Amy Vilela for Nevada's 4th

abandonconflict said:

https://www.ajamubaraka.com/the-yemen-tragedy-and-the-ongoing-crisis-of-the-left-in-the-united-states

He roasts Bernard and the berniebros in this one. I think he is actually a little too harsh but keep in mind that this is a passionate man who has seen battle and has dedicated his life to making the world better for oppressed people and is vehemently opposed to war. The berners basically employed every dirty trick in the book to trash him after it which was far more harsh than he was to them.

Click to expand...

This interests me. Gonna think on it.

There is, however, an objective logic to their uncritical support that they cannot escape and which I believe represents the ongoing crisis of radicalism in the U.S. and Europe.

The Sanders’ campaign, like the Obama phenomenon before it, does not offer a program or strategic direction for addressing the current crisis and contradictions of Western capitalist societies. Instead, it is an expression of the moral and political crisis of the Western radicalism.

This crisis – which is reflective of the loss of direction needed to inform, vision, and fashion a creative program for radical change – is even more acute in the U.S. than Western Europe. Yet, what unites both radical experiences is a tacit commitment to Eurocentrism and normalized white supremacy.

Fogdog said:

This interests me. Gonna think on it.

There is, however, an objective logic to their uncritical support that they cannot escape and which I believe represents the ongoing crisis of radicalism in the U.S. and Europe.

The Sanders’ campaign, like the Obama phenomenon before it, does not offer a program or strategic direction for addressing the current crisis and contradictions of Western capitalist societies. Instead, it is an expression of the moral and political crisis of the Western radicalism.

This crisis – which is reflective of the loss of direction needed to inform, vision, and fashion a creative program for radical change – is even more acute in the U.S. than Western Europe. Yet, what unites both radical experiences is a tacit commitment to Eurocentrism and normalized white supremacy.

Click to expand...

His views on prison abolishment (my error earlier was to refer to his views on prison reform) are worth a read. He even critiques other black activists. He made Cornel West switch from Bernard to Stein.

Another activist I particularly enjoy to follow is Oliver Stone. He's also a Vietnam vet but he is white, volunteered and earned a commission. He doesn't write much but his films speak for themselves. I know him personally as well and he smokes herb and stays in touch with antiwar activists. He made a huge donation to a cause I care about for deported veterans. He's just a solid dude.

abandonconflict said:

It's also because Trump supporters watch Faux Noos.

Click to expand...

There is an element of propaganda pervading all factions now days. Trump supporters have been fed a steady diet of Faux Noose for a little more than a decade. Before that, 20 years or more of right wing talk radio. Mainstream media promotes it's own version of propaganda through omission rather than stupid lies that can be easily uncovered and derided. Still, it makes them villians too.

It's ironic that berners are embracing propaganda and false or fake news as a tool for their own movement.

Question to @Padawanbater2 , do you belong to Facebook sites where you discuss the berner movement and compare news stories with each other?

Have you noticed very many fake news stories over the past year? Like the one where Debra Wasserman Schutlz coordinated a smear campaign against Bernie by calling him an atheist? You know, the story you related to me as to one of the reasons why you call the DNC corrupt? The smear campaign that never happened? It makes me wonder how many other fake, false or deceptive stories you've consumed without checking up on.

I am mocking you about the false news story that was inflated out of an e-mail written by a back office nobody into a false news story. But not really. I am beginning to realize how much confirmation bias, false news stories and biased group think has gone in to your radicalization. Same goes with tty.

abandonconflict said:

His views on prison abolishment (my error earlier was to refer to his views on prison reform) are worth a read. He even critiques other black activists. He made Cornel West switch from Bernard to Stein.

Another activist I particularly enjoy to follow is Oliver Stone. He's also a Vietnam vet but he is white, volunteered and earned a commission. He doesn't write much but his films speak for themselves. I know him personally as well and he smokes herb and stays in touch with antiwar activists. He made a huge donation to a cause I care about for deported veterans. He's just a solid dude.

Click to expand...

Stone lost me with his Kennedy documentary. It was well written and a good movie. I just can't buy the theory. His history of the united states is on Neflix. I've been meaning to have a look. You are the second to rate him well.

Fogdog said:

Stone lost me with his Kennedy documentary. It was well written and a good movie. I just can't buy the theory. His history of the united states is on Neflix. I've been meaning to have a look. You are the second to rate him well.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with all of his views but he's still just an outstanding human being. He was even a bernout but not like these twerps.

st0wandgrow said:

Did you miss the part where I said "that's a good question, I don't know"? I then went on to speculate possibilities.

I threw Bernies religion out there because I've been told many times that religion is an important thing to many African Americans. Mabey some people had a problem with his religion? Many people (not necessarily black people) had a problem with Romney because of his religion. Why would Bernie be any different? You don't think that there weren't any people that passed him over because he's Jewish? Anti-semitism is dead in America? Black people aren't capable of holding any prejudices?

My takeaway from all of this is that a genuine conversation cannot be had about the subject. I hold no animosity towards any group of people. I treat everyone I meet in life with respect, no matter their race/ethnicity/religion/sexuality until they give me a reason to think otherwise. Here I am though being told that I'm racist...by fellow "liberals" none the less.

Are you capable of having an adult conversation without the name calling? You don't talk that way to people in person, so why do it here?

Click to expand...

Take my word that i speak to "people of color" everyday. I can guarantee more than you. They did not dislike Bernie because he is a Jew. That is some rather dumb shit to say. Same as believing all black people eat watermelon and love fried chicken. Stop being ignorant.

Black people aren't capable of being prejudiced? Never? Huh!

How then do you explain the nearly 80% of African Americans that voted AGAINST gay marriage in California?

Take the kid gloves off...

abandonconflict said:

As if saying black people can't decide for themselves what is in their best interests wasn't racist enough, this fucking shit stain goes on to list all the reasons he thinks black people are too prejudiced or bigoted to accept his lord and savior bernard.

WOW, just fucking wow.

Click to expand...

Fogdog said:

@Padawanbater2 I'm directing this post to you and St0.

You are correct in the fallacy of my logic. We did talk about Trump supporters and I do say that they voted in their own best interests. And that only they decide what factors in to their decision. Perhaps you aren't just suffering from a curable bout of racism. I'll expand the population that berners dismiss. Is it fair to say for anybody who didn't vote for Sanders, you dismiss their ability to decide what is in their own best interest?

Click to expand...

You know, I do have to agree with you here. I made a blanket statement surmising what is in people's best interest. Everyone has their own reasons for casting their votes the way they do.

What I should have said was *economic* interests. People that use any type of social assistance, can't afford to send their kids to college, work for less than $15 an hour, live at or near the poverty line, etc did indeed vote against their own ECONOMIC interests if they cast a vote for Hillary instead of Bernie, regardless of their skin color.

They may have had legitimate reasons to do so in their own mind, but that does not take away from the fact that they voted against their own economic interests.

No different than poor rural white voters that consistently vote Republican.

st0wandgrow said:

You know, I do have to agree with you here. I made a blanket statement surmising what is in people's best interest. Everyone has their own reasons for casting their votes the way they do.

What I should have said was *economic* interests. People that use any type of social assistance, can't afford to send their kids to college, work for less than $15 an hour, live at or near the poverty line, etc did indeed vote against their own ECONOMIC interests if they cast a vote for Hillary instead of Bernie, regardless of their skin color.

They may have had legitimate reasons to do so in their own mind, but that does not take away from the fact that they voted against their own economic interests.

No different than poor rural white voters that consistently vote Republican.

Click to expand...

We are closer to an understanding.

The part I don't get is your differentiating economic self interest from what? Freedom to drive while black? The same bias that leads to a cop's unreasonable fear of the black man he pulled over is the one that leads another to not hire him. Social equality is the top of the priority list and economic equality is a subset of that. Or is there a different hierarchy in your mind?

But I think we agree that just because a person votes in their best interests, regardless of the reason, doesn't mean they will be better off. Maybe the choice will lead to them being worse off. The reason why it's important to me to consider everybody as acting in their own interest in the voting booth is not only do I think this is true, it prevents clouding the mind to the underlying reasons for that vote. Once a person is written off as unable to make a good choice, the questioning stops. Nothing can improve that way and so this line of reasoning is unhelpful and not useful.

Fogdog said:

We are closer to an understanding.

The part I don't get is your differentiating economic self interest from what? Freedom to drive while black? The same bias that leads to a cop's unreasonable fear of the black man he pulled over is the one that leads another to not hire him. Social equality is the top of the priority list and economic equality is a subset of that. Or is there a different hierarchy in your mind?

But I think we agree that just because a person votes in their best interests, regardless of the reason, doesn't mean they will be better off. Maybe the choice will lead to them being worse off. The reason why it's important to me to consider everybody as acting in their own interest in the voting booth is not only do I think this is true, it prevents clouding the mind to the underlying reasons for that vote. Once a person is written off as unable to make a good choice, the questioning stops. Nothing can improve that way and so this line of reasoning is unhelpful and not useful.

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure that understand your question...

What I'm saying is that economic interests are not really opinion based. Numbers don't lie. Now if someone made the argument that they did not believe that Bernie was sincere; that he had no intention of enacting the economic policies that he campaigned on, I would accept that as a reasonable answer.

But if the above is not the case, then *not* voting for someone that is proposing economic policies that would benefit you financially would be voting against your own economic interests.

I would say the same about a millionaire voting for anyone other than the Republican candidate. The Republican candidate running on tax cuts for the rich would financially benefit someone pulling in 7 figures annually, so it would be counter intuitive (from an economic standpoint) to not vote for the Republican candidate. They may consider other issues more important to them that they are willing to go against their own economic interests though. That is fine, and is their perogitive, but the facts still remain regarding their economic interests.

st0wandgrow said:

I'm not quite sure that understand your question...

What I'm saying is that economic interests are not really opinion based. Numbers don't lie. Now if someone made the argument that they did not believe that Bernie was sincere; that he had no intention of enacting the economic policies that he campaigned on, I would accept that as a reasonable answer.

But if the above is not the case, then *not* voting for someone that is proposing economic policies that would benefit you financially would be voting against your own economic interests.

I would say the same about a millionaire voting for anyone other than the Republican candidate. The Republican candidate running on tax cuts for the rich would financially benefit someone pulling in 7 figures annually, so it would be counter intuitive (from an economic standpoint) to not vote for the Republican candidate. They may consider other issues more important to them that they are willing to go against their own economic interests though. That is fine, and is their perogitive, but the facts still remain regarding their economic interests.

Click to expand...

Some examples of how social issues are at the root of a problem that can be thought of as financial.

Trump's supporters talk as if by stopping illegal immigration jobs will be plentiful and wages will go up. That is a decision rooted in racial bias. "Illegal immigrant" to them = mexicans and hides behind a false financial self interest.

The argument against SNAP is that people capable of working are gaming the system. "I don't want to pay for somebody to sit on their ass" is the financial argument.

The "cut taxes" argument is a great example where both sides of the argument can show credible numbers to make their case. The numbers aren't lying but somebody is putting forth a falsehood. In this case, the 1% is crapping on everybody else. It's still a social issue in that the oligarchs of the country are writing laws that will make their own group better off.

Fogdog said:

Some examples of how social issues are at the root of a problem that can be thought of as financial.

Trump's supporters talk as if by stopping illegal immigration jobs will be plentiful and wages will go up. That is a decision rooted in racial bias. "Illegal immigrant" to them = mexicans and hides behind a false financial self interest.

The argument against SNAP is that people capable of working are gaming the system. "I don't want to pay for somebody to sit on their ass" is the financial argument.

The "cut taxes" argument is a great example where both sides of the argument can show credible numbers to make their case. The numbers aren't lying but somebody is putting forth a falsehood. In this case, the 1% is crapping on everybody else. It's still a social issue in that the oligarchs of the country are writing laws that will make their own group better off.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with those arguments, nor have I/would I used them to make my case.

I'd be curious to hear if you feel that any of the examples that I have used are rooted in racial bias or anything else other than economics...

- raising minimum wage to $15
- Medicare for all
- Free public college


The other two I mentioned earlier aren't specifically economic issues (ending mass incarceration and legalizing marijuana) so maybe not relevant to the topic.

st0wandgrow said:

I don't agree with those arguments, nor have I/would I used them to make my case.

I'd be curious to hear if you feel that any of the examples that I have used are rooted in racial bias or anything else other than economics...

- raising minimum wage to $15
- Medicare for all
- Free public college


The other two I mentioned earlier aren't specifically economic issues (ending mass incarceration and legalizing marijuana) so maybe not relevant to the topic.

Click to expand...

I figured you'd reject the idea that social equality is at the root of financial issues in the country. I stand by the idea. Not that I'm convinced everything I just said is the best argument.

The problem with treating it all as a financial problem is that it ignores how people make financial choices. It's not all black and white. Many times people cut the ones close to them or in their social group better deals than those outside of it. If it were all just about the money why would that be? Every one of the policies you list fall into that category.

st0wandgrow said:

Black people aren't capable of being prejudiced? Never? Huh!

How then do you explain the nearly 80% of African Americans that voted AGAINST gay marriage in California?

Take the kid gloves off...

Click to expand...

So you confirm that you believe that black people rejected Bernard because they are bigoted against gay jewish people?

Just want to make sure I got this straight. Any other conclusions about black people to share for us?

Fogdog said:

I figured you'd reject the idea that social equality is at the root of financial issues in the country. I stand by the idea. Not that I'm convinced everything I just said is the best argument.

The problem with treating it all as a financial problem is that it ignores how people make financial choices. It's not all black and white. Many times people cut the ones close to them or in their social group better deals than those outside of it. If it were all just about the money why would that be? Every one of the policies you list fall into that category.

Click to expand...

I think social injustices are caused in large part by economic inequality. If you're poor you don't have access to clean drinking water, food, shelter, good schools...you're more likely to be incarcerated because you don't have the financial means to hire a good defense.

If you're rich you won't face many of those social injustices. That's not to say that race doesn't play a role, but I feel it's more of a socioeconomic thing.

abandonconflict said:

So you confirm that you believe that black people rejected Bernard because they are bigoted against gay jewish people?

Just want to make sure I got this straight. Any other conclusions about black people to share for us?

Click to expand...

Deflecting...and that's not what I said.

Are black people not capable of being prejudiced?

st0wandgrow said:

I think social injustices are caused in large part by economic inequality. If you're poor you don't have access to clean drinking water, food, shelter, good schools...you're more likely to be incarcerated because you don't have the financial means to hire a good defense.

If you're rich you won't face many of those social injustices. That's not to say that race doesn't play a role, but I feel it's more of a socioeconomic thing.

Click to expand...

So, then.

The rich wouldn't tolerate poor quality air and water in their neighborhood but will in anothers. How is that not social inequality?

st0wandgrow said:

Deflecting...and that's not what I said.

Are black people not capable of being prejudiced?

Click to expand...

You're the one deflecting. That is exactly what the fuck you said when you were trying to explain away why black people rejected your holy saint Bernard. Now you want to keep asking if black people can be prejudiced. It's all in writing on this thread for all to read ya mouthbreathing fuckwit.

st0wandgrow said:

Deflecting...and that's not what I said.

Are black people not capable of being prejudiced?

Click to expand...

check the definition of racism and compare it to prejudice. There is a big difference.

Here's your little racist rant again.

st0wandgrow said:

That's a good question. I don't know the answer, but if I were to guess I'd say it's a variety of things. A lot of older black voters supported her because of Bill. After all, he was the "first black president". She did particularity well in the south with black votes, so I would say that some of that boiled down to religion. They might have had an issue with Bernie being a Jew. The dnc was trying to push the narrative that Bernie was an atheist, so some may have heard/believed that. I also believe that Bernies support for gays, and gay marriage hurt him in the black community. While Clinton was busy signing the defense of marriage act, and don't ask don't tell, Bernie was voting against those initiatives and standing up for gays before it was popular. The black community (I'm guessing largely due to religious beliefs) is very opposed to gay marriage and gay equality.

Click to expand...