| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016: Primary Season
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
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.
|
He still won Michigan because of the white vote. Black people in Michigan voted for Hillary over 2:1. True, that's A LOT better than how black people in the south voted.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
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.
|
Hillary has always kind of been in favor of LGBTQ rights... This is her marching in a gay pride while being Senator of NY.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/20/2012
Posts: 27,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
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  |
What exactly has Hillary said that's so much better? They both talk about racial justice on their websites and in speeches.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 11,012
|
Quote:
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.
|
They don't have an obligation to do anything. They have brains. They're not a collective group of sheep with the same interests or struggles. Like I said before, the far-left is overwhelmingly insipid. It takes away everything that made America great. To be in a far-left democracy is to be in a democracy that encourages a strange and dangerous dependence on the Government. Whereas, to be in a center-left democracy is to be in an environment that encourages entrepreneurial innovation and risk-taking; a place which gives the people the power, and takes power away from the Government. Evidence shows that healthy levels of free market and privatisation are key to a thriving economy.
How in the world would placing more power in the hands of the Government and away from the people, be good for minorities? We all know how that's worked out in the past.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
What exactly has Hillary said that's so much better? They both talk about racial justice on their websites and in speeches.
|
It's not only what they say but I'll go on that
Bernie talks about Wall Street crackdowns, big bank break ups, and taxing the top 1% as keys to solving everyone's problems, including minorities. And while that's okay, there are some minority specific issues that he doesn't specifically address but instead blankets it into his overall campaign.
Hillary actually separates the two like when she talks about pumping money into HBIC, in education, in building relationships across the isle, etc. Not only that, but she has past receipts of doing just that. I'm sure Bernie has some too but not to the extent she does. Or if he does he hasn't highlighted them enough
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/6/2015
Posts: 3,624
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
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.
|
Okay, this is an extremely awful comment... 
I, or any other minority, have absolutely no obligation to vote for anyone. I could vote for Donald Trump if that's what I felt like. I have no debt to vote for the furthest left candidate. I know you're embracing Hillary, but you also favor Bernie overall. How is it that you would claim that women aren't obligated to vote for Hillary because she's also a woman, but then claim that minorities are obligated to vote for the far left. The lack of logic in this claim is reprehensible. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 11,012
|
An old Margaret Thatcher quote I'm fond of:
"So, you would rather the poor be poorer provided the rich were less rich".
That basically sums up socialists and communists to me. I don't agree with Thatcherism or Raeginism entirely, but they were both right when they said that socialism and communism is a disease.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Giving power to the government so they can make sure you're getting good education, staying healthy, getting enough money to live a decent life, receiving more opportunities because you're a minority and paying back for all the past injustices you or your ancestors had to deal with, isn't really bad power to give. And the more you power you give to the right kind of government, the more things you'll receive in return.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/20/2012
Posts: 27,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bey Admired
An old Margaret Thatcher quote I'm fond of:
"So, you would rather the poor be poorer provided the rich were less rich".
That basically sums up socialists and communists to me. I don't agree with Thatcherism or Raeginism entirely, but they were both right when they said that socialism and communism is a disease.
|
America already has socialist programs... tons of them actually.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
Giving power to the government so they can make sure you're getting good education, staying healthy, getting enough money to live a decent life, receiving more opportunities because you're a minority and paying back for all the past injustices you or your ancestors had to deal with, isn't really bad power to give. And the more you power you give to the right kind of government, the more things you'll receive in return.
|
My issue with this kind of thinking, and the overall message of Bernie's campaign, government—with enough power—is ripe for corruption. Bernie has consistently drilled the idea that our current system is corrupt... So why would making it bigger help anything? People in general, I included, already have a distrust of the government. I don't really feel that comfortable with expanding their power to the level that socialist (let alone communism) promotes.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
America already has socialist programs... tons of them actually.
|
Having socialist programs doesn't mean we should entirely embrace socialism. That's not a strong argument, Marvin.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 11,012
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
America already has socialist programs... tons of them actually.
|
I don't disagree with socialism entirely, that's important to note. A lot of democratic and socialist policies intertwine. It's when you move further and further to the left that it's dangerous and starts to have an adverse impact on economic traction and stability.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/21/2010
Posts: 51,088
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bey Admired
An old Margaret Thatcher quote I'm fond of:
"So, you would rather the poor be poorer provided the rich were less rich".
That basically sums up socialists and communists to me. I don't agree with Thatcherism or Raeginism entirely, but they were both right when they said that socialism and communism is a disease.
|
Indeed.
Capitalism works.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/21/2010
Posts: 51,088
|
Quote:
Originally posted by HeyMr.DJ
|
Yesterday was likely his last forward momentum ever.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bloo
Okay, this is an extremely awful comment...
I, or any other minority, have absolutely no obligation to vote for anyone. I could vote for Donald Trump if that's what I felt like. I have no debt to vote for the furthest left candidate. I know you're embracing Hillary, but you also favor Bernie overall. How is it that you would claim that women aren't obligated to vote for Hillary because she's also a woman, but then claim that minorities are obligated to vote for the far left. The lack of logic in this claim is reprehensible. |
I didn't mean to put it in a "you need to elect us or else!!!!" context, but I publicly condemn Caitlyn Jenner, for example, for her blatant support of Ted Cruz. I'm not saying she NEEDS to support Hillary or Bernie, but rather not support an individual who's publicly against her rights and freedoms. At the end of the day, I think she should have the right to support whoever she wants, but I'm saying it only makes sense to give back to whomever has given you. But yes, she needs to be supporting any individual she wants, she's old enough to know how bad he'd be for her and her community.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 11,012
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bloo
My issue with this kind of thinking, and the overall message of Bernie's campaign, government—with enough power—is ripe for corruption. Bernie has consistently drilled the idea that our current system is corrupt... So why would making it bigger help anything? People in general, I included, already have a distrust of the government. I don't really feel that comfortable with expanding their power to the level that socialist (let alone communism) promotes.
|
Which is basically my point.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 10,242
|
What would happen if we stopped taxing lower income brackets and taxed the high income brackets more, while leaving the middle class alone?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/5/2011
Posts: 15,589
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
Giving power to the government so they can make sure you're getting good education, staying healthy, getting enough money to live a decent life, receiving more opportunities because you're a minority and paying back for all the past injustices you or your ancestors had to deal with, isn't really bad power to give. And the more you power you give to the right kind of government, the more things you'll receive in return.
|
This is so wrong on so many levels lol (and condescending, esp the last sentence  )
No one receives more opportunities (if any) bc they're a minority. 
Most black people vote Democrat in spite of their economic + social policies. We're mostly moderates.
We do not have much in common with the far left and we certainly don't want to be rewarded w 'free things' for voting 'the right way' like you're implying 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/20/2012
Posts: 27,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bloo
Having socialist programs doesn't mean we should entirely embrace socialism. That's not a strong argument, Marvin.
|
Well the implication that Bernie wants to embrace socialism is incorrect, so that wasn't my point. I'm just saying that people are trying to completely dismiss socialism even though we already have socialist aspects in our society that plenty of people enjoy (like national parks). It doesn't make sense.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bey Admired
I don't disagree with socialism entirely, that's important to note. A lot of democratic and socialist policies intertwine. It's when you move further and further to the left that it's dangerous and starts to have an adverse impact on economic traction and stability.
|
Agreed. No one running wants to do that though, and it'd never happen in America.
Although I guess it depends on what you'd consider far-left. We would and could never become a communist nation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
