• March 5th&6th Primaries & Caucuses (Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, and Nebraska)
    341 replies, posted
[QUOTE=wystan;49882761]So it's permissible to disregard Sanders literally racist comment? Not the fake "Donald Trump hates Mexicans" racism. Genuine statements about white people that are offensive and wrong.[/QUOTE] People would lose their fucking minds if Trump said only blacks live in ghettos and whites don't know what it's like to be poor. This media bias is unreal. [editline]6th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Zero-Point;49882760]To think all Candidate Y would have to say is "Look, let's focus on the issues we're facing as a country" rather than "Yeah, well, he has a tiny penis!"[/QUOTE] Look at how well that's working out for Kasich.
[QUOTE=Maegord;49882845]It took until next week with all of the other Republicans freaking out and yelling at him to come out and denounce him again before he did anything. If a person's reaction to being supported by the former head of the most infamous white supremacy group in the country isn't anything that isn't, "Fuck no," then that person has absolutely no right being the leader of a country as diverse as the United States. If you don't think asking crowds to personally vow to support your candidacy no matter what isn't creepy and cult of personality-like at all, then you need to look at things again. Elections are intended to be about the individual issues and beliefs. Even if most elections people side simply on party lines, it's healthier as at least a party is composed of multiple people making decisions on that group's policy and direction. Personally pledging to one individual person, regardless of what they do, goes beyond far beyond that and just promotes blind absolute loyalty to one man, and whatever radical decisions that he decides.[/QUOTE] You don't make the rules for how someone should respond and how that affect their legitimacy as POTUS. He disavowed his endorsement, there is really not much more you can ask for, oh it wasn't immediate, how terrible. Asking for a pledge is exactly not blind loyalty, he didn't demand, he didn't force them, he asked them and the people present who wanted to, did. I get that your scared but this is just grasping at straws.
[QUOTE=wystan;49882824]I will concede if you can find me a comment said by Trump that is comparable to what Sanders said. I'm talking a racist comment. A comment regarding illegals or Muslims is unacceptable.[/QUOTE] Why are Mexicans and Muslims not fair game, then? He wants Muslims banned from the country and called Mexicans rapists. That's pretty racist right there.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;49882878]Why are Mexicans and Muslims not fair game, then? He wants Muslims banned from the country and called Mexicans rapists. That's pretty racist right there.[/QUOTE] See, this is how I know you get your information by being spoonfed soundbites from biased news sources. He specifically was talking about portion of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, not a race, not all illegals are Mexican and it would be racist to assume so. He speaks well of Hispanics and legal immigrants. Secondly, Muslims aren't a race. That is why I specified because I knew that is what you would immediately go for.
Why do liberals believe Muslims are a race?
[QUOTE=wystan;49882893]See, this is how I know you get your information by being spoonfed soundbites from biased news sources. He specifically was talking about portion of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, not a race, not all illegals are Mexican and it would be racist to assume so. He speaks well of Hispanics and legal immigrants. Secondly, Muslims aren't a race. That is why I specified because I knew that is what you would immediately go for.[/QUOTE] "When [b]Mexico[/b] sends its people, they're not sending their best," he said. "They're sending people that have lots of problems...they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. [b]They're rapists.[/b] And some, I assume, are good people."
At face value, the comment was a poor choice to make, but after some thought I think it was a fairly strategic one that may give Sanders a net gain - in minority votes, which he desperately needs. I didn't watch the whole debate, just a handful of some small segments, but it appeared that Sanders was going after older minority voters, talking about marching with Dr. King, getting arrested in the 60s fighting for civil rights, etc. That comment in context with the rest makes perfect sense and overall I seriously doubt it will have any kind of negative impact on Sanders. After all, those who come against it risk stumbling into being seen as racists themselves.
[QUOTE=Fat White Lump;49882856]People would lose their fucking minds if Trump said only blacks live in ghettos and whites don't know what it's like to be poor. This media bias is unreal.[/QUOTE] Honestly even as a hardcore Sanders supporter I think the media goes out of their way to make any mention to race Trump makes as racist. The Sanders and Clinton "Were white and like all whites we'll never know what it's like to have those hardships" is just being politically correct since most democratic voters don't want to hear otherwise. Im not too concerned about either candidate practicing political correctness or not as I do not believe it'll have a major impact on policy. However Trumps "Ban all muslims temporarily" is an idiotic idea that would effect many innocent muslims trying to either immigrate here or visit family. If he really thinks that's a solution then he's a bigot. And just because it's not racism, it's still prejudiced agaisnt Islamics.
[QUOTE=Fat White Lump;49882908]Why do liberals believe Muslims are a race?[/QUOTE] Why do conservatives believe Muslims are terrorists?
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49882929]"When [b]Mexico[/b] sends its people, they're not sending their best," he said. "They're sending people that have lots of problems...they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. [b]They're rapists.[/b] And some, I assume, are good people."[/QUOTE] He is talking about the Mexican government facilitating illegal immigration and passing off their problems onto us. He isn't calling all Mexicans druggies and rapists. He is specifically talking about the ones who enter illegally, you know the people who are inherently criminals for being here and continue to be criminals by remaining here.
[QUOTE=SelfishDragon;49882938]Honestly even as a hardcore Sanders supporter I think the media goes out of their way to make any mention to race Trump makes as racist. [/QUOTE] The media isn't going to do anything with this comment by Sanders. Bad publicity is still publicity. The more media coverage Sanders gets, the more people are open to seeing what he's about. And at least CNN doesn't want that to happen. I think Trump's campaign has proven that you don't have to say only the most moral of things to gain supporters. [editline]7th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=wystan;49882944]He is talking about the Mexican government facilitating illegal immigration and passing off their problems onto us. He isn't calling all Mexicans druggies and rapists. He is specifically talking about the ones who enter illegally, you know the people who are inherently criminals for being here and continue to be criminals by remaining here.[/QUOTE] I have never heard of the Mexican government facilitating illegal immigration, this is news to me.
I think it is pretty obvious that he didn't mean that no white person is poor. It was a bit of a speaking blunder, and I'm not defending that, but it is pretty clear that wasn't what he meant. The sentiment sounded to me like white people don't know what it's like to be specifically poor [B]and[/B] black. Again, not defending it. He goofed big. But that isn't what he meant.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49882951]The media isn't going to do anything with this comment by Sanders. Bad publicity is still publicity. The more media coverage Sanders gets, the more people are open to seeing what he's about. And at least CNN doesn't want that to happen. I think Trump's campaign has proven that you don't have to say only the most moral of things to gain supporters. [editline]7th March 2016[/editline] I have never heard of the Mexican government facilitating illegal immigration, this is news to me.[/QUOTE] Yea it's happened. They certainly encourage it. [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/world/americas/a-mexican-manual-for-illegal-migrants-upsets-some-in-us.html?_r=0[/url] [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2315115/Shocking-US-government-leaflet-tells-Mexican-immigrants-collect-food-stamp-benefits-admitting-theyre-country-illegally.html[/url] [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4645782.stm[/url] [url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/03/23/mexican-state-issues-how-to-on-border-jumping.html[/url] [url]http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/01/15/mexican-government-making-it-easier-for-illegal-immigrants-to-take-advantage-of-obamas-executive-amnesty-n1943512[/url]
[QUOTE=wystan;49882944]He is talking about the Mexican government facilitating illegal immigration and passing off their problems onto us. He isn't calling all Mexicans druggies and rapists. He is specifically talking about the ones who enter illegally, you know the people who are inherently criminals for being here and continue to be criminals by remaining here.[/QUOTE] I quoted that to address your claim that he was talking about illegal immigrants in general and not just those from Mexico. If he's going to address their illegally being here, then he should address that and not automatically assume that they're doing all sorts of horrible crimes (especially when it's been shown that for the most part, [url=http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/17/tom-tancredo/tancredo-muffs-illegal-immigrant-murder-stats/]that's a hefty assumption.[/url] At least concerning murder.) And of course he didn't call them all druggies and rapists, he even said himself he [i]assumed some[/I] were good people.
[QUOTE=Maegord;49882845]It took until next week with all of the other Republicans freaking out and yelling at him to come out and denounce him again before he did anything. If a person's reaction to being supported by the former head of the most infamous white supremacy group in the country isn't anything that isn't, "Fuck no," then that person has absolutely no right being the leader of a country as diverse as the United States. If you don't think asking crowds to personally vow to support your candidacy no matter what isn't creepy and cult of personality-like at all, then you need to look at things again. Elections are intended to be about the individual issues and beliefs. Even if most elections people side simply on party lines, it's healthier as at least a party is composed of multiple people making decisions on that group's policy and direction. Personally pledging to one individual person, regardless of what they do, goes beyond far beyond that and just promotes blind absolute loyalty to one man, and whatever radical decisions that he decides.[/QUOTE] Why would he denounce David Duke again when he had already done exactly that [URL="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/donald-trump-doesnt-want-david-duke-endorsement-121784"]many months before[/URL] David Duke started making noises again? When you consider that Trump has always said if the GOP tries anything shady/shifty he'd probably run third party. Consider that the GOP is now, instead of trying to have people vote for whatever candidate they want and winning fair and square, that they are now doing everything they can to try and get a brokered convention by encouraging people to strategically vote against Trump (which would ensure a Clinton/Sanders victory and would shatter the party, although it looks like Cruz isn't playing along because he knows he'd get fucked in a brokered convention too). If they can't do that they're even considering running a republican third party and splitting the vote to give clinton/sanders the presidency (and shattering the party). There was an interview I saw a few days ago where they where considering making a temporary "Conservative Party" if Trump won to "maintain party purity" or some shit. it doesn't seem so weird, at least in my mind for him to want his voting base to vow to vote for him "no matter what" (implying he is thinking of going third party) when you consider what has transpired so far between him, the party, and the other failures that are running against him it sounds more like he's considering a third party run rather than a fourth reich run.
[QUOTE=Cyan_Husky;49882958]I think it is pretty obvious that he didn't mean that no white person is poor. It was a bit of a speaking blunder, and I'm not defending that, but it is pretty clear that wasn't what he meant. The sentiment sounded to me like white people don't know what it's like to be specifically poor [B]and[/B] black. Again, not defending it. He goofed big. But that isn't what he meant.[/QUOTE] I think in context it's pretty clear what he means; I honestly don't think I would have noticed it if I hadn't seen the posts about it here. Further, I think in a lot of places in this country being poor and black is another step down in being poor and white. Not only do you have not nearly enough money, you're constantly being hassled and hit with fines--or jail time--due to systematic racism. So, in a sense, whites in general don't know what it's like to be poor both financially and socially, if that makes sense.
So every Democratic presidential candidate that has been nominated in the past 50 years has won Kansas
[QUOTE=Maegord;49882845]It took until next week with all of the other Republicans freaking out and yelling at him to come out and denounce him again before he did anything. If a person's reaction to being supported by the former head of the most infamous white supremacy group in the country isn't anything that isn't, "Fuck no," then that person has absolutely no right being the leader of a country as diverse as the United States.[/QUOTE] No it didn't. The video he linked was from February 26th, 2016 and Duke endorsed him February 25th. (That's ignoring the fact that he already said he didn't want Duke's endorsement all the way back in fucking August.) The whole fucking controversy is both a mixture of complete [I]lying[/I], and the fact that he stated that he generally doesn't agree with disavowing people who support you. [QUOTE=Maegord;49882845]If you don't think asking crowds to personally vow to support your candidacy no matter what isn't creepy and cult of personality-like at all, then you need to look at things again. Elections are intended to be about the individual issues and beliefs. Even if most elections people side simply on party lines, it's healthier as at least a party is composed of multiple people making decisions on that group's policy and direction. Personally pledging to one individual person, regardless of what they do, goes beyond far beyond that and just promotes blind absolute loyalty to one man, and whatever radical decisions that he decides.[/QUOTE] It's a fucking rally. A rally. A rally for Trump. [IMG]http://puu.sh/nxJgR/1a7a9d40a7.png[/IMG] Rally.
"X supports Y" "But not ALL X supports Y" It feels like both sides of any political argument devolves into generalizations, and then arguments attempting to justify or rebuke the validity of those generalizations. It's how BLM, GG, etc are dismissed so easily. I think it'd be more intellecually honest to attack the ideas directly rather than trying to paint supporters with the brush of outliers of their movem
[QUOTE=DaMastez;49883077]I think in context it's pretty clear what he means; I honestly don't think I would have noticed it if I hadn't seen the posts about it here. Further, I think in a lot of places in this country being poor and black is another step down in being poor and white. Not only do you have not nearly enough money, [B]you're constantly being hassled and hit with fines--or jail time--due to systematic racism.[/B] So, in a sense, whites in general don't know what it's like to be poor both financially and socially, if that makes sense.[/QUOTE] What does the bolded part even mean? Even if you think racism explains the entirety of the statistical disparity between white and black people that doesn't change the fact that the people who are getting fined and arrested are still guilty of the crime. If anything, the argument should be that more white people should be getting fined and arrested, not less black people.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49883328]What does the bolded part even mean? Even if you think racism explains the entirety of the statistical disparity between white and black people that doesn't change the fact that the people who are getting fined and arrested are still guilty of the crime. If anything, the argument should be that more white people should be getting fined and arrested, not less black people.[/QUOTE] Yes and no. On the one hand, you're right. It isn't that blacks--and other minorities--are more likely to commit crime, it's that they are more likely to be in areas which are heavily policed. [quote]"When departments concentrate enforcement efforts, for example, in high-crime areas, those areas are likely to be areas with disproportionate numbers of minority residents," David Sklansky, a law professor at Stanford Law School, said. "That means minority residents of the community are getting policed more intensely than people that live in other neighborhoods that have smaller proportion of minority residents and lower crime rates."[/quote] [url]http://www.vox.com/2015/5/7/8562077/police-racism-implicit-bias[/url] At the same time, if a cop follows you around long enough, they will be able to find some technical reason to pull you over that otherwise wouldn't be enforced and no one cares about.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;49877043]want a health care system based on capitalist ideals and competition[/QUOTE] How can a healthcare system based purely on capitalist ideals provide fair prices? People will pay for medically necessary procedures and drugs regardless of the price, so those prices are to a large extent fabricated by suppliers rather than determined by supply and demand.
[QUOTE=Vilusia;49875693]Every time i hear black vote I cringe. It shouldnt be a thing and sounds racist.[/QUOTE] why
[QUOTE=proch;49884458]why[/QUOTE] because they won't vote for sanders
Looks like Mississippi got called for Hillary on 0%. [url]http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/mississippi[/url] Michigan finish in 50mins. [url]http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/michigan[/url]
[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/michigan[/URL] up slightly in detroit, thats somethin wow!!
god rubio is a fucking mess, i know GOP is sweating that someone anti-establishment is going to get the nomination but jfc let him die already
Sanders needs at least 40 delegates in Michigan to tie delegates for the day with Hillary.
Sanders so far is doing pretty good in Michigan. Not a big lead, but I'm liking it so far. I don't think he's gonna get Michigan, though, unfortunately.
Trump won Mississippi and looks like Michigan is going trump as well.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.