism: your ilk has helped bring trump to power and helped power the revival of white identity and white supremacist. Go ahead read that article, counter it points.
Click to expand...
I notice you keep ignoring things like how Sanders voters literally went out and voted for Trump in those crucial States, giving him the edge over Clinton and thus, literally making him win (the evidence is clear, had they voted for Clinton, Clinton would have won those States and won the election.. they literally gave him the extra votes he needed to win) and I love how you ignore the evidence that they did so to maintain their white male superiority and the status quo.

In a way, it was "your ilk" that saw him win. Sanders never won the minority vote. His attitude towards minorities, his inability to address what was affecting them, meant that they would not turn out for him. And they did not in the primaries. The reason they did not is because Sanders utterly failed to address what caused the discrimination.
 
Bells said:
And on and on it goes.

Not only do you not understand that you cannot fix or address economic inequality if you do not and refuse to acknowledge what causes economic inequality
Click to expand...

And that is what? Sexism, racism, transphobia, the patriarchy, what?

but you also do not understand the English language.. Or perhaps you just prefer to be dishonest and make crap up to keep whining. Which would you prefer I use to describe you? That you do not understand? Or that you prefer to just make things up to fulfill your own twisted little fantasies?
Click to expand...

yes yes attack me, slander me, no argument from you.

Because yours was a winning strategy?
Click to expand...

Yes. At the very least your strategy has failed, this is a matter of fact, and now it is bernicrat turn.

I notice you keep ignoring things like how Sanders voters literally went out and voted for Trump in those crucial States, giving him the edge over Clinton and thus, literally making him win (the evidence is clear, had they voted for Clinton, Clinton would have won those States and won the election.. they literally gave him the extra votes he needed to win)
Click to expand...

Let go with this argument, liberal sanders voters voted for trump... so? What? fuck 'em and continue to lose voters?

and I love how you ignore the evidence that they did so to maintain their white male superiority and the status quo.
Click to expand...

... do you relies "the Jews are behind it" is as just a crazy as what you said? Only Alex Jone's level reptilians and/or inter-dimensional demons would be more crazy.

In a way, it was "your ilk" that saw him win. Sanders never won the minority vote. His attitude towards minorities, his inability to address what was affecting them, meant that they would not turn out for him.
Click to expand...

The primary is not the general election, those the come and vote in the primary are a select few, in many states they must be registered democrats, again polls of the general population of voters always found him beating trump, usually with double digit percentage, Clinton on the other hand barely beat trump in polling and in the end could not muster enough votes to win.

The reason they did not is because Sanders utterly failed to address what caused the discrimination.
Click to expand...

Interesting theory, it is the same as whites vote against their interests because they are racist.
 
ElectricFetus said:
Yeah sure that why we did not have a black president for 8 years. .
Click to expand...

As if his election means anything to the Republican base who still believes he is a muslim. And the Obama coalition sat home last election while the Trump's bigots and assorted sympathizers ran to the polls.

Back to my point and away from your diversion: He was bringing up the rear in June 2015 until he bashed Mexico then he shot to the top in ONE MONTH. Please explain.

When Someone Says They Still Support Trump, I Instantly Know 6 Things About Them

You’re either a racist or an enabler of racists:

Trump’s campaign has been built almost entirely on racist rhetoric and hypothetical policy. Trump led the charge on the ridiculous birther movement, he wants to keep Mexicans out by forcing them to pay for a massive border wall, he believes all Muslims are either terrorists or have ties to terrorists, he ridicules “black lives matter,” he encourages voter intimidation and already-proven-ineffective laws like “stop and frisk” that unfairly and overwhelmingly target African Americans and Latinos. There is literally NO WAY you can support Donald Trump and at least not be ok with someone else’ racism, though, it’s far more likely you have some of these racist tendencies on your own.​
 
​

ElectricFetus said:
And that is what? Sexism, racism, transphobia, the patriarchy, what?
Click to expand...

Certes, sexism and racism, which are in turn orders of classism; transphobia is the latest buzz in sexism, and the patriarchy is simply a colloquial term for certain presentations of male chauvinism, i.e., sexism.

Do you realize you bring nothing? This is what your latest retort↑ to Bells equals:

• Posture of ignorance about fairly mundane aspects of liberal discourse.

• Complaint of attack and "slander" despite the accuracy of how your behavior is described, and then a complaint about lack of argument while utterly ignoring relevant facts: Yeah, actually, you do keep botching the English language. Some of it is autocorrect, but a lot of it really is you just getting worked up to cluelessness and running with what you think you see. You can't even explain the genesis of the perverse make-believe required to justify your questions. So, no, don't be complaining of slander or libel just because you don't like accurate descriptions of your behavior.

• Attempted tit for tat, but requiring ignorance of facts, namely a nationwide majority.

• Uneducated projection in lieu of anything smarter.

• Variation on Godwin corrollary: Would you, for instance, say there is proof that Hitler was right and everything was the Jews' fault? No? Well, we do have some proof about American voters in 2016.

• Messaging in lieu of acknowledging facts.

• Equivocation of racism with a lack thereof.​

One of the most disgusting things about appeals to ignorance such as you or Mr. Shivani promote is that in your refusal to acknowledge history you also refuse to acknowledge what meeting right-wing identity politics has won. "Things could be a lot worse", isn't an inspiring slogan, but it's also a basic truth:

In 1965, abortion was so unsafe that 17 percent of all deaths due to pregnancy and childbirth were the result of illegal abortion (Gold, 1990; NCHS, 1967). Today, less than 0.3 percent of women undergoing legal abortions at all gestational ages sustain a serious complication requiring hospitalization (Boonstra et al., 2006; Henshaw, 1999). Among women undergoing legal first-trimester abortion procedures, the percentage sustaining serious complications drops to 0.05 percent (Weitz et al., 2013). The risk of death associated with abortion increases with the length of pregnancy, from one death for every one million vacuum aspiration abortions at eight or fewer weeks to 8.9 deaths after 20 weeks' gestation (Boonstra et al., 2006). In 2007, the maternal mortality rate in the U.S. was 12.7 deaths per 100,000 live births — a significant difference in maternal mortality rates between ending a pregnancy by abortion and carrying it to term (Paul et al., 2009; Xu et al., 2010). The risk of death from medication abortion through 63 days' gestation is about one per 100,000 procedures (Grimes, 2005). In comparison, the risk of death from miscarriage is about one per 100,000 (Saraiya et al., 1999). And the risk of death associated with childbirth is about 14 times as high as that associated with abortion (Raymond & Grimes, 2012).

The ability to make this personal health care decision has also enabled women to pursue educational and employment opportunities that were often unthinkable prior to Roe. The Supreme Court noted in 1992 that "the ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives" (Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1992). Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of Roe, called the decision "a step that had to be taken as we go down the road toward the full emancipation of women" (Greenhouse, 1994).

(Planned Parenthood↱)​

That's what you dismiss as mere "identity politics". And as we are aware the problem with your "identity politics" argument is, much like Mr. Shivani, your failure to account for the fact that other people bring these fights, we might wish to consider the impact:

Beginning with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980—for whom the recently mobilized anti-abortion movement had campaigned assiduously—the abortion issue has gradually reshaped American politics. Currently, abortion opponents make up the most significant element of the "base" of the Republican party, the attention paid to the Tea Party notwithstanding. The centrality of abortion activism to Republican electoral fortunes explains why a feature of Reagan's administration, and every Republican administration since then, has been to apply the "abortion litmus test" not only to Supreme Court and other judicial nominees, but to various other appointments, even when blatantly irrelevant or when the nominees were clearly unqualified. As examples, consider that during the presidency of George W. Bush, applicants for positions in the Coalition Provision Authority in Iraq were queried as to their position on Roe, and the head of family planning programs under George H.W. Bush was quoted in the press as saying, "When it became possible for women to buy contraceptives…men lost their manhood."

The political strength of the anti-abortion movement has also led to the elevation of "junk science" at the highest levels. Official government websites during the G.W. Bush years posted false information on the alleged abortion–breast cancer link, and millions of federal dollars were directed to abstinence-only sex education programs and "crisis pregnancy centers" that promoted numerous falsehoods about the dangers of abortion.

‡​

For the feminist movement as a whole, the need to defend Roe has inevitably meant a lessened focus on other items on the movement's agenda. We might therefore think of the last forty years as a period of opportunities lost. The millions of hours and dollars spent on legal defense, clinic defense, mobilizing of voters, lobbying of friendly politicians, and so on have meant resources that were not available for other priorities of the movement, such as affordable quality child care, job training and equal pay issues, a more robust defense of welfare rights, and so on.

Moreover, the presence of legal abortion has seemingly not done much to change the situation of the most vulnerable women in American society. Currently, low-income women of color are significantly overrepresented in the pool of abortion recipients. This in turn reflects, among other factors, this group's high rate of unplanned pregnancies and their difficulties in obtaining the most reliable (and more expensive) forms of birth control. Abortion, for those in this group able to afford it, has made often very difficult lives somewhat more manageable and helped them to better provide for the children they already have (61 percent of abortion recipients are already mothers) or hope to have at a later point. But the "severe poverty" rate (the number of households with income half of the official poverty threshold) has recently hit a record high in the United States—leading to the obvious conclusion that a far broader range of opportunities and services is needed to improve the status of these women and their families.

(Joffe↱)​

• • •​

Note aside: It seems worth pointing out that in a time when appeals to science and rationality have shown American society firming up its stance against emotional appeals to stupidity such as, say, antivax, there are still certain subjects in which misinformation is not only apparently welcome, but somehow requisite.

Yeah, you know what? Women would like to stop fighting tooth and nail for their birth control, or right to consent or not to sexual intercourse. Like anyone else they would like their human rights to be acknowledged and settled, and not up for challenge by every two-bit wannabe looking to settle a halfwit score.

And no, you need not be a woman to comprehend that.
____________________

Notes:

Joffe, Carole. "Roe v. Wade and Beyond: Forty Years of Legal Abortion in the United States". Dissent. Winter, 2013. DissentMagazine.org. 4 September 2017. http://bit.ly/2gGpSmw

Planned Parenthood. "Roe v. Wade: Its History and Impact". 2007 (January, 2014). PlannedParenthood.org. 4 September 2017. http://bit.ly/2gHfdYU
 
douwd20 said:
As if his election means anything to the Republican base who still believes he is a muslim. And the Obama coalition sat home last election while the Trump's bigots and assorted sympathizers ran to the polls.
Click to expand...

The republican base was not what won Trump the election, it was obama to trump voters: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article147475484.html

And no Bernie or Bust people did not cost Clinton the election if you were wondering: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-clinton-the-election/?utm_term=.b77903d550cb

Back to my point and away from your diversion: He was bringing up the rear in June 2015 until he bashed Mexico then he shot to the top in ONE MONTH. Please explain.
Click to expand...


You mean he shot up in late July of 2015: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e..._republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

I would say that is a fine correlation, but not causation, plenty of other things he did that could explain his rise:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/17/politics/donald-trump-summer-surge/index.html

"Even though I'm a Republican and I'm obviously voting that way, I'm very disappointed in the Republicans in the House. There's weakness there," said Julie Pagliarulo, a 56-year-old resident of Belmont, New Hampshire, who arrived hours early to see Trump speak. "Donald just says it like it is. I love it."

On a recent muggy summer evening, residents here were angry about everything from border security and the economy to Benghazi, Obamacare and more. Trump was speaking to their grievances, an approach that helps explain his rise in the polls.
Bert Hansen, 74 years old, joined hundreds of voters jammed into an overheated community center in Laconia waiting to see Trump. The soft-spoken veteran believes Obama is "incompetent" and bristles when recalling a relative who once said he was racist because he doesn't like the president. In fact, Hansen said, he's a big fan of GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson, who is black.
"There's some pent up frustration in the population right now that's ready to explode," Hansen said said. "That's why Trump's doing so well."

New Hampshire voters said Trump spoke to their broad range of concerns. But his greatest appeal may be that they see him as authentic and unfiltered. The opposite, voters said, of even the Republicans they elected to serve them in Congress.
"When he talks, he talks like them. He has the same frustrations they do," said Craig Robinson, a GOP activist in Iowa and editor of The Iowa Republican website. "They still want someone who's just going to turn Washington on its head.

Enough American voters are fed up with politicians failing them economically, that are willing to vote for trump just to fuck "Washington", in this highly anti-establishment miasma we did not run our own anti-establishment candidate, Bernie Sander, but instead the most establishment candidate we could get, Hillary Clinton.

Now did some people vote for trump because "fuck mexicans" sure, but they were not the primary reason he won, nor are they a demographic we could get votes back from. We need to focus on demographics we had but lost, we need to focus on the reasons why and target it, doing so does not mean we need give up on blacks, women or gays or what ever, it is just a matter of selling what that demographic is interested in them, which is economic justice, which by the way most blacks women, gays and trans would like and would benefit from.
 
Tiassa said:
Certes, sexism and racism, which are in turn orders of classism; transphobia is the latest buzz in sexism, and the patriarchy is simply a colloquial term for certain presentations of male chauvinism, i.e., sexism.
Click to expand...

So your saying it is sexism then, that is the core fundamental problem? "Yes" or "No." Please don't weasel out with a rant that is open to interpretation, just "yes" or "no" answer please.

Yeah, you know what? Women would like to stop fighting tooth and nail for their birth control, or right to consent or not to sexual intercourse. Like anyone else they would like their human rights to be acknowledged and settled, and not up for challenge by every two-bit wannabe looking to settle a halfwit score.
Click to expand...

Oh ok then maybe we should win back the goverment then. Your strategy has only managed to further hand women rights to the republicans to savage as they will, you have handed the presidency to a pig boar un-consenting pussy grabber, and yet you want to double down? If you truly care about women rights maybe take a moment to relies how much you have fucked women's rights.
 
ElectricFetus said:
And that is what? Sexism, racism, transphobia, the patriarchy, what?
Click to expand...
Sexism and racism yes. Which in turn lead to classism. Sexism is tied directly to patriarchy, which is again tied to classism. The same applies to racism. Transphobia also applies to sexism and thus, patriarchy and classism.

Classism, patriarchy, bigotry, misogyny, is driven by a dismissal and hatred and lack of respect for others. Failure to address what drives classism, economic inequality shows a distinct lack of respect for others and it is literally a dismissal to what is actively affecting them on a daily basis.

For example, fixing the economy and giving African Americans more money will not address the racism and bigotry that sees them at greater risk of being shot by police officers, pulled over more often then white people, it will not fix the entrenched racism that prevents them from accessing better housing, education, healthcare (even with more money, they cannot access better housing due to issues like redlining, for example).. Failure to address those real concerns and instead promising to fix the economy, does diddly squat.

ElectricFetus said:
yes yes attack me, slander me, no argument from you.
Click to expand...
You have consistently refused and failed to address any argument because you either did not understand them, or you deliberately ignored them because that's just the kind of person that you are.

It is not my fault or that of anyone else if you do not understand basic English. If you do not, that's fine. We can change the way we communicate and perhaps use smaller and simpler words. I rather that than have you deliberately misconstrue what has been said and then whine about something that was completely invented and imagined by you and only you.

ElectricFetus said:
Yes. At the very least your strategy has failed, this is a matter of fact, and now it is bernicrat turn.
Click to expand...
Again, if your strategy was winning, explain how a proposal to implement universal healthcare in Colorado failed as spectacularly as it did, with democrats voting against it..? A proposal that was backed by the "bernicrat" and Bernie himself endorsed it.

Bernie's strategies failed. The "bernicrat" candidates he endorsed, who pushed the same ideology as he did, failed to win in the last election. Like Russ Feingold. Sanders campaigned for him, raised funds for him and fully endorsed him. Feingold pushed for the same things that Sanders was campaigning for.

Wisconsin is a Midwestern state that is nearly 90% white, which makes it a great testing ground for whether the white working class in a Rust Belt state would truly be responsive to Bernie’s message. Feingold championed Bernie’s platform, and his campaign website made bold promises of opposing trade deals, opposing special interests, promoting a $15 federal minimum wage, and advocating for debt-free college.​

By your carrying on, Feingold should have brought that one home. He should have won, because hey, it's the "bernicrat's turn", right?

Feingold lost his race in Wisconsin with a higher margin than Clinton lost the state in the election. He ran against the Republican incumbent, Ron Johnson..

Ron Johnson combines support of deregulation, free trade agreements (neoliberalism!), and strong national security with an opposition to immigration. In other words, he’s a fairly traditional Republican, in least in comparison to Trump. Since Feingold championed Bernie’s issues, and Bernie endorsed and fundraised for him, he should have easily beaten Johnson, at least if the narrative about Bernie’s strength in the general was true. But Feingold didn’t win. In fact, he lost by a bigger margin than Clinton did in Wisconsin! Clinton lost Wisconsin by a margin of 0.8%, while Feingold lost by a margin of 3.4%. Feingold was a white man running in a nearly 90% white state with the Bernie Sanders agenda. That’s Bernie’s ideal demographic, and his platform still lost to a big business Republican.​

Welp..

So much for your time to shine, "bernicrat"!

If your strategy is so great, why did it not win in the last election in Colorado? Why did even democrats vote overwhelmingly against a core policy of Sanders - ie - universal healthcare?

ColoradoCare would cover every single resident of the state of Colorado, and even pay for residents’ healthcare if they had traveled to another state. In order to pay for ColoradoCare, the state would establish a new 10 percent payroll tax, similar to the tax increase which would pay for the Bernie Sanders federal universal healthcare plan. Colorado has a Democratic Governor, a significant Latino population, and is a state that Clinton won by a margin of about 3 percent. If Bernie’s platform is highly popular with the Democratic base, then Amendment 69 should have passed in the state. But it didn’t. Not only did was Amendment 69 rejected, but nearly 80 percent of the voters voted no. Only 21 percent of Colorado voters supported the measure. Again, this is in a blue state, with a key tenant of Bernie’s platform, something that he passionately campaigned for in Boulder. And the voters overwhelmingly said no.​

Guess you weren't shining in Colorado either, with a key tenet of Sanders..

This is fact, EF. Democrats, Independents and Republicans voted against universal healthcare in Colorado. Was this a winning strategy? If it is the "bernicrat's turn", then you are off to a very bad start.
 
ElectricFetus said:
Let go with this argument, liberal sanders voters voted for trump... so? What? fuck 'em and continue to lose voters?
Click to expand...
No EF. It is an indication that your attempts to pander to only the white vote is not working and as a result, those who would normally vote Democrat are not supporting you. Again, ask yourself why minorities and women tended to not support Bernie Sanders in the primaries, particularly minorities.

On Super Tuesday, powered by enormous support among black voters, Clinton swept Sanders in five Southeastern states and took a commanding lead in delegates that she never relinquished.

In Virginia, exit polls showed that Clinton won 84% of the black vote to Sanders’ 16%. In Arkansas, she beat him 91% to 9% among black voters. In Alabama, the margin was 91% to 6%.

Black voters cast their ballots for Clinton so overwhelmingly during the primaries, especially in the South, that their preference for her felt like a warning: Ignore us and we will bury you.

In Southern states that voted on Super Tuesday, even black voters ages 18 to 29—a slice of the electorate that Sanders’ team believed they had a shot at—voted for Clinton 61% to 36%.​

Is this a winning strategy?

Do you know how and why it was so bad? Because Sanders' campaign deliberately and knowingly ignored black voters. They did not see them as being important enough to even speak to or address, unless it was politically necessary to. The article details how his campaign deliberately set out to literally disadvantage the black outreach programs for his campaign and stifled any attempt to have him engage with black voters and black media. They refused and denied interviews, meetings, appearances.

Sanders campaign looked like it was only interested in white voters. And it showed in the primaries, where minorities failed to support him. And you think he would win? Not only did his policies fail to connect with white voters in Colorado, his candidate of choice failed to connect with white voters in Wisconsin, but his open disdain for black voters in the primaries saw him lose those votes too.

“For African-Americans, he never connected the dots from a practical perspective,” Tara Dowdell, a political strategist who has worked local, state, and federal campaigns, told me. “How would this measurably improve your life? And his colorblind approach to economics ignores the fact that this is the United States of America, where policy and economics and race are tied.”

Put another way, it takes more than marching with MLK to win black votes.

It takes outreach. But several former members of Sanders’ black outreach team told me the campaign didn’t believe pulling black voters from Clinton was a real possibility; the white vote, the staffers said, was the campaign’s priority.​

This isn't winning strategy. It is bigoted strategy. He only turned to African American issues when he was absolutely forced to and was left with no choice but to address their concerns (they had to protest his rallies to get him to respond, for goodness sake!), and when he did so, he flubbed it and dismissed their concerns and issues that affect minorities. If your candidate cannot even bring himself to acknowledge what causes economic inequality for all and if he cannot discuss or acknowledge that class warfare and economic inequality is closely tied to 'race' in America, then he will fail to win the votes of minorities and he did fail to win those votes.

Keep only pandering to white voters and ignoring women and minorities, and you will not win another election. It is that simple.

ElectricFetus said:
.. do you relies "the Jews are behind it" is as just a crazy as what you said? Only Alex Jone's level reptilians and/or inter-dimensional demons would be more crazy.
Click to expand...
Oh hey, look, more inventions..
His campaign openly said their priority was the "white vote".
ElectricFetus said:
The primary is not the general election, those the come and vote in the primary are a select few, in many states they must be registered democrats, again polls of the general population of voters always found him beating trump, usually with double digit percentage, Clinton on the other hand barely beat trump in polling and in the end could not muster enough votes to win.
Click to expand...
Which explains why what he pushed for in Colorado (universal healthcare) and candidates like Feingold and Teachout did so well in the general election, yes? Prop 61 in California?

If Sanders’ platform and candidates had lost, but performed better than Clinton, than that would be an indicator that perhaps he was on to something. If they had actually won, then he could really claim to have momentum. But instead, we saw the opposite result: Sanders’ platform lost, and lost by much bigger margins than Clinton did. It even lost in states Clinton won big.​

And that was in the general election. Does not bode well. And his refusal to address issues that affect minorities and women and his dismissing them, for example, does not bode well.

ElectricFetus said:
Interesting theory, it is the same as whites vote against their interests because they are racist.
Click to expand...
How many minorities did Bernie Sanders have working for him as his staff in Congress before he ran for President?

bernie-noblackhires.jpg


But he hired some minorities for his campaign.. Mostly for outreach that he deliberately underfunded and ignored and dismissed. But hey, all good for show, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top