Sanders: poor people don't vote

[Jjz1109]

More like Sanders--which, in this context, is the more apt comparison.



In many states, public school funding is apportioned based on local property taxes, virtually guaranteeing that poor students, already at a disadvantage, will receive a substandard education.

In Public Education, Edge Still Goes to Rich

While this disparity doesn't directly determine voter turnout, it's easy to imagine an informed, enfranchised electorate being more involved in the political process.



People don't make decisions in a vacuum, but based on knowledge and experience. If you grow up with a limited horizon of expectations, your decisions are likely to be similarly limited.

Always a respectful, well laid out response.

I think many know my views on public education. Now THERE is a system that's rigged. Put more teachers and aids in the classroom, and get rid of the administrators. And give the teachers merit based increases, and better pay, for the challenges they face in poorer performing schools. I'm glad the article noted that many states redistribute public school funding to poorer districts, much to the frustration of those paying higher property taxes. And as far as dollars spent per pupil in a state, well, it comes down to economics. The cost of living in NY is higher than in the Midwest, and the cost spent per child will be commensurate.

But education systems aside, I doubt this alone is a major factor in voting patterns. Even the poor have such basics as a television, and should be aware that it's an election year, and should be interested in the candidate that represents their views and values. If they are not, then perhaps you are right, and they shouldn't be voting. But they have that right in this country.

 

[Klingsor]

But education systems aside, I doubt this is a major factor in voting. Even the poor have such basics as a television, and should be aware that it's an election year, and should be interested in the candidate that represents their views and values. If they are not, then perhaps you are right, and they shouldn't be voting. But they have that right in this country.us have

We see all kinds of wishful scenarios presented to us on TV, but I doubt we all feel an equal access to those promises. Those at the bottom might have the least reason to view the political theatre in a hopeful light.

Again, though, this is simply speculation. Some hard data on voter turnout by income level, and its possible explanations, would be helpful. But I'm too lazy to look for it.

 

[Jjz1109]

We see all kinds of wishful scenarios presented to us on TV, but I doubt we all feel an equal access to those promises. Those at the bottom might have the least reason to view the political theatre in a hopeful light.

Again, though, this is simply speculation. Some hard data on voter turnout by income level, and its possible explanations, would be helpful. But I'm too lazy to look for it.

Appreciate the insight. And you shed some new light on this topic. Disenfranchisement is very different from other barriers, real or perceived.

 

[Klingsor]

Appreciate the insight. And you shed some new light on this topic. Disenfranchisement is very different from other barriers, real or perceived.

Thanks for the thought; as usual, I'm glad we can disagree with civility.

To be honest, though, when the leftward leaning here discussed how to respond to you, we all drew straws, and I ended up as the "good cop."

 

[b.c.]

Thanks for the thought; as usual, I'm glad we can disagree with civility.

To be honest, though, when the leftward leaning here discussed how to respond to you, we all drew straws, and I ended up as the "good cop."

Well, if such a discussion actually occurred, I wasn't privy to it, though just as well.

Because otherwise one may have been tempted to come in with an observation as to how/why/and to what purpose does a conservative, who's ignored a whole LOT of things GOP candidates have said, create a thread to question why Sander's said poor people don't vote.

Because, considering all that has been said and DONE, PERHAPS an equally valid question might be why don't CONSERVATIVES/the GOP WANT poor people to VOTE?

Nonetheless, we thank him for his genuine expression of concern.

 

[Klingsor]

Well, if such a discussion actually occurred, I wasn't privy to it, though just as well.

It's possible my recollection is faulty. Or that I wasn't serious.

 

[K.Dst]

Why in god's green earth would a poor person vote Republican???

Because at least you're not the poorest. Republicans make sure the same order is maintained, so at least you'd be less miserable than the poor blacks, poor mexicans, or poor muslims.

While on the other hand, if those poorest people are getting more attention from the state than you do (because they are more vulnerable), they might be less miserable than you are, thus putting you at risk of becoming the poorest of them all.
Which is something some people just can't accept, even if they'd be richer than they would have been otherwise.

 

[tripod]

I do not know if Bernie is saying there are barriers to poor people voting that they have not been able to overcome (which may be a factor, but not THE factor) or if he does not understand why his message has not been better received by poor people than can vote, but choose not to.

That's exactly what he was saying!

***************************************

Every poor person I know doesn't vote... I think I am one of the only working poor person that votes in my circle of friends, family and co-workers. However, lower class people do vote, low class whites vote for Trump and low class blacks voted for Hillary... they just don't or didn't vote for Bernie... and their numbers are feeble and anemic.

The 2000 Election

The 2012 Election

Bernie doesn't want to whine and moan about how he didn't get any media coverage, was shut out by the DNC and had a unified African American/senior citizens movement that was vociferously opposed to him and his message.

Old people I get it... they're old and have a lifetime of baggage which prevents them from seeing straight... cool, that was expected. old people suck.

But black people shutting Bernie out was ridiculous and over the top... Hillary Clinton is a monster of a person and her continuation of Reaganomics and the neo-conservative/neo-liberal agenda will HURT BLACK FOLK THE MOST... her husband decimated the black population of this country and he is somehow "their guy"?!?!? It boggles my mind and flies in the face of logic and rational thinking.

I love black folk but I feel like their choice of Hillary Clinton was one of the dumbest and most counter-productive decisions I have seen made in my lifetime. Bernie is the stronger general election candidate and is the ONLY candidate with a net positive like-ability rating... yet black folk bought a meme that they heard over and over in the media... the LIE that Hillary Clinton is the stronger general election candidate. Tons of white people bought the message too... but clueless and out of touch white people have been voting against poor people for years... how did African Americans get fooled? How the fuck could they buy the lie when the truth was staring them in the face?

What's sad is that the progressives are moving into the future with larger numbers that grow larger every year... the liberals are a dying breed... it won't be long until the progressives LEAVE the Democratic party... I've already left... I am not a Democrat anymore.

What will the Democratic party be without the progressives? The progressives are the only "left wing" portion of the Democratic party left... when we leave the party... what will be left of the DNC? A party of senior citizens and black folk?

You gotta be fucking kidding me! Without progressives... the Democrats are THROUGH... they are FINISHED.

None of us are voting for Hillary unless she makes a fucking 180 degree turnaround. This Republican-lite strategy the Dems have taken on since the late 80s is KILLING our society. We have a choice between Republican or Diet Republican... either way the policies of Reaganomics and Kissinger/Brzezinski are still in place. The Billionaire elites win big with either parties.

Basically the smug, superior, asshole attitudes the liberals and centrist Democrats have been giving progressives over the last 30 years HAS TAKEN IT'S TOLL. The centrist and liberal Democrats beat us down like we are their trailer park wives and expect us to NOT kill them in their sleep... did they expect us to take the punishment and never fight back?

The way it is right now... Hillary won't move an inch to the left and the rest of the Democrats will expect to beat us into submission like they usually do. It ain't fucking happening this time around ladies and gentlemen... we aren't taking this shit anymore.

Hillary is supposed to EARN our vote... instead, it's fear mongering and constant hysterical comparisons like, "The Republicans would be waaaay worse than Hillary... you HAVE to vote for Hillary if you don't want a Republican president!"

We don't have to do shit. Centrist and Liberal Dems have been acting like progressives weren't necessary to win... they don't let us in the negotiating table about anything while they ridicule and bully us. They treat us like children and we are NOT their fucking children!!!!

They will just reap what they sew... and they haven't sewed a fucking square inch of soil... nothing will grow.

Win this election without us... you never admitted that you needed us before... and you still aren't coming clean but are instead threatening us and bullying us into doing what YOU want yet again.

Fuck off and win this election on your own... if Hillary Clinton is sooooo billy bad ass, you won't need us.

 

[b.c.]

That's exactly what he was saying!

***************************************

Every poor person I know doesn't vote... I think I am one of the only working poor person that votes in my circle of friends, family and co-workers. However, lower class people do vote, low class whites vote for Trump and low class blacks voted for Hillary... they just don't or didn't vote for Bernie... and their numbers are feeble and anemic.

Bernie doesn't want to whine and moan about how he didn't get any media coverage, was shut out by the DNC and had a unified African American/senior citizens movement that was vociferously opposed to him and his message.

Old people I get it... they're old and have a lifetime of baggage which prevents them from seeing straight... cool, that was expected. old people suck.

But black people shutting Bernie out was ridiculous and over the top... Hillary Clinton is a monster of a person and her continuation of Reaganomics and the neo-conservative/neo-liberal agenda will HURT BLACK FOLK THE MOST... her husband decimated the black population of this country and he is somehow "their guy"?!?!? It boggles my mind and flies in the face of logic and rational thinking.

I love black folk but I feel like their choice of Hillary Clinton was one of the dumbest and most counter-productive decisions I have seen made in my lifetime. Bernie is the stronger general election candidate and is the ONLY candidate with a net positive like-ability rating... yet black folk bought a meme that they heard over and over in the media... the LIE that Hillary Clinton is the stronger general election candidate. Tons of white people bought the message too... but clueless and out of touch white people have been voting against poor people for years... how did African Americans get fooled? How the fuck could they buy the lie when the truth was staring them in the face?

What's sad is that the progressives are moving into the future with larger numbers that grow larger every year... the liberals are a dying breed... it won't be long until the progressives LEAVE the Democratic party... I've already left... I am not a Democrat anymore.

What will the Democratic party be without the progressives? The progressives are the only "left wing" portion of the Democratic party left... when we leave the party... what will be left of the DNC? A party of senior citizens and black folk?

You gotta be fucking kidding me! Without progressives... the Democrats are THROUGH... they are FINISHED.

None of us are voting for Hillary unless she makes a fucking 180 degree turnaround. This Republican-lite strategy the Dems have taken on since the late 80s is KILLING our society. We have a choice between Republican or Diet Republican... either way the policies of Reaganomics and Kissinger/Brzezinski are still in place. The Billionaire elites win big with either parties.

Basically the smug, superior, asshole attitudes the liberals and centrist Democrats have been giving progressives over the last 30 years HAS TAKEN IT'S TOLL. The centrist and liberal Democrats beat us down like we are their trailer park wives and expect us to NOT kill them in their sleep... did they expect us to take the punishment and never fight back?

The way it is right now... Hillary won't move an inch to the left and the rest of the Democrats will expect to beat us into submission like they usually do. It ain't fucking happening this time around ladies and gentlemen... we aren't taking this shit anymore.

Hillary is supposed to EARN our vote... instead, it's fear mongering and constant hysterical comparisons like, "The Republicans would be waaaay worse than Hillary... you HAVE to vote for Hillary if you don't want a Republican president!"

We don't have to do shit. Centrist and Liberal Dems have been acting like progressives weren't necessary to win... they don't let us in the negotiating table about anything while they ridicule and bully us. They treat us like children and we are NOT their fucking children!!!!

They will just reap what they sew... and they haven't sewed a fucking square inch of soil... nothing will grow.

Win this election without us... you never admitted that you needed us before... and you still aren't coming clean but are instead threatening us and bullying us into doing what YOU want yet again.

Fuck off and win this election on your own... if Hillary Clinton is sooooo billy bad ass, you won't need us.

And there you go again with another of your ranting diatribes, complete with wholesale characterizations and generalizations about people: "Low class whites, low class blacks, old people suck." (all "old people" excepting Bernie, presumably).

And while it is true that President Clinton's rather draconian crime bill negatively impacted mostly minorities, the truths and circumstances behind how that came about (including the fact that it had the support of minority leaders) are FAR more complex than what a person, such as yourself, who sees everything in absolutes, would ever be willing to allow, as illustrated in this op-ed written by Slate.com's Jamelle Bouie:

www.slate.com: The Messy, Very Human Politics of Bill Clinton’s Crime Bill

And while Bouie clearly doesn't cut the Clintons any slack in this piece (nor SHOULD he) he at LEAST acknowledges the politics and reasons behind the legislation, concluding that:

"We can’t lose sight of the fact that the crime bill did real damage to countless communities, harming people it was supposed to help. But we also can’t turn this into a simple morality play of good guys and bad ones. With the crime bill, there is a real gap between good intentions and actual consequences that is worth considering, not as an excuse or a defense, but as a lesson. A reminder that politics is full of the unintended, and that as a profoundly human endeavor, it’s almost never a story of perfect heroes and simple villains."

You might want to take special note of that last sentence.

Oh, and btw, as an "old" black person living in a black majority community (the Ninth Ward) with a six times greater chance than most here of becoming a victim of crime, committed by mostly YOUNG perps, I take exception to your comments as to how "WE haven't a CLUE."

 

[tripod]

And there you go again with another of your ranting diatribes, complete with wholesale characterizations and generalizations about people: "Low class white, low class blacks, old people suck." (all "old people" excepting Bernie, presumably).

I call it as I see it and don't pull my punches... it's the fucking lpsg, not the kennedy Honors. Hillary has the over 65 vote locked down just like she has the black folk vote locked down... everything else is up for grabs except for the young folk, they are all for Bernie.

And while it is true that President Clinton's rather draconian crime bill negatively impacted mostly minorities, the truths and circumstances behind how that came about (including the fact that it had the support of minority leaders) are FAR more complex than what a person, such as yourself, who sees everything in absolutes, would ever be willing to allow as illustrated in this op-ed written by Slate.com's Jamelle Bouie:

www.slate.com: The Messy, Very Human Politics of Bill Clinton’s Crime Bill

And while Bouie clearly doesn't cut the Clintons any slack in this piece (nor SHOULD he) he at LEAST acknowledges the politics and reasons behind the legislation, concluding that.

Listen... the Crime Bill is just an indicator of where the Clinton's moral compass is. The War on Drugs is responsible for most of the "drug" violence and ramping it up and dedicating manpower equivalent to waging a war (complete with war weaponry... thank Clinton for police departments being outfitted with the weapons of war) is literally the DUMBEST MOST ASININE THING TO DO.

It's not only dumb and asinine, it's SADISTIC knowing that increasing the war on drugs only leads to: mass incarceration, 2 generations of children with parents locked up behind bars, death and destruction, mayhem and READ THIS NEXT LINE CAREFULLY... not one ounce of improvement on the drug use of average Americans. The drug war is one of the most evil and sadistic punishments this country's elites have placed on the shoulders of the public. It was poor blacks who got swept up in the war in drugs and what do we have to show for this war on drugs? NOTHING but death and destruction with NO improvement on the use of illegal narcotics by the US population.

it was a failure and the fact that you can't admit that is fucking sad as shit... you wanna defend the fucking war on drugs in 2016? Have you suffered brain trauma?

Crime went down because the 1973 Roe vs Wade took effect and less unwanted babies grew up to become hardened criminals... that's a fucking fact and I know the Clinton's wanna take credit for that but they simply can't. The War on Drugs created more crime than it ever prevented... it is EVIL.

Oh, and btw, as an "old" black person living in a black majority community (the Ninth Ward) with a ten times greater chance than most here of becoming a victim of crime, committed by mostly YOUNG perps, I take exception to your comments as to how "we haven't a CLUE."

Well, you think harsher drug laws will keep you safe... and that means you are brain damaged or just willfully ignorant... either way, the phrase "doesn't have a clue" is applicable because you don't.

It's something you've been doing for a while now... defending the indefensible with a straight face while patting yourself on the back.

The Clintons are monsters. How many children did Clinton kill in Iraq because of his increased sanctions?

170,000 is the lowest figure...

... the Clinton's failures and disastrous achievements are myriad and it would take hours or days to aggregate and collate them all... she is a horrible candidate with a net unfavorable rating and a HUUUGE untrustworthy rating... she is a SHIT candidate and voting for her would be eating a shit sandwich for any progressive.

 

[b.c.]

I call it as I see it and don't pull my punches... it's the fucking lpsg, not the kennedy Honors. Hillary has the over 65 vote locked down just like she has the black folk vote locked down... everything else is up for grabs except for the young folk, they are all for Bernie.

That may be so GENERALLY. But rationalizing it all away by dismissing Clinton's support with "old people are clueless" and they "suck" shows YOU to be the shallow a****hole YOU are.

it was a failure and the fact that you can't admit that is fucking sad as shit... you wanna defend the fucking war on drugs in 2016? Have you suffered brain trauma?

Neither I or the author of the op-ed defends the war on drugs. It's a ridiculous straw man argument so TYPICAL of YOU. UNDERSTANDING the cause for something and LEARNING from it is a FAR cry from defending it, champ.

Well, you think harsher drug laws will keep you safe... and that means you are brain damaged or just willfully ignorant... either way, the phrase "doesn't have a clue" is applicable because you don't. .

I don't recall saying THAT EITHER. But I'm sure the white N.C. communist is prepared to school ME on what's happening in my OWN community.

... the Clinton's failures and disastrous achievements are myriad and it would take hours or days to aggregate and collate them all... she is a horrible candidate with a net unfavorable rating and a HUUUGE untrustworthy rating... she is a SHIT candidate and voting for her would be eating a shit sandwich for any progressive.

Not NEARLY as big a "shit sandwich" as you SAID you are PREPARED to eat by REFUSING to vote for her. So who's being "clueless" here?

 

[Jjz1109]

Thanks for the thought; as usual, I'm glad we can disagree with civility.

To be honest, though, when the leftward leaning here discussed how to respond to you, we all drew straws, and I ended up as the "good cop."

Lol. Why do I believe that is true?!?!

 

[tripod]

That may be so GENERALLY. But rationalizing it all away by dismissing Clinton's support with "old people are clueless" and they "suck" shows YOU to be the shallow a****hole YOU are.

Well, voting for Hillary in the primary does show a clear and stubborn stupidity... you say asshole, I say truth teller... tomato tom-ah-to.

Neither I or the author of the op-ed defends the war on drugs. It's a ridiculous straw man argument so TYPICAL of YOU. UNDERSTANDING the cause for something and LEARNING from it is a FAR cry from defending it, champ.

The article was a soft peddled justification of the crime bill... that is a defense of the War on Drugs... sorry, it's the truth.

I don't recall saying THAT EITHER. But I'm sure the white N.C. communist is prepared to school ME on what's happening in my OWN community.

I'm going to say probably not.

Not NEARLY as big a "shit sandwich" as you SAID you are PREPARED to eat by REFUSING to vote for her. So who's being "clueless" here?

Naw, I've worked that out... I'm absolutely voting for her. It's the lesser of two evils, it's all good... I'm not happy about it but it's all good.

If progressives vote for Hillary it's their personal and agonizing decision, there is no lockstep Nazi toeing the line with progressives... we do what is in our hearts.

 

[b.c.]

Well, voting for Hillary in the primary does show a clear and stubborn stupidity... you say asshole, I say truth teller... tomato tom-ah-to.

The article was a soft peddled justification of the crime bill... that is a defense of the War on Drugs... sorry, it's the truth.

I'm going to say probably not.

Naw, I've worked that out... I'm absolutely voting for her. It's the lesser of two evils, it's all good... I'm not happy about it but it's all good.

If progressives vote for Hillary it's their personal and agonizing decision, there is no lockstep Nazi toeing the line with progressives... we do what is in our hearts.

Well at LEAST you are capable of coming to your senses in realizing how completely illogical NOT voting for Hillary would be.

As for the crime bill and the cited op-ed, understanding how something came to be is not necessarily a defense of it, as it IS a clear minded assessment of what happened, how, and WHY. It's EASY (I think) to be critical and say "How could they (this or that)?" when judging some things decades later via the GIFT of 20/20 HINDSIGHT. Though short sighted, clearly the intentions of the crime bill were good, and according to my referenced article, even Sanders, after initially opposing the bill, not only voted FOR it, but (reportedly) later called for tougher penalties for drug possession.

Of course, NOW we know with what disastrous consequences it all played out.

As far as "doing what's in one's heart" that probably could be said of many. Perhaps it's in the "hearts" of Clinton supporters to support HER.

Yes, older people may be more cautious and more connected to our past than to our future. But we're also old enough and PRAGMATIC enough to compromise IF necessary to get SOME of what we want rather than NONE of it at ALL.

Which is why nearly every ONE of us would've GLADLY pulled that lever for Sanders, if HE were the nominee.

 

[tripod]

Well at LEAST you are capable of coming to your senses in realizing how completely illogical NOT voting for Hillary would be.

I didn't want to have to vote for her at all... Hillary Clinton and I agree on maybe 10%, she is a HORRIBLE choice.

I wanted to vote for a candidate who has a net positive favorability rating and a really good trustworthy rating... shoving a candidate down my throat that has a net negative favorability and an untrustworthy rating similar to Trump makes me want to fucking vomit. I will literally be throwing up in my mouth when I vote for Hillary and I will be fucking cringing for 8 years whenever I hear her fucking voice.

She still has months to piss me off even more to the point where I don't vote for her... I expect her to double down on her Republican-Lite message while her supporters run around the internet bullying and shaming people into shutting our mouths because criticisms are just attacks right?

That's what I learned from you b.c.... criticisms are seen as attacks and all criticism is fought with scorched earth tactics, shooting the messenger and the previously mentioned bullying and shaming.

You've been bullying me and shaming me for the last 7 years. Every criticism of Obama was seen as an attack and you fought me as hard as you've ever fought any Republican. You'll do it again. You'll cheerlead for WWIII and continue your bullying and shaming.

I hit you hard because you are a bully and you deserve it. You'll continue this bullying and shaming throughout the next 8 years.

That way Hillary doesn't have to move to the left at all... if the liberals all come out and block the progressive criticisms of Clinton... you'll successfully keep her on the center-right. That process of liberals bullying and shaming progressives is turning the DNC firmly to the right. Hillary is not your Queen... you don't owe your life to protecting her... you don't need to keep her safe from criticism by shooting the messenger... you are destroying the DNC from within. How many Senate seats must we lose? How many seats in the House will we never get back? How many state legislatures must GOP majorities have cemented into place? When will you liberals allow for criticism from the left? By ignoring the progressive left and focusing all of your attention on the GOP... the DNC is fashioning themselves as a mirror image of conservatism. Can you not see how much the DNC has moved to the right? Obama just talked shit about Black Lives Matter... so did the Clintons... can you not see what is happening? Open your fucking eyes and stop your errant ways while we still have a chance at survival... that door is slowly closing and liberals BLEW it with pushing Hillary instead of Bernie.

 

[b.c.]

She still has months to piss me off even more to the point where I don't vote for her... I expect her to double down on her Republican-Lite message while her supporters run around the internet bullying and shaming people into shutting our mouths because criticisms are just attacks right?

That's what I learned from you b.c.... criticisms are seen as attacks and all criticism is fought with scorched earth tactics, shooting the messenger and the previously mentioned bullying and shaming.

Dude, your twist on things never ceases to amaze. Let me see if I've got this right. YOUR attacks (where you call me and anyone who disagrees) an "intellectual lightweight" who doesn't know shit other that what our media TELLS us to think are not actually ATTACKS... they're criticisms, whereas any OBJECTION to it, is an attack. Riiiiight.

You've been bullying me and shaming me for the last 7 years. Every criticism of Obama was seen as an attack and you fought me as hard as you've ever fought any Republican. You'll do it again. You'll cheerlead for WWIII and continue your bullying and shaming.

I hit you hard because you are a bully and you deserve it. You'll continue this bullying and shaming throughout the next 8 years.

Lol. I haven't been "bullying you" for seven years, or "bullying you" at ALL. On the CONTRARY, I've fairly bent over backwards to support SOME of what you say (that which I could) and TRIED to ignore that with which I disagreed.

Perhaps YOU think I "bullied you" back when you supported anti-racist posts I'd made (in the Ferguson thread) by resorting to racist epithets of your OWN, after which I criticized you for it. Why? Because (as I explained) I believe an argument against racism is weakened by resorting to racism.

Perhaps "bullying" because I point out your use of terms like "MONSTER" as applied to Obama, Clinton, etc. when speaking of foreign affairs, but you ignore the s******** people like Putin or Assad have done, both of whose political opponents somehow end up LOCKED up, killed, or they simply "disappear."

Or maybe you think it's "bullying" when I object to attacks... correction... "CRITICISMS" depicting all liberals "this," old black people "that"... broad generalizations of yours that tend to give no one credit for having a thought of their OWN. At least I TRY to differentiate between conservatives, bigots, and/or racists... TRY to use "some" or "most."

So if I seem to "fight you as hard as I've ever fought any Republican," maybe it's because most of YOUR angst seems directed at Liberals... at the very people MOST INCLINED to TRY to see things YOUR WAY. And this is NOT the first time I've TOLD you so.

That way Hillary doesn't have to move to the left at all... if the liberals all come out and block the progressive criticisms of Clinton... you'll successfully keep her on the center-right. That process of liberals bullying and shaming progressives is turning the DNC firmly to the right. Hillary is not your Queen... you don't owe your life to protecting her... you don't need to keep her safe from criticism by shooting the messenger...

Again you illustrate my point. I never said Hillary was "my Queen." If you look back through MY posts (instead of trying to blow smoke up my bum... an attack?) you'll find I've said just as many positive things about Bernie as I have Hillary, if not MORE.

If providing clarification and REBUTTAL to your (or anyone's) distortions and diatrabes, by referencing historical ACCURACY, is "shooting the messenger" then maybe that's the "messenger's" fault.

you are destroying the DNC from within. How many Senate seats must we lose? How many seats in the House will we never get back? How many state legislatures must GOP majorities have cemented into place? When will you liberals allow for criticism from the left? By ignoring the progressive left and focusing all of your attention on the GOP... the DNC is fashioning themselves as a mirror image of conservatism. Can you not see how much the DNC has moved to the right? Obama just talked shit about Black Lives Matter... so did the Clintons... can you not see what is happening? Open your fucking eyes and stop your errant ways while we still have a chance at survival... that door is slowly closing and liberals BLEW it with pushing Hillary instead of Bernie.

There may be some valid points, food for thought in that last bit. Should you BOTHER to look in the Bernie thread, you'll even find where I once stated that perhaps the proper response to the GOP's lurching to the right, is a lurch to the left. And WE'VE credited Sanders with ideas that could move us in that direction.

But, like the GOP, I think the party moves in the direction that the MAJORITY of its constituency moves it. And in both cases, there are people either far right of their respected party, or far left, and even somewhere in between. The point being, not EVERYONE gets EVERYTHING he or she wants, and there is ALWAYS some disagreement from within.

Bottom line: I'll support WHOEVER is the nominee. Cringe when you hear her voice? Enough people stay home, and you're be cringing to the voice of ANOTHER.

 

[b.c.]

^ I also wish to add this observation. You've come in on numerous occasions with blanket criticisms, attacks on people's intelligence, and a whole LOT of other venomous, NASTY stuff. Rants so vicious in nature that I've oft found myself wondering whether fueled by something "other."

Yet you feel I'VE bullied YOU. I don't believe so, but perception is reality for the the individual. And if that's YOUR perception of what I've done, then I offer my APOLOGIES.

 

[tripod]

Dude, your twist on things never ceases to amaze. Let me see if I've got this right. YOUR attacks (where you call me and anyone who disagrees) an "intellectual lightweight" who doesn't know shit other that what our media TELLS us to think are not actually ATTACKS... they're criticisms, whereas any OBJECTION to it, is an attack. Riiiiight.

I am typing about my criticisms of Obama. We've been attacking each other for a while now and you're not an intellectual lightweight... you're definitely of above average intelligence and intellect. You know shit... you know a lot of shit.

Here's how we started fighting:

1). I criticize Obama for his right wing positions
2). You interpret that criticism as an attack on Obama and go after me personally with light bullying/shaming
3). I DO NOT like bullying/shaming even if it is light and done without much malice
4). I respond by upping the firepower so you realize that you've been shooting the messenger. I'm also disheartened that you don't respect me enough to view my criticisms as being helpful and are in full attack mode. I start to lob insults at this point... some real mean shit. Bullies always get hit HARD in my world... I take a bit of pleasure in hurting sadists. People who shoot messengers qualify as sadists in my book... maybe they don't in your world, but they do in mine.
5). You get angry at my insults and we follow each other around the site talking shite at each other ad nauseum.

Did you have to interpret my criticisms of Obama like I was talking shit about your Grandma? Did you have to defend him at every turn even when you took difficult and shaky positions to do so? Was there a reason to shoot the messenger?

That is sooooooo fucking authoritarian-like to come out and voluntarily defend your president despite his errant actions and harmful policies... it's everything you hate about Russia and Putin. I fucking HATE authoritarians. I feel that you aren't one and I am dumbfounded how you toe'd the line and betray your empathy and compassion. Instead, you directed your compassion towards the power structure with an almost sycophant fashion. Obama didn't need you running interference but that was happening with ALL of his diehard supporters. You ran interference at the ground level so the criticisms never even made it out of the watercooler area. You guarded Obama from HELPFUL and IMPORTANT criticism that would have SAVED his legacy and made his presidency a lot more successful.

Lol. I haven't been "bullying you" for seven years, or "bullying you" at ALL. On the CONTRARY, I've fairly bent over backwards to support SOME of what you say (that which I could) and TRIED to ignore that with which I disagreed.

I can see that.

Perhaps YOU think I "bullied you" back when you supported anti-racist posts I'd made (in the Ferguson thread) by resorting to racist epithets of your OWN, after which I criticized you for it. Why? Because (as I explained) I believe an argument against racism is weakened by resorting to racism.

Nope, all of our problems stem from Obama. I understood what you were doing... taking the high road is totally fine with me. evertime you admonished me, I took it in stride... or at least I think I did.

Perhaps "bullying" because I point out your use of terms like "MONSTER" as applied to Obama, Clinton, etc. when speaking of foreign affairs, but you ignore the s******** people like Putin or Assad have done, both of whose political opponents somehow end up LOCKED up, killed, or they simply "disappear."

Assad and Putin are in very different circumstances as Obama and Clinton. BOTH countries have been fighting Wahhabist terrorism for years and you need to realize this. You also need to realize that Russia and Syria have been fucked with and destabilized by the EU/USA something awful. Russia and Syria aren't trying to overthrow and destabilize the USA but the USA is trying to destabilize Russia and Syria... do you see the pattern yet? Putin and Assad have to eat a plate of shit handed to them by the USA/EU every fucking morning after they wake up. What plate of shit has Russia or Syria forced Obama to eat every morning? NONE.

I've said it before, Obama would raze entire neighborhoods if the KKK had military control over half of the country and were a week's march away from DC. Obama would kill thousands to protect our constitution and Republic... ANY leader would do the same.

Russia has to deal with a mountain of Western agents trying to destabilize and overthrow their regime on a daily basis... how is this any way to treat a country? The CIA and Mi6 has dozens of journalists on their payroll writing one destabilizing story after another in hopes of weakening Russian control over their own country... sometimes those journalists wind up dead... that's the world of espionage b.c. It's a win win for the West. Every time a spy gets killed that has been posing as a journalist, the West can trot out it's well worn, "Putin assassinates journalists on a regular basis" line.

I know a LOT about Assad and he is a good man as far as leaders go. He is fighting to maintain his SOCIALIST regime against the globalization (at the end of a bayonet) offered by the IMF and World Bank. He didn't take the deal and when you don't take the deal, you get CRUSHED.

I know you are probably not open to book reccomendations but check out John Perkins' "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" and you'll get a glimpse into the world of globalization, destabilization and regime change as how they relate to each other.

Or maybe you think it's "bullying" when I object to attacks... correction... "CRITICISMS" depicting all liberals "this," old black people "that"... broad generalizations of yours that tend to give no one credit for having a thought of their OWN. At least I TRY to differentiate between conservatives, bigots, and/or racists... TRY to use "some" or "most."

Fair enough.

So if I seem to "fight you as hard as I've ever fought any Republican," maybe it's because most of YOUR angst seems directed at Liberals... at the very people MOST INCLINED to TRY to see things YOUR WAY. And this is NOT the first time I've TOLD you so.

I don't direct my anger towards Republicans. They are a lost cause... it's the liberals I think I can save.

Again you illustrate my point. I never said Hillary was "my Queen." If you look back through MY posts (instead of trying to blow smoke up my bum... an attack?) you'll find I've said just as many positive things about Bernie as I have Hillary, if not MORE.

The queen comment wasn't meant to put words in your mouth or put up a strawman, it was just hyperbole on my behalf.

And you're right about the nice things you've said about Bernie the last month or so... very appreciated.

If providing clarification and REBUTTAL to your (or anyone's) distortions and diatrabes, by referencing historical ACCURACY, is "shooting the messenger" then maybe that's the "messenger's" fault.

Well, those were legitimate criticism I placed at Obama's feet... not distortions or a diatribe. They were thoughtful and 100% accurate... your rebuttals contained shaky logic and caused you to twist yourself into a pretzel at times to take untenable positions just because you were zealously pro-Obama. You did shoot the messenger. When we started to go tit for tat and toe to toe that's when you had more of a sure footing... but on your initial defenses of Obama (that led to protracted arguments), you shot the messenger.

^ I also wish to add this observation. You've come in on numerous occasions with blanket criticisms, attacks on people's intelligence, and a whole LOT of other venomous, NASTY stuff. Rants so vicious in nature that I've oft found myself wondering whether fueled by something "other."

Yet you feel I'VE bullied YOU. I don't believe so, but perception is reality for the the individual. And if that's YOUR perception of what I've done, then I offer my APOLOGIES.

Yep, I apologize for my end too. I think we understand each other and where we are both coming from at this point. All of my spite towards you has drained to ground and I just don't have any nastiness left to put out there. We need each other as allies even though we are better for arguing with each other... we learned muuuuch more than if we just kept our mouths shut. Sometimes things just need to get worked out... it's symbolic and a microcosm of what needs to happen in the Democratic Party. We actually went further than the DNC... we are basically both on the same page now and the DNC is a mess. lolz!

It's too bad we can't publish our debates, they might be useful to others. lolz!

 

[MisterB]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clintons-delegate-lead-would-triple-under-gop-rules/

I thought this to be quite interesting article given all the talk about the delegate process in each party. Enjoy.

 

[b.c.]

I am typing about my criticisms of Obama. We've been attacking each other for a while now and you're not an intellectual lightweight... you're definitely of above average intelligence and intellect. You know shit... you know a lot of shit.

Here's how we started fighting:

1). I criticize Obama for his right wing positions
2). You interpret that criticism as an attack on Obama and go after me personally with light bullying/shaming
3). I DO NOT like bullying/shaming even if it is light and done without much malice
4). I respond by upping the firepower so you realize that you've been shooting the messenger. I'm also disheartened that you don't respect me enough to view my criticisms as being helpful and are in full attack mode. I start to lob insults at this point... some real mean shit. Bullies always get hit HARD in my world... I take a bit of pleasure in hurting sadists. People who shoot messengers qualify as sadists in my book... maybe they don't in your world, but they do in mine.
5). You get angry at my insults and we follow each other around the site talking shite at each other ad nauseum.

Did you have to interpret my criticisms of Obama like I was talking shit about your Grandma? Did you have to defend him at every turn even when you took difficult and shaky positions to do so? Was there a reason to shoot the messenger?

That is sooooooo fucking authoritarian-like to come out and voluntarily defend your president despite his errant actions and harmful policies... it's everything you hate about Russia and Putin. I fucking HATE authoritarians. I feel that you aren't one and I am dumbfounded how you toe'd the line and betray your empathy and compassion. Instead, you directed your compassion towards the power structure with an almost sycophant fashion. Obama didn't need you running interference but that was happening with ALL of his diehard supporters. You ran interference at the ground level so the criticisms never even made it out of the watercooler area. You guarded Obama from HELPFUL and IMPORTANT criticism that would have SAVED his legacy and made his presidency a lot more successful.



I can see that.



Nope, all of our problems stem from Obama. I understood what you were doing... taking the high road is totally fine with me. evertime you admonished me, I took it in stride... or at least I think I did.



Assad and Putin are in very different circumstances as Obama and Clinton. BOTH countries have been fighting Wahhabist terrorism for years and you need to realize this. You also need to realize that Russia and Syria have been fucked with and destabilized by the EU/USA something awful. Russia and Syria aren't trying to overthrow and destabilize the USA but the USA is trying to destabilize Russia and Syria... do you see the pattern yet? Putin and Assad have to eat a plate of shit handed to them by the USA/EU every fucking morning after they wake up. What plate of shit has Russia or Syria forced Obama to eat every morning? NONE.

I've said it before, Obama would raze entire neighborhoods if the KKK had military control over half of the country and were a week's march away from DC. Obama would kill thousands to protect our constitution and Republic... ANY leader would do the same.

Russia has to deal with a mountain of Western agents trying to destabilize and overthrow their regime on a daily basis... how is this any way to treat a country? The CIA and Mi6 has dozens of journalists on their payroll writing one destabilizing story after another in hopes of weakening Russian control over their own country... sometimes those journalists wind up dead... that's the world of espionage b.c. It's a win win for the West. Every time a spy gets killed that has been posing as a journalist, the West can trot out it's well worn, "Putin assassinates journalists on a regular basis" line.

I know a LOT about Assad and he is a good man as far as leaders go. He is fighting to maintain his SOCIALIST regime against the globalization (at the end of a bayonet) offered by the IMF and World Bank. He didn't take the deal and when you don't take the deal, you get CRUSHED.

I know you are probably not open to book reccomendations but check out John Perkins' "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" and you'll get a glimpse into the world of globalization, destabilization and regime change as how they relate to each other.



Fair enough.



I don't direct my anger towards Republicans. They are a lost cause... it's the liberals I think I can save.



The queen comment wasn't meant to put words in your mouth or put up a strawman, it was just hyperbole on my behalf.

And you're right about the nice things you've said about Bernie the last month or so... very appreciated.



Well, those were legitimate criticism I placed at Obama's feet... not distortions or a diatribe. They were thoughtful and 100% accurate... your rebuttals contained shaky logic and caused you to twist yourself into a pretzel at times to take untenable positions just because you were zealously pro-Obama. You did shoot the messenger. When we started to go tit for tat and toe to toe that's when you had more of a sure footing... but on your initial defenses of Obama (that led to protracted arguments), you shot the messenger.



Yep, I apologize for my end too. I think we understand each other and where we are both coming from at this point. All of my spite towards you has drained to ground and I just don't have any nastiness left to put out there. We need each other as allies even though we are better for arguing with each other... we learned muuuuch more than if we just kept our mouths shut. Sometimes things just need to get worked out... it's symbolic and a microcosm of what needs to happen in the Democratic Party. We actually went further than the DNC... we are basically both on the same page now and the DNC is a mess. lolz!

It's too bad we can't publish our debates, they might be useful to others. lolz!

Well, for one, I don't think some of what you've said (or the way you said it) was the result of defending yourself. Some (IF not much) of it was fairly unprovoked. If we're being honest, you must know that to be TRUE.

NOR was it that I interpreted criticism of Obama (or American foreign policy, for that matter) like you were "talking about my Grandma." Fact is I've have on occasion been critical of both as well (TPA for example).

Here's the beef:

The problem I HAD (have) was (is) the INCONGRUITY I found in the BLANKET characterizations you've used to describe (not so much ME, personally, but): "liberals" ("not to be trusted," "we don't know what we stand for," "we are told what to think by our media," "pieces of shit") - certain liberal politicians ("monsters," "assassins")

and how that WHOLE diatribe is in MARKED CONTRAST to the almost carte blanche, blanket defense you seem all too ready to offer on behalf of the leaders of closed regimes (closed to certain freedoms of expression, human rights, and the PRESS). Where's the venom for that?

Sure there is espionage, efforts on the part of VARIOUS governments and agencies to destabilize, maybe not in America, but in Europe - but certainly not EVERY journalist or political opponent who's disappeared, been imprisoned, or murdered in these countries (and there are reportedly hundreds of thousands) was a spy or western operative. Surely you can't actually BELIEVE that.

So I find myself wondering how someone who says he's the seeker of truth and justice can possibly say with any SURITY what the leader of ANY closely CONTROLLED society, with limited access to an unrestricted press, has or HASN'T done, or WOULDN'T do?

What therefore happened is that, in contrast to all you've said of US, it came off as rather BIASED, and I found THAT objectionable.

As you say no spite intended, no nastiness... just an honest REVELATION, if you will, of how it seemed to ME. And like you say, if KNOWING all of that and acknowledging it is something we can learn from, then perhaps the exchange was worth the effort.