[Benzene]

Originally posted by MAKSIM

The far-left is awful. No ifs, ands, or buts around it. A comparison to the far-right is not even worthy of debate because they both suck.

Can't disagree here. Can't deal with extremist ideologues on either side.

[RatedG²]

Originally posted by Marvin

Let's waste resources in states that we have virtually no chance of winning. That makes a lot of sense.

But no Bernie just hates black people!

The thing is though, all of the states he has no chance of winning in happen to be states with a high black population. Whether that state is south or north it does not matter. If the south had less blacks in it he would be spending resources in it

His campaign should be listening to the concerns of all minorities. It isn't right now and that's why he's not winning those states. But instead of addressing that fact he's just dismissing those states as "it's a regional thing" or "Hillary is only winning those states because she's cozying up to Obama" instead of addressing real concerns

[Bey Admired]

Originally posted by heckinglovato

I can't continue debating with anybody who thinks the far-left is bad for minorities. It's extremely offensive, wrong and entirely dismissive of everything the far-left works hard to achieve for minorities.

That statement is just disgusting. And to even say "possibly worse than the far-right" genuinely makes my stomach turn.

Socialism at its extreme is called communism. Communism has never been good for anybody, minorities moreso.

[heckinglovato]

Originally posted by Bey Admired

A candidates supporters' are quite telling of a candidates policies and campaign. It matters a lot.

You're telling me that it doesn't matter how Trump's supporters are acting? That would be absurd. They are acting that way because of the message Trump is sending.

Same with Bernie. He has run a campaign on deflating the public trust of Hillary. His supporters' have responded by saying they're going to vote for Trump over Hillary.

The two - the candidate and their supporters - go hand in hand.

You couldn't have been more wrong. Bernie, for example, has many sexist supporters by default because his only opponent is a woman, a strong one for that matter.

While a candidate's views and policies certainly affect the demographics she or he appeals to, that never makes it okay to judge a candidate by her or his supporters. There's a reason candidates lay out pages of agenda, release tons of records, make hundreds of ads and countless speeches to get their messages across.

We were also specifically discussing race, and we both know Bernie isn't by any way, shape or form racist. He has some racist supporters, but he isn't.

[Bey Admired]

Originally posted by heckinglovato

You couldn't have been more wrong. Bernie, for example, has many sexist supporters by default because his only opponent is a woman, a strong one for that matter.

While a candidate's views and policies certainly affect the demographics she or he appeals to, that never makes it okay to judge a candidate by her or his supporters. There's a reason candidates lay out pages of agenda, release tons of records, make hundreds of ads and countless speeches to get their messages across.

We were also specifically discussing race, and we both know Bernie isn't by any way, shape or form racist. He has some racist supporters, but he isn't.

The idea that a candidates campaign policies and the supporters such policies attract are mutually exclusive is absolutely laughable.

I feel pretty safe in saying that based upon Trump's supporters, he has has run a campaign founded upon baseless rhetoric and unsubstantiated policy that has attracted the worst of humanity. Like I said, the two go hand in hand.

We are talking about resounding voices though, not just a select few. The resounding impression from Bernie supporters' right now is that they're going to Trump if Hillary wins. That says a lot about both Bernie's supporters and the campaign he has run.

[Marla Singer]

Originally posted by mdnazn

someone on twitter said that the main reason (white) gays are supporting Clinton
is so they can say "yass queen" every time she's on TV

and it's true

This is absolutely true. I've even seen gays stanning for Thatcher (and not just Meryl Streep's portrayal). The self-loathing.

Having said that, Hilldog has the most suitable experience out of all the candidates. While I don't like her, and don't really believe most of what she says, and don't think she'll change much for the better, I don't think she'll make a complete mess of the next 4 years either.

Originally posted by Bey Admired

My guess is that both Hillary and Obama have both believed in Gay marriage for a long time, but it is only now they can say this without fear of losing so many votes.

It would be my guess that Bernie has also had evolving opinions on this matter throughout the years. Luckily, he has never run for President before now, or held a position as enriching as Secretary of State.

If that was the case then I think she would've been more on the fence about the issue until it was "safe" to show support, instead of being explicitly against gay marriage only to completely change direction with the wind. My guess is that she is/was homophobic and has never believed that gay people deserve equal rights, but not so much that she can't at least pretend they do for political gain.

As for Bernie, he has shown support for gay people as far back as the 70s, probably even earlier than that. I don't know what his views on gay marriage specifically were back then, but he's certainly been consistently pro-LGBT, unlike Hilldog who is barely consistent with anything.

[Marvin]

Originally posted by RatedG²

The thing is though, all of the states he has no chance of winning in happen to be states with a high black population. Whether that state is south or north it does not matter. If the south had less blacks in it he would be spending resources in it

His campaign should be listening to the concerns of all minorities. It isn't right now and that's why he's not winning those states. But instead of addressing that fact he's just dismissing those states as "it's a regional thing" or "Hillary is only winning those states because she's cozying up to Obama" instead of addressing real concerns

He was confident in winning Michigan and they have a high black population. The South is NOT liberal, NOT progressive, and does NOT line up with his ideology. Why pretend like they were really going to listen to him?

He listened to the BLM protesters speak and that was seen as weak. He went to The Breakfast Club and no one cared. He's sat down with many of black activists and it was nowhere in the media. His YouTube page has commercials appealing to all ages, races, etc so he obviously cares.

I don't know why there's this constant attempt to act like Bernie is only trying to appeal to white people.

[heckinglovato]

Originally posted by Bey Admired

Socialism at its extreme is called communism. Communism has never been good for anybody, minorities moreso.

The American far-left is barely even socialist compared to Europeam standards, yet alone communist. The things that the far-left advocates for are with, because, and for minorities. It shouldn't be a debate whether the far-left is the biggest champion for minorities, we're always here for minorities. And truthfully, minorities have an obligation to embrace the far-left and get it to office in return.

[RatedG²]

Originally posted by Marvin

He was confident in winning Michigan and they have a high black population. The South is NOT liberal, NOT progressive, and does NOT line up with his ideology. Why pretend like they were really going to listen to him?

He listened to the BLM protesters speak and that was seen as weak. He went to The Breakfast Club and no one cared. He's sat down with many of black activists and it was nowhere in the media. His YouTube page has commercials appealing to all ages, races, etc so he obviously cares.

I don't know why there's this constant attempt to act like Bernie is only trying to appeal to white people.

Well he clearly isn't trying to appeal to blacks. Whether they're in the "conservative" South or liberal north, there's not been a single state where he got more than 32% of the black vote

[Moonchild]

It's grossly inaccurate to say the far-left is as bad as the far-right on racial issues. That said, there is tone-deafness, which is probably because most in the far-left are white. The "I know what's best for you" mentality is so patronizing and gross.

[Bloo]

Originally posted by heckinglovato

I can't continue debating with anybody who thinks the far-left is bad for minorities. It's extremely offensive, wrong and entirely dismissive of everything the far-left works hard to achieve for minorities.

That statement is just disgusting. And to even say "possibly worse than the far-right" genuinely makes my stomach turn.

Either far-side of the political spectrum is bad... The far-left is practically no different from the far-right. I personally get more annoyed with far-left people on race issues than far-right people. There's nothing worse than a far-left white person telling you how you should feel and think about black issues.

[Marvin]

Originally posted by RatedG²

Well he clearly isn't trying to appeal to blacks. Whether they're in the "conservative" South or liberal north, there's not been a single state where he got more than 32% of the black vote

That doesn't mean he isn't trying. He's tried and it hasn't worked.

What more can he do?

[Moonchild]

Originally posted by heckinglovato

The American far-left is barely even socialist compared to Europeam standards, yet alone communist. The things that the far-left advocates for are with, because, and for minorities. It shouldn't be a debate whether the far-left is the biggest champion for minorities, we're always here for minorities. And truthfully, minorities have an obligation to embrace the far-left and get it to office in return.

What even? Just no.

[jpow]

Originally posted by Marla Singer

As for Bernie, he has shown support for gay people as far back as the 70s, probably even earlier than that. I don't know what his views on gay marriage specifically were back then, but he's certainly been consistently pro-LGBT, unlike Hilldog who is barely consistent with anything.

He's been against gay marriage since at least after 2006.

[Skywalker]

Originally posted by MAKSIM

The far-left is awful. No ifs, ands, or buts around it. A comparison to the far-right is not even worthy of debate because they both suck.

Extremism on either side is not good imho.

[Bey Admired]

Originally posted by Marla Singer

This is absolutely true. I've even seen gays stanning for Thatcher (and not just Meryl Streep's portrayal). The self-loathing.

Having said that, Hilldog has the most suitable experience out of all the candidates. While I don't like her, and don't really believe most of what she says, and don't think she'll change much for the better, I don't think she'll make a complete mess of the next 4 years either.



If that was the case then I think she would've been more on the fence about the issue until it was "safe" to show support, instead of being explicitly against gay marriage only to completely change direction with the wind. My guess is that she is/was homophobic and has never believed that gay people deserve equal rights, but not so much that she can't at least pretend they do for political gain.

As for Bernie, he has shown support for gay people as far back as the 70s, probably even earlier than that. I don't know what his views on gay marriage specifically were back then, but he's certainly been consistently pro-LGBT, unlike Hilldog who is barely consistent with anything.

She said gay people deserve the same rights under the law as everyone else. That's as close to gay marriage as you were going to get at the time.

[Moonchild]

Minorities are not obligated to support anyone. Minorities will support what's in their best interest according to them. It is beyond patronizing to say "I know what's better for you than you do."

[heckinglovato]

Originally posted by Moonchild

It's grossly inaccurate to say the far-left is as bad as the far-right on racial issues.

.

[RatedG²]

Originally posted by Marvin

That doesn't mean he isn't trying. He's tried and it hasn't worked.

What more can he do?

He can take a look at Clinton's platform. Bernie tries to talk to all voters and lump them together as having the same problems but Hillary knows that's not true and specifically outlines those differences. That's why she is winning over minorities.

dead I don't even remember the point I was trying to make with this though

[Ramcoro]

Originally posted by Bloo

Either far-side of the political spectrum is bad... The far-left is practically no different from the far-right. I personally get more annoyed with far-left people on race issues than far-right people. There's nothing worse than a far-left white person telling you how you should feel and think about black issues.

There is nothing wrong with a white person standing up against racism and bigotry. If we don't, then we are enablers or the status quo (a racist society).