bernie was out for himself not the Democratic party

blackascoal said:
You're another anti affirmative action republican and I have no doubt that anything I have to say is not going to change your mind.

Pointless to debate a republican on this issue.
Click to expand...
I'm not anti AA I just believe changes should be made today compared to its original implementation years ago.

And I wasn't trying to debate you. I was asking your opinion on why you disagree with the authors
 
blackascoal said:
I guess you somehow missed blaming Sanders supporters who didn't make the right choice by voting for Trump .. something black voters did not do.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't 'miss them'. By definition, if they voted for trump in the primary, they weren't much of "Sanders supporters". And, I didn't say black voters were the only issue.
 
Craig234 said:
No, I didn't 'miss them'. By definition, if they voted for trump in the primary, they weren't much of "Sanders supporters". And, I didn't say black voters were the only issue.
Click to expand...

Nothing was intended by my pointing that out other than you missed them, many of whom voted for Sanders in the primary, Trump in the general.

I strongly disagree with this ..
"I have to also blame the black voters themselves to a point, in terms of how well they did at learning about their choices and making the right choices."

You assume that your choice was the 'right' choice, and I'm a black voter as informed as you are .. informed enough to know that Bernie was not the right choice for our agenda.

The notion that our choices aren't informed choices is decidedly false.

Police terrorism was and remains near the top of our issues we want addressed, and Sanders didn't have a clue.

No disrespect intended.
 
Micawber said:
I like Bernie and what he was saying. I liked his forceful energy and truth.
Click to expand...

It's one thing to say really good things .. getting them passed is something entirely different.

Bernie has never been an effective legislator. He likes the role of the 'Lone Wolf' too much.
 
blackascoal said:
Nothing was intended by my pointing that out other than you missed them, many of whom voted for Sanders in the primary, Trump in the general.

I strongly disagree with this ..
"I have to also blame the black voters themselves to a point, in terms of how well they did at learning about their choices and making the right choices."

You assume that your choice was the 'right' choice, and I'm a black voter as informed as you are .. informed enough to know that Bernie was not the right choice for our agenda.

The notion that our choices aren't informed choices is decidedly false.

Police terrorism was and remains near the top of our issues we want addressed, and Sanders didn't have a clue.

No disrespect intended.
Click to expand...

You are civil, well-intended, but making some mistakes. You say you are just as well-informed, but you have no idea how well-informed I am. Instead, simply say you are well-informed and I'll accept that.

This is a sensitive topic discussing when a voter or group of voters aren't well-informed enough - and when race is added, it makes it explosive. It's near-impossible to have a rational discussion.

I also mean no offense, but you know the expression about playing checkers or playing chess.

Voting for Hillary because her pollsters told her saying some things about police violence would help her win, is playing checkers. Realizing that the real obstacles on police violence are for one thing, not electing Republicans who pander to the racist voters who will SUPPORT such violence or at least not care about it; that's critical. Understanding that Bernie not saying as much about it in the campaign as he wins over more of those voters by talking about issues they care about, instead of getting them to vote against him because he makes Black Lives Matter a centerpiece of his campaign - that's how to get what you want on police violence. There is no question Bernie cares about the issue. Look at the political hit he took when two BLM women took his mic at a rally, and he was so considerate of them he just let them speak - he was ridiculed by the other candidates for it. Which of them would have done that?

That's not including the importance of Bernie's economic agenda to helping the black justice agenda. Even most black people I hear from just don't get that connection.

And I'm not singling out black people on this - every group has this issue. It's just that black voters were especially key in the primary. We need to be grateful black voters do so much better than other voters at supporting Democrats - but they blew the primary.

This happens all over, this not appreciating the issues. I know it's not fun to hear but I think there were errors made.

How many whites votes against their own interests to vote Republican? How many women voted for Hillary because she's a woman?
 
Craig234 said:
You are civil, well-intended, but making some mistakes. You say you are just as well-informed, but you have no idea how well-informed I am. Instead, simply say you are well-informed and I'll accept that.

This is a sensitive topic discussing when a voter or group of voters aren't well-informed enough - and when race is added, it makes it explosive. It's near-impossible to have a rational discussion.

I also mean no offense, but you know the expression about playing checkers or playing chess.

Voting for Hillary because her pollsters told her saying some things about police violence would help her win, is playing checkers. Realizing that the real obstacles on police violence are for one thing, not electing Republicans who pander to the racist voters who will SUPPORT such violence or at least not care about it; that's critical. Understanding that Bernie not saying as much about it in the campaign as he wins over more of those voters by talking about issues they care about, instead of getting them to vote against him because he makes Black Lives Matter a centerpiece of his campaign - that's how to get what you want on police violence. There is no question Bernie cares about the issue. Look at the political hit he took when two BLM women took his mic at a rally, and he was so considerate of them he just let them speak - he was ridiculed by the other candidates for it. Which of them would have done that?

That's not including the importance of Bernie's economic agenda to helping the black justice agenda. Even most black people I hear from just don't get that connection.

And I'm not singling out black people on this - every group has this issue. It's just that black voters were especially key in the primary. We need to be grateful black voters do so much better than other voters at supporting Democrats - but they blew the primary.

This happens all over, this not appreciating the issues. I know it's not fun to hear but I think there were errors made.

How many whites votes against their own interests to vote Republican? How many women voted for Hillary because she's a woman?
Click to expand...

You have no idea how informed I am. Saying that you are as informed as I am was giving you the benefit of doubt.

Not sure what metrics you use to determine who to vote for, but knowing the issues I care about is important to me. Bernie was a fish out of water, and allowing BLM members to speak may speak to his civility, but says nothing about him knowing the issue. Hillary was trying to make up for her husbands draconian crime bill, and knew the importance of the issue to black voters. She not only wanted to get elected, she also wanted to be re-elected and knew the importance of the black vote to her doing both. I have absolutely no doubt that she would have been far more aggressive about it then Sanders .. so did black voters.

Sanders knew he was vulnerable on the issue .. which is probably why he allowed the BLM women to speak. Bernie is not really a nice and civil guy when challenged.

Most black people can differentiate between Sanders wish list and the reality of what he can get accomplished. Maybe his supporters can't, but 'free college tuition' is a pipedream, not a plan .. which is why none of his Senate colleagues supported it..

Hillary Clinton addressed our issues far better than Sanders. Your suggestion that not supporting your candidate more than a candidate who addressed important issues better than yours was somehow a mistake doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I agree that errors were made, not the least of which in my opinion was allowing a non-democrat to run in the democratic primary.

I play chess very well.
 
1yvh69.jpg
 
blackascoal said:
You have no idea how informed I am. Saying that you are as informed as I am was giving you the benefit of doubt.

Not sure what metrics you use to determine who to vote for, but knowing the issues I care about is important to me. Bernie was a fish out of water, and allowing BLM members to speak may speak to his civility, but says nothing about him knowing the issue. Hillary was trying to make up for her husbands draconian crime bill, and knew the importance of the issue to black voters. She not only wanted to get elected, she also wanted to be re-elected and knew the importance of the black vote to her doing both. I have absolutely no doubt that she would have been far more aggressive about it then Sanders .. so did black voters.

Sanders knew he was vulnerable on the issue .. which is probably why he allowed the BLM women to speak. Bernie is not really a nice and civil guy when challenged.

Most black people can differentiate between Sanders wish list and the reality of what he can get accomplished. Maybe his supporters can't, but 'free college tuition' is a pipedream, not a plan .. which is why none of his Senate colleagues supported it..

Hillary Clinton addressed our issues far better than Sanders. Your suggestion that not supporting your candidate more than a candidate who addressed important issues better than yours was somehow a mistake doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I agree that errors were made, not the least of which in my opinion was allowing a non-democrat to run in the democratic primary.

I play chess very well.
Click to expand...

Well, there are people who are informed; people who are not but who can hear when they hear they aren't; and people who aren't and can't hear when they aren't.

I'm not saying how informed you are. The fact you are making comparisons when you have no idea how informed I am, am misrepresenting what I said about you, suggests a problem.

I'm not questioning what issues you care about. You say with such certainty what Bernie would or would not have done, with no indication you have any idea about it - you only indicate what was said in the campaigns, which was consultant-influenced, poll-driven material especially in the case of Hillary. A common thing I see is people who get blinded to flaws in candidates they agree with. While you are not going to see that with you and Hillary hopefully you can at least agree about it for trump voters.

I'm not seeing that much progress is possible here so let's take a difference tact and review what we agree on - we agree that improving justice and other things for black people is important. So let's at least be allies on that.

As for a non-Democrat running in the primary - I agree Bernie is a special case. I have concerns about the idea generally: I don't want a centrist half-Republican doing it.

But Bernie is a Democrat's Democrat, and causes with the Democrats, and co-founded the largest caucus in the party, and his closeness to independents would HELP DEMOCRATS WIN - something I thought you might care about a little.

He'd only win if he won Democratic primaries (and yes, closed or open caucuses was controversial). He's now the most popular politician with Democratic voters, and opposing him having the right to run would only be narrow-minded, short-sighted and a mistake.
 
Craig234 said:
Well, there are people who are informed; people who are not but who can hear when they hear they aren't; and people who aren't and can't hear when they aren't.

I'm not saying how informed you are. The fact you are making comparisons when you have no idea how informed I am, am misrepresenting what I said about you, suggests a problem.

I'm not questioning what issues you care about. You say with such certainty what Bernie would or would not have done, with no indication you have any idea about it - you only indicate what was said in the campaigns, which was consultant-influenced, poll-driven material especially in the case of Hillary. A common thing I see is people who get blinded to flaws in candidates they agree with. While you are not going to see that with you and Hillary hopefully you can at least agree about it for trump voters.

I'm not seeing that much progress is possible here so let's take a difference tact and review what we agree on - we agree that improving justice and other things for black people is important. So let's at least be allies on that.

As for a non-Democrat running in the primary - I agree Bernie is a special case. I have concerns about the idea generally: I don't want a centrist half-Republican doing it.

But Bernie is a Democrat's Democrat, and causes with the Democrats, and co-founded the largest caucus in the party, and his closeness to independents would HELP DEMOCRATS WIN - something I thought you might care about a little.

He'd only win if he won Democratic primaries (and yes, closed or open caucuses was controversial). He's now the most popular politician with Democratic voters, and opposing him having the right to run would only be narrow-minded, short-sighted and a mistake.
Click to expand...

It has been my hope throughout this conversation that you recognize that I see you as an ally. I've tried to be honest and straightforward while being careful not to offend you. I never said that I was more informed than you, but certainly not less informed. I don't think we should debate about the level of informed that we may be. 'Informed' was an issue that you brought up.

Bernie may have turned out to be great with our issues, but that is not what he projected and he has no track record of it. He had to hurriedly form coalitions with African-Americans that he did not have before he ran for president. I base my political choices on their record, not hope or what's popular. He would have gotten far less black votes than Clinton and history demonstrates that it's hard if not impossible for a democrat to win the White House without energized black voters.

From my perspective, allowing a non-democrat to run in the election was the dumbest thing the Democratic Party has done in decades. It opened the door for Trump to win and has caused a deep rift within the party that still lingers. Only democrats are dumb enough to allow a non-party candidate to run in their elections. Republicans would never do it.

Why is it that Sanders won't join the party he wants to lead?

His being the most popular politician among democrats demonstrates a serious problem with the party if democrats are looking outside of the party for leadership. Small wonder why republicans have no fear of democrats.

I think it best that democrats move on from Sanders and Clinton, neither of whom are viable options for 2020.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top