Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Yeah. It's something true of all of the Democratic candidates (probably not a coincidence that all of them are white). I think that's why I wanted Biden to run, despite knowing his iffy record on racial issues.
Because he'd be the only candidate who wouldn't have as an implicit (or explicit) selling point of "vote for me if you hated how much Obama talked about race".
edited 1st Nov '15 4:22:46 PM by Hodor2
I'm pretty sure that Clinton and the other democratic candidates weren't running on that, Hodor. In fact I'm wondering if you were paying attention if you think Clinton's ever said anything like that. If anything, Democrats are more willing in general to tackle race issues than Republicans in ways that don't appeal to the welfare queen myth. Especially since Clinton's response to BLM was to invite a person to come talk to her and televise/put it on youtube.
edited 1st Nov '15 4:33:56 PM by AceofSpades
Anyway, there's nothing wrong with voting based on individual candidates rather than taking the party line. In fact, I'd encourage it (with the caveat that people of a given party are more likely to vote the same way as other members of that party on most issues). But looking at one party blatantly causing the problem and then deciding to blame "the system" for it is something else entirely.
edited 1st Nov '15 4:36:44 PM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.I'm in the middle of playing D&D right now, so I can't give the token Cult of Centrism condemnation crap right now in full, so wait for Fighteer to make an appearance. But basically, whenever you see pundits on TV talking about a theoretical centrist politician that would be oh-so-grand the actual policy positions they hold ARE THE POSITIONS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
@Ace of Spades- Well, I was glad to see Clinton doing that. But I don't forget that her camp started Birtherism and I wouldn't be surprised if she goes anti-Obama if she gets the nomination.
And while Sanders actually has decent positions on race, like Clinton, he's totally courting the votes of the (racist) white voters that Obama didn't get.
Jimm Webb has iffy racial positions
(although he's a DINO, so that's kind of a moot point).
Martin O'Malley oversaw lots of race-based arrests as Mayor of Baltimore.
Not sure about Chaffee's views on race, but he's Lincoln Chaffee and no one cares about him.
I have to agree to an extent. While Democratic candidates such as Sanders have a respectable history of standing against Jim Crow segregation, I grow tired of the notion that "Democrat" is synonymous with "anti-racist", and recent events have demonstrated why this thought process doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Of course, your better bet is with the Democrats if you want policies that defend against institutional racism. However, when Sanders was interrupted by two black women during a rally, the response from a lot of white Democrats really shed light on just how racist his supporters can be.
There's also the issue of many left-leaning communities such as Portland, Oregon having an often overlooked atmosphere of racism (I like to call it "artisanal" racism) and the case of a drunken Sanders supporter assailing a Muslim woman and shouting "white power" at her.
From The Other Wiki
, under "Origins of the Claims":
"During the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential primaries, anonymous e-mails from supporters of Hillary Clinton surfaced that questioned Obama's citizenship in an attempt to revive Clinton's faltering primary election campaign. These and numerous other chain e-mails during the subsequent presidential election circulated false rumors about Obama's origin, religion and birth certificate."
While I guess it's unfair to say that she started it, it was definitely started by her supporters.
edited 1st Nov '15 6:12:53 PM by Hodor2
Rationalwiki has an excellent article on it as well.
"it's not a coincidence that Black Lives Matter targeted him"
They've targeted almost everybody they can. "Black Lives Matter" has been acting so counter productively it's not even funny. They've shown up to interrupt so many democrats that support them I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the whole thing was run by Trump.
I'm baaaaaaackNo, no, Black Lives Matter is not run by Trump. It's an earnest movement, not an astroturf campaign, and its objective is to force Democratic politicians to adopt favorable stances regarding police persecution of minorities — an objective at which it has succeeded rather staggeringly well. So, if some idiot Republican really did mean to do some well poisoning, all it did was make the Democrats stop pussyfooting around the issue.
I'm way too tired right now to dig into the fallacy of centrism between the two parties. Maybe I'll touch on it again tomorrow, but for some independent research, look up policy positions in Congress by Democrats and policy positions in Congress by Republicans over the past, say, three or four decades. Other than adopting gay rights as a core issue, I challenge anyone to find any point on which the average Democrat has moved substantially to the left. Bernie Sanders doesn't count; he's been an independent up until he declared his candidacy as a Democrat.
On the other hand, you can find ample examples of the average Republican moving rightward. And again, I'm not talking about gay rights.
Aside from the tired (but true) reminder that Obamacare was originally a Republican idea proposed by the Heritage Foundation, universal single-payer healthcare (one of Bernie Sanders' key policy ideas and one that distinguishes him the most from his rivals) was an objective of FDR's New Deal way back when, but had to be dropped because of opposition from racist blocs within the Democrats themselves. In the 1970s, all those arseholes packed up over Johnson's civil rights programs and jumped ship to the Republicans, which has brought about the gradual downfall of the party.
edited 1st Nov '15 9:36:40 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"That was intended to be a joke. I'll try to make my next one more apparent.
But seriously, what more do they want from Bernie? I'm serious in the sense that attacking their best bet and making the democrat side more divided cannot boost his chances though.
Wrecking havoc at the rallies for those already on your side can only weaken them.
edited 1st Nov '15 9:31:47 PM by Joesolo
I'm baaaaaaackMy impression has been that BLM got what it wanted from Sanders and is now sticking around to make sure that the candidates don't conveniently forget their issues. Anyway, do you imagine that the opposing side will become less racist if BLM stops protesting?
edited 1st Nov '15 9:32:44 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Hmm, I didn't hear about that Seattle thing. Seems like someone needs to sit down and tell them to stop harassing a man who already supports them. The problem is that Sanders is rather vocal in considering racial inequality to be based in economic inequality and wanting to solve the latter first. He's half right: they are inextricably intertwined and can't be addressed separately.
edited 1st Nov '15 9:39:59 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I'm going to paraphrase a BLM aphorism:
White Democrats: "You had better vote for Sanders or else."
BLM: "'Or else' is already happening, Sanders or no Sanders."
Yes, you did hear about Seattle. We had this exact argument about three months ago. That's not new and I really don't feel like retreading the problems with Joesolo's suggestions because I've been through it about a million times.
edited 1st Nov '15 9:41:30 PM by Aprilla
Who the hell said, "Sanders or else?" I still think that Clinton is more electable, even though I agree with more of Sanders' positions.
Oh, I thought that was about some new incident. You mean the one where he gave the protester the mic and let them talk? The incident that Trump got on his case for? I thought that was to Sanders' credit.
edited 1st Nov '15 9:42:25 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!""open season on black people"
Let's not buy into the rhetoric without stopping to think. Yes, there are pernicious patterns of harassment and bias by law enforcement towards minorities, especially blacks. There have been for hundreds of years; it's not a new thing. No, not all police are biased; most are trying to do their jobs in an environment where they face constant challenges to their integrity combined with hatred from the communities they serve, justified or not.
Making cops the enemy is not going to solve anyone's problems. Reform has to come from the top down, with national, state, and local governments who are invested in cleaning up their police forces. The protests are extremely important for keeping the nation's attention on these issues, but without a sympathetic national government, none of it matters. Push too hard and you'll drive people away from the polls. I don't think anyone imagines that black lives will matter much in a Trump (or, ironically, Carson) presidency.
I've seen some stuff on Facebook encouraging people to engage in passive civil resistance towards the police: refusing to cooperate more than superficially whilst loudly proclaiming their legal rights. If you think that's going to make anyone sympathetic... well, you might attract some people, like the ultra-right-wing anti-government types. Not sure those are the allies you want.
edited 1st Nov '15 9:57:20 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Sanders was targeted due to his silence due to him being focuses on economic issues, he responded and I think he's been left to it since then. And yes he's after racist voters, everyone running for election in the US is, but he's targeting them by talking about other issues then race ones, and there obviously however are problems with that approach.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran