***Official Political Discussion Thread***

red mpls said:
I'll respond to your leftist media points and the voter issues separately (the latter probably tomorrow) for the sake of clarity.

My position wasn't to defend everything every left-oriented publication puts out about Bernie or any of the other Democratic candidates. You make some good points here about how some of this content is problematic in various ways. I would say a few things in response. One is that, as you allude to, left-oriented publications are not politically or ideologically "neutral" and (to my knowledge) generally make no claims to the contrary. Mainstream outlets, on the other hand, tout their ostensibly neutrality, even-handedness, fairness, and "just the facts" approach in ways that are typically completely disingenuous. There are countless pieces of analyses I could post in this respect about Bernie as well as other issues around which the establishment ideology and interests trump facts, honesty, fairness, and common sense. MSNBC's recent coverage of Bernie, nearly the entire mainstream discourse on Medicare for All, and literally the entirety of the coverage on Venezuela over the last year or so immediately come to mind. So we both agree that left-oriented outlets are not "neutral" nor do they make any claims to neutrality. Building on that, my position (which you may or may not agree with) is that the hypocrisy in this regard, then, actually lies with the purportedly neutral mainstream corporate media outlets. But I digress.

The real issue, then, that you point out is that many left-oriented outlets publish pieces that are dishonest and disingenuous about other Democratic candidates and their policies, even given their overt political and ideological commitments. My sense is that you consume more online political media on a daily and weekly basis than me, and probably have a better sense of this than I do. But I would say that I think most leftist outlets consider the entirety of a person's track record and politics and policy positions when they publish things. So does each candidate have some good policy ideas? Sure. Would it be more even-handed and fair for these publications to publish in-depth articles on each of these items (or issues) and do some comparisons across candidates? Probably. I know you'd like to see that, as would I. But I think, for better and worse, most left-oriented outlets take basically the following approach. "Hey, Booker's baby bonds are a decent idea and would improve the lives of millions of young people in our country and help reduce inequality to a modest degree. Compared to the status quo, they would be a great idea. But are they more important than the literal mountain of proposals Bernie and Warren have for addressing inequality? Not even close. Even if Bernie and Warren didn't have any of those proposals for addressing inequality but were still fully committed to Medicare for All, would things be better off with Booker's baby bonds idea and slightly improving upon but leaving mostly intact our byzantine and fundamentally corrupt healthcare system in place, or would things be better off with Medicare for All? Well, pretty clearly the latter. Booker seems like a generally good guy who wants to see people's lives improve, but how dedicated do we think Booker actually is to challenging the economic and political hegemony of the elite, which would be required to accomplish that goal? Well, his track record gives little indication that he even has any notion of what it might take, much less that he's committed to doing so. Bernie's and Warren's records, on the other hand, are rather sterling in this regard. It's pretty clear whose side they're on." This could go on and on. (I'm actually completely baffled as to how you reached the conclusion that Booker is running to Bernie's left on criminal justice, when their respective platforms indicate the exact opposite, and their gun control proposals are largely indistinguishable.)

I don't think this is necessarily disingenuous, nor do I think it's unprincipled. I just think these outlets tend to make presumptions that readers will understand they're operating from something approximating this premise, and they don't necessarily take readers through this process with each article. To some extent, that may be problematic, though it would be difficult to rehash all of this for every article. Again, I think there are some assumptions that folks have some background on the discourse up to that point. That said, I do think it would be helpful for some of these sites to publish well laid out pieces to this effect—to "show their work," as our math teachers used to exhort us to do. But I don't think this dynamic or arrival at the conclusion that "Bernie must win" among left-oriented outlets is the result of disingenuity or lack of principle. You make a reasonable case for why you might feel differently, though.
Click to expand...
-Ideology is not an excuse for blatant cheerleading. I read the National Review, Frum, Sullivan, David French, other conservative writers, and as much Fox News as I can tolerate. All these outlets or writers openly claim to be conservative, and I disagree with much about what they write, but some of those groups debase themselves to push an agenda far more than others. Thinking Frum and Sullivan is making a bad argument because they have blinded by their conservative frame is different than knowing Fox News is just trying to peddle propaganda to help the GOP and Trump. Being a marxist, or some form of leftist does not mean you have to commit yourself to the cause of getting Bernie Sanders elected. Not every leftist I know is a Bernie fan, not every article I read from a leftist is caping for Bernie, but way too many are.

It helps no one, not the left or those outlets readers to misrepresent the views of other candidates, to peddle conjecture about the motives of people they have disagreements about on the left, to make them feel macroeconomics and the levers of power should be ignored, and feed them a constant flow of other BS because you feel it will help Bernie's chances. Sure they don't care to be "neutral" like other outlets, but they do claim to be better. That a reader or listener with get better coverage, better analysis and better discussion because those leftist outlets do not constrain them to the same parameters that the mainstream media does. So I just can't wrap my head around the fact that so many of these outlets on the left act like the end all be all is getting Bernie in power. Like there is more to the left than that. So yeah to me it is unprincipled.

-I didn't want to get into a defense of Cory Booker since I don't plan to vote for him either, but I must point out some things in your argument that I feel mirror the problematic way other candidates are compared to Bernie. Even though your argument is much more cogent that most other

-First Booker is a for M4A, it states it on his website, the one you probably check to make the argument Bernie is left of him on criminal justice.

-Second Baby Bonds is something you seem to be downplaying as modesty, this is not something I would call modest....
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/...s-today-2020-presidential-election-baby-bonds

Baby bonds, a proposal embraced by newly announced presidential candidate Cory Booker, would give newborns savings accounts that would be worth tens of thousands of dollars by age 18. It’s an ambitious plan — and, according to a new study, it would almost entirely close the wealth gap between black and white young people.

Booker’s plan would offer all newborns $1,000, and then add up to $2,000 annually for children in low-income households. By age 18, that could add up to serious money; Booker’s team estimates that for kids from lowest-income families, the nest egg would average some $46,000.

The new analysis by Columbia postdoctoral researcher Naomi Zewde looks at what kind of effect such a nest egg would have on our racial wealth gap. It’s a pretty stark divide: Zewde estimates that in 2015, the median white person aged 18 to 25 had a net worth of $46,000. The median black person, by contrast, had a median net worth of $2,900. That’s a ratio of 15.9: White young people were nearly 16 times richer than their black counterparts.

Zewde looked back and estimated what those 18- to 25-year-olds would have as net worth had a baby bonds policy been law at their birth. In part because her research began before Booker unveiled his specific proposal, the proposal she models is not identical to Booker’s, but both arrive at similar bond values for children depending on their economic background. Because the bond values are similar, the results are a good approximation of what Booker’s bill would do.

The baby bonds’ effect is striking. In a baby bonds scenario, the median white young person would have had a net worth of $79,159. The median black young person would have had a net worth of $57,845. A gap remains, but the ratio has been reduced to 1.4.

In other words, Booker’s proposal comes close to eliminating the racial wealth gap entirely for young adults.
Click to expand...

But it’s been revived in recent years by economists Darrick Hamilton and Sandy Darity, who have argued for baby bonds explicitly as a race-neutral way to close the racial wealth gap. Their proposal differed from Booker’s in important ways (it would base eligibility on parental wealth, not parental income, for one thing) but they have been extremely vocal backers of the Booker plan, with Hamilton telling Slate’s Jordan Weissmann, “The most parsimonious way to address racial wealth inequality is a system of reparations. But if we’re not at the political moment for reparations, then baby bonds are a very good mechanism.”

Zewde’s estimates — which use the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, a survey that has tracked a representative set of American families and their economic outcomes for over 50 years — show that for young adults, a baby bonds plan would nearly achieve a key goal of many reparations proposals: closing the racial wealth gap. That, on its own, will not eliminate economic inequalities grounded in race. While a good share of the wealth gap can be explained by white people having richer parents and bigger inheritances, the gap also tends to increase as people age — that is, the wealth gap between white and black elderly people is greater than between the young adults Booker’s plan targets.
Click to expand...

Since Baby Bonds are not race specific they have the opportunity to do the same with helping young poor white people also. Income inequality has different dimensions in it: racial, gender, geographic, generational. If we one to improve the situation those things must be considered, Baby Bonds is a very good idea because of how it can attack some of the most offensive and ingrained dynamics of it.

-Third I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt but comparing platforms is BS. Bernie's people literally just updated the page (this weekend I believe) for it to have that much detail. A couple weeks ago it looked as short as Booker's...
https://web.archive.org/web/20190708142536/https://berniesanders.com/issues/criminal-justice-reform/
Booker has not updated his since he launched his campaign. So it is completely disingenuous to use the platforms to make the case for Bernie being left of Booker on criminal justice. His website has just been updated more recently.

-Forth, and a reason I think you either didn't check Booker's platform, or tried to slip one by me. Is that this is Bernie's stated gun control platform....

https://berniesanders.com/issues/gun-safety/

However from watching him speak I know he believes in more robust reforms.

This is Booker's way more detailed plans, and are linked on his site....





Booker was one the first in the field to call for gun licensing and talk about gun suicides. I have heard him talk about this issues in the past too. Also if we lengthening the time we are looking at, Bernie's record on guns and NRA got a massive stain on it. So it is hardly what I would call hardly indistinguishable.

-The reason I said Booker is left of Bernie on criminal justice is that he speaks about aspects of mass incarnation that other candidates don't really touch or go into. He speaks about ways to get state prisons to release more people because they are the main driver of mass incineration. And most of all he speaks about giving a break to people convicted of violent crimes as well. Bernie only really got on the criminal justice reform stuff in the fall of 2015, then he preached about it whenever he was campaigning in front of black folk mainly. Yes he support the Democrats push for reforms in the Senate, I have no doubt he believes in the reforms he is pushing, but Hillary spoke about it earlier and more last time around, and Booker been on top of this issue more. This reminds me of when Bernie got mad at Planned Parenthood and women's groups during the last election because they endorsed Hillary, he labeled them apart of the establishment. His argument is that he has all these votes for women's issues, he has a good rating for women's groups, and he talks about women's issues. You know what women's groups and Planned Parenthood said in return? That yes, all those things are true but Hillary has the same great rating been talking about those things longer, and brought bills to the floor, so all things considered she is the pro-women's candidate. And that might true of Booker this time around.

Not to call Booker perfect because their are definitely things I disagree and upset at him for, but on aggregate I just don't buy Bernie is most progressive than him on this issue. Especially since the evidence of this was his aides updated his website this weekend to include all most of the progressive policy proposal being suggested. Many of those I would bet money Booker and brought policy to the floor about, in past years or has spoken about a lot.

But instead of giving kudos to Booker (or other candidates) for pushing the discussion on certain issues, what I see is that these discussion are downplayed and the focus must be on M4A ...UNTIL Bernie endorses them too and then the discussion becomes on how great Bernie is because he is so progressive on these issues. And this is not just in media, the DSA has had blowups because the leadership of some chapters feel other issues should be put on the back burner for M4A.

-Fifth the issue of shortening and lengthening the time period we are looking at to make the argument work. So Bernie is better than Booker if you look at their platforms today, ignoring all the years and advocacy that came after. Yet you trust Bernie and Warren more to follow through on such things, because of the long track record. So we ignore the past in one instance, then use as the determining factor in another. So Bernie's negative he did the past (which I have listed many and feel the no need to repeat) often gets handwave by his supporters, yet the past of others disqualifying them. This is a rhetorical trick I see used often with advocacy of Bernie. He is the guy for the job because he has been so consistent over a long period of time, but once I or others bring up negatives in the time period, the time period is then shortened to excluded the negative. If someone says "Hey so-and-so candidate has a great platform", the Bernie supporting left brings up the past as a means to disqualify them. For example Bernie and Harris are solid on criminal justice now, and both done dirt to varying levels in the past. Yet one is seen as the progressive savior and one is "a cop".

I am all for checking someone's record. I am not for it being applied opportunistically just for one candidate. Like even around healthcare, it was wild to me didn't make the argument that simply put M4A was better than Clinton's ACA fix. Instead they tried to make the argument that Bernie's record on fighting for health insurance for people is stronger than Hillary so he should be trusted over her. Which anyone that knows recent political history would know is BS. Clinton's record on the issue was stronger than Sanders.

In summary, we are having a good faith discussion here, however in your advocacy for Sanders you happen to choose one of the many people I pointed out was being given a unfair chance by the left, then proceed to leave out his position on healthcare, downplay effects of one of his plans, use lousy evidence (their platforms) to argue Sanders is better. Famb, even you, in good faith, was kinda unfair to Booker. You see my frustration when it comes to discourse about Sanders? Now now imagine how problematic the situation becomes when other folk are committed to make a bad faith argument in favor of Sanders; and those people have tons of listeners, most that will what is being here at face value.
 
Last edited:
RustyShackleford said:
-Ideology is not an excuse for blatant cheerleading. I read the National Review, Frum, Sullivan, David French, other conservative writers, and as much Fox News as I can tolerate. All these outlets or writers openly claim to be conservative, and I disagree with much about what they write, but some of those groups debase themselves to push an agenda far more than others. Thinking Frum and Sullivan is making a bad argument because they have blinded by their conservative frame is different than knowing Fox News is just trying to peddle propaganda to help the GOP and Trump. Being a marxist, or some form of leftist does not mean you have to commit yourself to the cause of getting Bernie Sanders elected. Not every leftist I know is a Bernie fan, not every article I read from a leftist is caping for Bernie, but way too many are.

It helps no one, not the left or those outlets readers to misrepresent the views of other candidates, to peddle conjecture about the motives of people they have disagreements about on the left, to make them feel macroeconomics and the levers of power should be ignored, and feed them a constant flow of other BS because you feel it will help Bernie's chances. Sure they don't care to be "neutral" like other outlets, but they do claim to be better. That a reader or listener with get better coverage, better analysis and better discussion because those leftist outlets do not constrain them to the same parameters that the mainstream media does. So I just can't wrap my head around the fact that so many of these outlets on the left act like the end all be all is getting Bernie in power. Like there is more to the left than that. So yeah to me it is unprincipled.

-I didn't want to get into a defense of Cory Booker since I don't plan to vote for him either, but I must point out some things in your argument that I feel mirror the problematic way other candidates are compared to Bernie. Even though your argument is much more cogent that most other

-First Booker is a for M4A, it states it on his website, the one you probably check to make the argument Bernie is left of him on criminal justice.

-Second Baby Bonds is something you seem to be downplaying as modesty, this is not something I would call modest....
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/...s-today-2020-presidential-election-baby-bonds





Since Baby Bonds are not race specific they have the opportunity to do the same with helping young poor white people also. Income inequality has different dimensions in it: racial, gender, geographic, generational. If we one to improve the situation those things must be considered, Baby Bonds is a very good idea because of how it can attack some of the most offensive and ingrained dynamics of it.

-Third I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt but comparing platforms is BS. Bernie's people literally just updated the page (this weekend I believe) for it to have that much detail. A couple weeks ago it looked as short as Booker's...
https://web.archive.org/web/20190708142536/https://berniesanders.com/issues/criminal-justice-reform/
Booker has not updated his since he launched his campaign. So it is completely disingenuous to use the platforms to make the case for Bernie being left of Booker on criminal justice. His website has just been updated more recently.

-Forth, and a reason I think you either didn't check Booker's platform, or tried to slip one by me. Is that this is Bernie's stated gun control platform....

https://berniesanders.com/issues/gun-safety/

However from watching him speak I know he believes in more robust reforms.

This is Booker's way more detailed plans, and are linked on his site....





Booker was one the first in the field to call for gun licensing and talk about gun suicides. I have heard him talk about this issues in the past too. Also if we lengthening the time we are looking at, Bernie's record on guns and NRA got a massive stain on it. So it is hardly what I would call hardly indistinguishable.

-The reason I said Booker is left of Bernie on criminal justice is that he speaks about aspects of mass incarnation that other candidates don't really touch or go into. He speaks about ways to get state prisons to release more people because they are the main driver of mass incineration. And most of all he speaks about giving a break to people convicted of violent crimes as well. Bernie only really got on the criminal justice reform stuff in the fall of 2015, then he preached about it whenever he was campaigning in front of black folk mainly. Yes he support the Democrats push for reforms in the Senate, I have no doubt he believes in the reforms he is pushing, but Hillary spoke about it earlier and more last time around, and Booker been on top of this issue more. This reminds me of when Bernie got mad at Planned Parenthood and women's groups during the last election because they endorsed Hillary, he labeled them apart of the establishment. His argument is that he has all these votes for women's issues, he has a good rating for women's groups, and he talks about women's issues. You know what women's groups and Planned Parenthood said in return? That yes, all those things are true but Hillary has the same great rating been talking about those things longer, and brought bills to the floor, so all things considered she is the pro-women's candidate. And that might true of Booker this time around.

Not to call Booker perfect because their are definitely things I disagree and upset at him for, but on aggregate I just don't buy Bernie is most progressive than him on this issue. Especially since the evidence of this was his aides updated his website this weekend to include all most of the progressive policy proposal being suggested. Many of those I would bet money Booker and brought policy to the floor about, in past years or has spoken about a lot.

But instead of giving kudos to Booker (or other candidates) for pushing the discussion on certain issues, what I see is that these discussion are downplayed and the focus must be on M4A ...UNTIL Bernie endorses them too and then the discussion becomes on how great Bernie is because he is so progressive on these issues. And this is not just in media, the DSA has had blowups because the leadership of some chapters feel other issues should be put on the back burner for M4A.

-Fifth the issue of shortening and lengthening the time period we are looking at to make the argument work. So Bernie is better than Booker if you look at their platforms today, ignoring all the years and advocacy that came after. Yet you trust Bernie and Warren more to follow through on such things, because of the long track record. So we ignore the past in one instance, then use as the determining factor in another. So Bernie's negative he did the past (which I have listed many and feel the no need to repeat) often gets handwave by his supporters, yet the past of others disqualifying them. This is a rhetorical trick I see used often with advocacy of Bernie. He is the guy for the job because he has been so consistent over a long period of time, but once I or others bring up negatives in the time period, the time period is then shortened to excluded the negative. If someone says "Hey so-and-so candidate has a great platform", the Bernie supporting left brings up the past as a means to disqualify them. For example Bernie and Harris are solid on criminal justice now, and both done dirt to varying levels in the past. Yet one is seen as the progressive savior and one is "a cop".

I am all for checking someone's record. I am not for it being applied opportunistically just for one candidate. Like even around healthcare, it was wild to me didn't make the argument that simply put M4A was better than Clinton's ACA fix. Instead they tried to make the argument that Bernie's record on fighting for health insurance for people is stronger than Hillary so he should be trusted over her. Which anyone that knows recent political history would know is BS. Clinton's record on the issue was stronger than Sanders.

In summary, we are having a good faith discussion here, however in your advocacy for Sanders you happen to choose one of the many people I pointed out was being given a unfair chance by the left, then proceed to leave out his position on healthcare, downplay effects of one of his plans, use lousy evidence (their platforms) to argue Sanders is better. Famb, even you, in supposed good faith, was unfair to Booker. You see my frustration when it comes to discourse about Sanders? Now I sincerely believed your argument was in good faith, now imagine how problematic the situation becomes when other folk are committed to make a bad faith argument in favor of Sanders; and those people have tons of listeners, most that will what is being here at face value.
Click to expand...


So the bottom line is that Trump is our ONLY HOPE? THAT'S WHAT I GATHERED FROM THE CONJECTURE AND INNUENDO. Primetime, Obummer's Friend, Mayor Clown, Lizzie Fraud and all the other clowns have no chance. Word to VINNY MAC.
 
gry60 said:
I read it. You'd think Morton Salt employees were posting in the comments, judging by the amount of butthurt from the usual suspects.
Click to expand...

I dig this it was really dope.

But, i wish the story of the native tribes of the americas had something similar to this. Their history is truly forgotten/severely underrepresented.

And history shows the way colonialism worked, thier history is directly tied to slavery
 
RustyShackleford RustyShackleford Fam, what "alt-facts" did I employ in my post? How was I unfair to Booker? In framing his baby bonds as having a modest impact on inequality? Because that's exactly that they would have if our definition of equality goes beyond the elimination of disparities—that is, if we are concerned with "vertical" inequality, or the incredible concentration of wealth among the elite and the impoverishment of the masses, as opposed to "horizontal" inequality, or relative parity between ascriptive identity groups within said regime of extraordinary inequality. So, yes, a "modest" effect on inequality is an appropriate characterization in my eyes. Do I think it's a generally good idea? Yes. Would I still support it? Yes. But I'm not going to get carried away overstating its impact. (Consider, for example, that the one-time sum of money is designed to pay for things like college—which you wouldn't even need if public college were free. But I digress.)

As for M4A, Booker did not stand behind M4A at the debates, and his message on what his actual vision for healthcare is came off as muddled and confused. So I really have no reason to believe he's committed to M4A, and I certainly don't think he would fight for it given a more moderate alternative that keeps most of our broken healthcare system in place. Do you believe he's committed to and will do everything he can to fight for M4A?

I don't know the specific evolution of any candidate's platform. I checked them today because you posted that Booker was running left of Bernie on criminal justice and gun policy. So please pump the breaks with whatever insinuation you were making. But that said, I literally can't believe you just typed "comparing platforms is BS." You, of all people on this website?! Bro, you used the "it was in her platform" line countless times as a response to people criticizing Hillary both during the primary and general as well as after Trump won and used that criteria to dismiss people who said they didn't believe Hillary was sincere or trust that she was committed to improving the lives of various marginalized groups. Aside from that, Bernie has been a vocal critic of our current approach to policing and incarceration for decades. Decades!! Since even before **** fully hit the fan in the mid-1990s policy-wise. Bernie's not perfect but, crime bill aside, he's been good and consistent on criminal justice issues from everything I have seen and read. Do you think Booker somehow wouldn't have voted for the crime bill if he was in Congress in the 1990s? I'm not knocking Booker on this issue, but I am saying Bernie is solid here as well, well beyond just his most recent platform update. Also, to basically throw Bernie and Kamala together on criminal justice seems pretty disingenuous to me.

I did not see the links in Booker's platform for the gun issues. I gave them a quick read. What's on the site itself is comparable to what Bernie has. The links have much more. I will concede that. I don't have problem giving Booker or whoever credit where it's due. It is here.

I don't know one leftist outlet that believes the "end all be all is getting Bernie in power." In fact, they generally argue that electoral politics is a decidedly secondary concern to building a mass movement capable of extracting demands from whoever happens to be holding political power and from the corporate overlords that transcend political regimes and often dictate the horizon of political possibilities. So I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about here. Do some of these sites publish some questionable content caping for Bernie and/or slamming other Democratic candidates? Sure. My point wasn't to defend everything Jacobin, Current Affairs, Common Dreams, etc. publishes. But I feel like you're engaging in some of the same line of criticism you're making with respect to some of these outlets in painting with such a broad and definitive brush. You don't like it when you feel like they do it to non-Bernie (and maybe non-Warren) Democratic candidates. Well, I'm having a similar reaction when you characterize leftist outlets as publishing "a constant flow of BS" to disingenuously cape for Bernie...
 
red mpls said:
RustyShackleford RustyShackleford Fam, what "alt-facts" did I employ in my post? How was I unfair to Booker? In framing his baby bonds as having a modest impact on inequality? Because that's exactly that they would have if our definition of equality goes beyond the elimination of disparities—that is, if we are concerned with "vertical" inequality, or the incredible concentration of wealth among the elite and the impoverishment of the masses, as opposed to "horizontal" inequality, or relative parity between ascriptive identity groups within said regime of extraordinary inequality. So, yes, a "modest" effect on inequality is an appropriate characterization in my eyes. Do I think it's a generally good idea? Yes. Would I still support it? Yes. But I'm not going to get carried away overstating its impact. (Consider, for example, that the one-time sum of money is designed to pay for things like college—which you wouldn't even need if public college were free. But I digress.)

As for M4A, Booker did not stand behind M4A at the debates, and his message on what his actual vision for healthcare is came off as muddled and confused. So I really have no reason to believe he's committed to M4A, and I certainly don't think he would fight for it given a more moderate alternative that keeps most of our broken healthcare system in place. Do you believe he's committed to and will do everything he can to fight for M4A?

I don't know the specific evolution of any candidate's platform. I checked them today because you posted that Booker was running left of Bernie on criminal justice and gun policy. So please pump the breaks with whatever insinuation you were making. But that said, I literally can't believe you just typed "comparing platforms is BS." You, of all people on this website?! Bro, you used the "it was in her platform" line countless times as a response to people criticizing Hillary both during the primary and general as well as after Trump won and used that criteria to dismiss people who said they didn't believe Hillary was sincere or trust that she was committed to improving the lives of various marginalized groups. Aside from that, Bernie has been a vocal critic of our current approach to policing and incarceration for decades. Decades!! Since even before **** fully hit the fan in the mid-1990s policy-wise. Bernie's not perfect but, crime bill aside, he's been good and consistent on criminal justice issues from everything I have seen and read. Do you think Booker somehow wouldn't have voted for the crime bill if he was in Congress in the 1990s? I'm not knocking Booker on this issue, but I am saying Bernie is solid here as well, well beyond just his most recent platform update. Also, to basically throw Bernie and Kamala together on criminal justice seems pretty disingenuous to me.

I did not see the links in Booker's platform for the gun issues. I gave them a quick read. What's on the site itself is comparable to what Bernie has. The links have much more. I will concede that. I don't have problem giving Booker or whoever credit where it's due. It is here.

I don't know one leftist outlet that believes the "end all be all is getting Bernie in power." In fact, they generally argue that electoral politics is a decidedly secondary concern to building a mass movement capable of extracting demands from whoever happens to be holding political power and from the corporate overlords that transcend political regimes and often dictate the horizon of political possibilities. So I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about here. Do some of these sites publish some questionable content caping for Bernie and/or slamming other Democratic candidates? Sure. My point wasn't to defend everything Jacobin, Current Affairs, Common Dreams, etc. publishes. But I feel like you're engaging in some of the same line of criticism you're making with respect to some of these outlets in painting with such a broad and definitive brush. You don't like it when you feel like they do it to non-Bernie (and maybe non-Warren) Democratic candidates. Well, I'm having a similar reaction when you characterize leftist outlets as publishing "a constant flow of BS" to disingenuously cape for Bernie...
Click to expand...
-The alt-facts you peddled were the ones I outlined about Booker. From reading your other post someone would think Booker didn't support M4A, Bernie has more robust policy positions that Booker, and Bernie and Booker's gun control stances were the same. Like I pointed out, none of those things are true.

-Baby Bonds are not race specific, it will attack vertical inequality too, in fact how it closes the gap. So I have no idea where how this is your criticism of it. It doesn't close the gap by specifically giving more to black kids, it is because the lower classes and poor are disproportionately black and brown. So in a race neutral program like this the biggest benefactors are minorities. This is exactly your argument to how minorities will benefit from universal programs like M4A. It just puts that affect on steroids. This will be a boon for poor white kids too.

And to me frank, it is wild to me that there is a plan out there that might help close the racial wealth gap, something that only exist because of this countries vile history of racism, and it gets downplayed as "modest".

Secondly M4A in not some inequality panacea, in fact since it doesn't tackle healthcare access it is destined to have inequalities persist. You want to have a debate on healthcare, I am game for that. Also black kids and poor kids in Red States might still need baby bonds because both Warren and Sanders plans are administered by state governments. So all those deep south Red States get to choose if they do it or not. I am sure a state like Alabama or Mississippi will chose to give all those poor kids, disportionately black, free tuition. Once SCOTUS gave the state and option on the Medicaid expansion, they are chose to do the right thing, right?

So the plans you mentioned have holes in them too in practice. So you might want to reconsider what you consider "modest".

-I am not saying you can't use platforms, I am saying in this situation that you can't use them as a deciding factor because the only reason Bernie looks better is because it was updated today. If we had this discussion last week then your argument would not work. By all means use the platform to argue Bernie support criminal justice reform (don't think I made the claim he didn't, like many of the people that claimed something otherwise of Hillary), doesn't mean he is left of Booker. I said I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. Your provided evidence and I fact checked it, was I not suppose to do that? If you don't know the specific evolution of a candidates positions, then why make the claim Bernie is left of Booker on criminal justice. So who is it not unfair to Booker to not mention he publicly has support M4A (he was a co-sponsor on Bernie's bill mind you), or not give a accurate accounting of his views on criminal justice reform comparatively for Bernie, or gun safety. So sorry, I didn't mean to offended, I said I think you were acting in good faith multiple times, but I think it is fair game to point out the things I did.

Of course, putting aside the time he knowing voted for that thing he knew would hurt black communities even though he didn't have too, kinda ignored the problem in this home state, on aggregate Bernie has been good on criminal justice. There.

Also I said Harris and Sanders both are solid now and have dirt in their past. I don't see how it is disingenuous to make that argument. You admit Bernie has dust in the past you like many others just like to "put it aside", and on aggregate you think Harris's actions are more egregious. That's fine

And now I'm suppose to consider a bunch of what ifs in regard to Booker? I don't know how hard Cory Booker will fight, I don't have a time machine to know if he would have voted for the Crime Bill. I mean I have had multiple post on NT talking about the complicity for the crime bill stretches far beyond where most lay the blame. Tough on crime policies had support in black communities too, Booker has had bad positions in the past, so yes I could imagine he could have voted for it. But he wasn't a member of Congress then he was a 25 year old kid, Bernie is the one who voted for it.

I have to take him at his word. Same way I have to take Bernie at his word on **** too. Like I have to trust him when he says his criminal bill vote was for the Violence Against Act, instead of you know, the fact it probably played well in lilly white Vermont. Just like his votes against gun control did. I have take his word he is for regulating the financial industry even though he never explained why he voted for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. I have to trust him to improve in the areas he is lacking. I do trust he will follow through on most, backtrack on others, and flip flop on a couple. Like any other politician, he is not that special to me. Neither is Booker.

And for what it is worth I not a Booker supporter, if anything I think he would make a better Attorney General than president.

If you trust Bernie more, well cool, do you. But for stuff like M4A I know the reality is that we will get what the last vote in the Senate wants. So what is Bernie gonna do if the Senate pass Bidencare, threaten a veto? It has been years at these dudes don't even know how to fund it, I really don't care all that much if he will be a cheerleader for a particular plan because in the end that alone will not clear the necessary hurdles, and Sanders has given zero thought to how it will. There is a very real possibility the M4A fight goes as bad as Hillarycare because of Bernie's incompetence.

The closest time I see "Primecare" coming close to having the support to pass, a ton of political and structural changes have to take place and by that time Bernie will not be president and probably be dead. So given I don't regard M4A in such high regard as you do, and I know we will not get it anytime soon, I don't know what is the point of pondering how hard Booker will fight for it. But to answer you question if I had to guess Bernie would fight for it more because he is the one making promises to deliver, and there will be consequences if he backtracks.

And I can say some of these outlets publish good work that goes beyond the Bernie caping, I have no issue saying that. I am speaking specifically of their discourse on presidential politics.
 
Last edited:
itsaboutthattime said:
Click to expand...


wow.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

shaboozy
What's your NT routine?
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
ogbobbyjohnson773
ogbobbyjohnson773
chezzer10
***MLB FEET, EQUIPMENT, AND UNIFORMS 2024***NEW THREAD
2 3
Replies
57
Views
6K
mp23
mp23
datznasty
Official Niketalk Custom Basketball Shorts Thread
Replies
5
Views
1K
MakeNTGreatAgain
MakeNTGreatAgain

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom