- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 3291 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [First 100 posts][ Reply ]
76 posts omitted. First 100 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 89143
This man is going to be the next President of the United States, and it's going to be fucking awesome.
|>>|| No. 89144
>it's going to be fucking awesome.
Kill yourself. He's a dumb, racist, joke, as are you by association.
|>>|| No. 89147
The man has had an honest to god heart attack. How could any sane person allow him to take the office of President, either from a personal safety point of view or a good of the nation point of view. We've all seen the before and after pictures of healthy men in their 40s right? Their hair becomes grey and they just look fucking tired after 4/8 years. What do you think the same level of stress will do to an 80 year old who recently had a heart attack?
If Sanders gets it I would be very interested in his VP, as it's his VP who will be the President within a year of the inauguration.
|>>|| No. 89148
You know, I've been watching the situation with some interest, and I think you might just be right. He's pretty "based" as the kids these days say, for a Yank politician. He's about as left leaning as someone like Tony Blair, but by American standards that means he might as well be Lenin, and it's been hilarious watching both sides of the entrenched establishment piss themselves over him.
They've tried all the same smears against him they did against Corbyn here, even the anti-Semite one, only this time none of them have stuck. So now we're getting to see the mask slip off, as these people make frothy mouthed tweets about how black voters are supporting the wrong candidate, and how dare they! After everything we've done for them!
|>>|| No. 89149
Don't you think he's a bit aggressive in the debates? Not in his content, it's his overall demeanour. He reminds me of an angry grandfather with dribble on his bib shouting about how free breadsticks implies no limit on the amount you can put in your pockets in a restaurant.
|>>|| No. 89150
Does this mean we'll get more Larry David sketches?
Trump is going to get reelected and you know it. I wanted to see Yang try.
>They've tried all the same smears against him they did against Corbyn here, even the anti-Semite one, only this time none of them have stuck. So now we're getting to see the mask slip off, as these people make frothy mouthed tweets about how black voters are supporting the wrong candidate, and how dare they! After everything we've done for them!
Well, as of this morning he's being savaged on his budget plans.
|>>|| No. 89151
Budget plans are usually the best pseudo intellectual attack in politics. Pundits sound like they are clever and yet can claim what they want about a budget 'not working' or 'adding up' and the soundbite is repeated. And no one actually knows what the truth is or cares enough to properly listen to the counter argument because explaining a theoretical budget is actually a very dry topic that no one actually really cares enough about the answer to, to get it picked up by the media.
It also only trips up the respectable candidates because the popularists actually don't give a shit they will just give a nod and a wink and promise the world.
|>>|| No. 89152
This is the weakest argument that continuously crops up online when Americans talk about voting. There is genuinely a concerted effort to blackout Sanders in the states and to slate him everywhere online and I believe this is part of it. Look at the posts in this small thread already.
Bernie is the only candidate I've seen who can actually explain his entire plans and where money will be coming from for other things, and the only one I have seen stay consistent on what his beliefs are and what he's fighting for for practically his whole life, on top of that all the guy is fighting for is essentially what the majority of all first world countries currently have, how is that in any way extreme? Compared to all the other candidates, and to the current president of the US, I can't see any sound reasoning to not vote for this man when he's probably America's only real chance for change, and that's why he's such a threat.
|>>|| No. 89153
Having a heart attack multiples the chance and danger of having another heart attack my an incredible amount. Stress causes heart attacks. The office of President of the USA is widely regarded as being the most stressful job in the world.
How many heart attacks can any single individual survive? 2? 3? 4 is probably pushing it. You can't handwave away these simple biological facts by implying I'm being paid by Bloomberg for this post.
You extol the virtues of Sanders which is lovely, I'm glad you have a cause to keep you warm at night. Now what can you tell me about the man or woman he will choose as his Vice President who will be President in a couple of years if he wins the Presidency?
Put it in the usual account please lads.
|>>|| No. 89154
Nobody genuinely gives a shit about the presidents health, mate, nobody. It's used as a token attack point every bloody election. If it mattered at all, the current president wouldn't be there.
|>>|| No. 89155
I must confess I give no shits if Sanders dies either, my point is not one of compassion, my point is when a President dies the office is passed to their Vice President. Statistically a vote for Sanders for President is a vote for Sanders' Vice President for President. When we talk about Trump we're not talking about that level of statistical probability, with Sanders he's very much at the "we should spend more time with granddad while we can" phase of his life.
|>>|| No. 89156
>The office of President of the USA is widely regarded as being the most stressful job in the world.
By who? Americans? It's a load of jingoistic wank. Being a subsistence farmer in a place where there are still loads of landmines is probably a lot more stressful. Or being a diver working on oil platforms or any sort of frontline military role, doctors without borders in an ER role, I could go on. Presidents don't come back from their presidency with PTSD.
|>>|| No. 89157
His opponents are really scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of counter-arguments, because all the usual underhanded tactics aren't working. This one's a gem:
>Elizabeth Warren Is Running an Unapologetically Intersectional Campaign
>As much as I want Medicare for All and for the rich to pay higher taxes, that won’t cure sexism. Warren gets that.
It's all very emperor's new clothes in the States right now.
|>>|| No. 89158
I think those jobs are a different kid of stressful. While I've never dissected anyone in those positions, or a President for that matter, if I were to put money on which of those jobs causes more stress over a 4 year period my money would be on the total volume of stress hormones released being higher in the President than those other jobs. What you said is irrelevant anyway, here's the toll the Presidency took on Bush, which coupled with Obama should show you just how stressful the job is.
Even if you're right and a landmine farmer in Mogadishu is more stressed than the President of the USA the fact is the level of stress the office would place on Bernie would likely kill him in his first term. So I ask again, everything you said about Sanders is lovely, and were I
not being paid by Bloomberg an American I might consider voting for him based on your magnificent review of his character, but I'll need a similar review of his potential Vice Presidents, because one of those is likely to be President from 2022 if Bernie manages to win.
|>>|| No. 89159
It's not irrelevant, you're comparing studio style, touched up, promotional images of men with cherry-picked, poorly lit candid shots of them years later. You're one step away from posting pictures of Alex Jones next to Bill Hicks all covered with red lines and circles to demonstrate that they're the same person.
|>>|| No. 89160
Your posts are coming off very disingenuous when you seem to only be basing this on how grey someones hair gets, and asking about something nobody can possibly know yet. Yes it's a stressful job but this still reeks of the flimsiest reason to not encourage change in a country. Why aren't you worried about the other candidates health?
Besides all that, even if he is president for a short time I'd be willing to bet he can create a lot more positive change within that time than any other candidate. But it's much easier to just tow the line isn't it.
|>>|| No. 89163
I thought it was safe to discuss ideas here and not worry about how it might affect the results of the elections because there's only 3 of us. Your rampant Whataboutism doesn't actually engage with the content of my posts at all and neither have the previous however many, so I'm going to stop. I'm not sure why you and others are so attached to this man or the US Presidency in general but I'm not going to accuse you of being paid to be like you are, I just think you're very caught up in something for very little reason.
Check out this picture for more details.
|>>|| No. 89164
There's reason to be invested (or at least interested) in Sanders because electing a leader to the US presidency who can credibly be called socialist represents such a monumental shift in the overton window that it would force media and academics around the world to reconsider what has long been considered the political, economic consensus of our times. It signals a realistic possibility that we might at last be moving out of the era started with Reagan and Thatcher 40 years ago.
There were a lot of idiots who thought it would be the end of the world if Trump got elected, and what do you know. We're still here. But you can't just pretend it's not even slightly worthwhile keeping up with what's going on in worldwide politics, or the implications of it.
|>>|| No. 89165
I agree, I just wanted to know what you/he thought about Sanders' potential VPs given that the VP will likely be the P in 2022 if Sanders wins. None of you cunts wanted to answer me so I'm not going to indulge your narcissistic wank fantasy of shitting in Thatcher's mouth while Ed Miliband duets Red Flag with the ghost of Karl Marx. Red Ed keeps glitching and repeating the chorus word for word.
|>>|| No. 89166
In my defense that's because I don't know or really care who his VP is, for the time being I'm just enjoying the minor shitstorm coming from establishment Democrats and their internet minions.
|>>|| No. 89167
Ohhh, you're all lurking that baseball girl on Twitter too then?
|>>|| No. 89169
That's because he doesn't "debate" in the debates, he just shuts down whatever he's being confronted with as quickly as possible and pivots to the same animated stump speech he's been giving for decades. It works because people like his stump speech.
I don't think Americans really care about that shit. Bernie's standard response has been to point out America has trillions to spend on war, and plenty of other countries have the same programs as he's advocating, so it's not impossible. It's vague, but I think a lot of people intuitively agree with it.
|>>|| No. 89170
>I'm not sure why you and others are so attached to this man or the US Presidency in general but I'm not going to accuse you of being paid to be like you are, I just think you're very caught up in something for very little reason
Personally I think it would be very good for the world if the most powerful position on earth was for once occupied by someone who isn't a bloodlusted psychopath in the pocket of the American oligarchy. You can't ignore the fact that American politics are massively influential on the entire world: imagine if someone like Sanders had been president when 9/11 happened, or when Lehman Brothers crashed.
|>>|| No. 89171
>imagine if someone like Sanders had been president when 9/11 happened, or when Lehman Brothers crashed.
He would have had a second heart attack within 6 months, the Americans would declare it a punishment from God and his successor would have gone to war/bailed them out. That or noughties era Bernie would have not used the pretext to steal oil and America, which was not at the time oil independent, would have become inhospitable for the poor you and Bernie ostensibly represent when everything quadrupled in price because of OPEC gouging the shit out of the oil dependent America.
|>>|| No. 89175
I think you'll find what actually would have happened is this; When the Admiral Peary arrives in orbit around Home, the Race's planet in the Tau Ceti system, it causes a crisis in the highest levels of the Race. The Race's Emperor Risson and Fleetlord Atvar (sent back to Home, with the dubious distinction of being the only Fleetlord not to conquer a planet) argue the merits and drawbacks of attempting to destroy mankind by massive nuclear strikes. Meanwhile, Researcher Ttomalss investigates reports of a major breakthrough by human scientists back on Earth.
The Race inadvertently cause themselves a possible ecological disaster similar to what they are causing on Earth with the Race's introduced species into the Earth's ecosystems by letting the humans' caged rats loose on Home. The rats were used for food testing for the humans.
It comes as a great shock to the Race when a second human starship (the Commodore Perry) arrives in orbit around Home, having travelled the twelve light-years in just five weeks. The faster-than-light drive, which appears to be based on the principle of folding space, allows the crew to return to Earth, which is familiar but still different from how they left it. The ship is named Commodore Perry for its role in opening up the Race's empire to U.S. access, after Commodore Matthew C. Perry, who did the same with Japan, and the Race are fearful that other human nations will make their way to Home, especially a recovered Germany.
|>>|| No. 89177
Sure, if we're doing fantastical alt-histories you can put whales in wherever you want.
|>>|| No. 89178
>There's reason to be invested (or at least interested) in Sanders because electing a leader to the US presidency who can credibly be called socialist represents such a monumental shift in the overton window that it would force media and academics around the world to reconsider what has long been considered the political, economic consensus of our times.
And then Corbyn will be elected, Brexit will be cancelled and America will repeal the PATRIOT Act.
>I don't think Americans really care about that shit.
You don't think Americans care about money and the size of the government? He's not going to be elected lads, assuming that Sanders wins the primaries he will actually have to win over Republican voters.
|>>|| No. 89180
>America will repeal the PATRIOT Act.
I'm a bit wary of lumping that statement in with the other two, the PATRIOT Act really does need to be repealed and Bernie does pay lip service to dismantling it. Whether he would/could do it is up for debate, but the words are in the right place.
To quote the Berninator himself.
>“I voted against the USA Patriot Act and voted against reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act. Obviously, terrorism is a serious threat to this country and we must do everything that we can to prevent attacks here and around the world. I believe strongly that we can protect our people without undermining our constitutional rights and I worry very, very much about the huge attacks on privacy that we have seen in recent years—both from the government and from the private sector. I worry that we are moving toward an Orwellian society and this is something I will oppose as vigorously as I can.”
|>>|| No. 89181
No, Obama was drone striking children for years until America became oil independent. Then he kept doing it because the Americans found out they could make shitloads of money by trafficking heroin from the region, not just oil.
|>>|| No. 89182
>You don't think Americans care about money and the size of the government?
I don't think they care about the particulars of budgetary arrangements, no. Ask even a "well informed" American to explain what an earned income tax credit is and how works if you don't believe me.
>assuming that Sanders wins the primaries he will actually have to win over Republican voters
Polling shows him to be the most successful Democratic candidate amongst independents when it comes to a head to head with Trump. The idea that independents and swing voters are moderates who can be won over by centrists on either side is a myth. If it wasn't, Obama-Trump voters wouldn't have vastly outnumbered Romney-Clinton voters in 2016.
|>>|| No. 89183
Obama spent his entire career arguing against the PATRIOT Act. Once in power he literally had to do nothing as it was due to expire in his term. He instead renewed with an autopen.
It has the same momentum as America fighting wars abroad. Features such as wiretapping and opening business records are too useful to do away with.
Well, if you stopped consuming conspiracy theories for 5 minutes you would actually notice the shift in American policy from Bush to Obama. The Bush administration saw the normalisation of torture and drones attacks against imminent threats, then under Obama the role of judge, jury and executioner came about.
|>>|| No. 89184
Sigh. Yes yes the people you dislike were worse than Obama but Obama still killed about 40 civilians a year with drone strikes over the course of 8 years.
>But reporting by The Times and others in 2017 showed that the Pentagon had killed far more civilians in Iraq than it acknowledged.
>The Obama administration estimated that over its two terms drone strikes had killed between 64 and 116 civilians in 542 airstrikes outside the major war zones. Micah Zenko, co-author of a new book, “Clear and Present Safety,” calculated the real tally at roughly 324.
I'm very glad that your hero did some nice things but he was still a bloodthirsty psychopath who had 8 years and huge political capital to pull the troops and drones out of an area America had no business being in. He did not. He continued to kill 324 civilians, not to mention presumably thousands of people brave enough to pick up a rifle but unfortunate enough to be born in a country with oil and heroin when America needed both.
I eagerly await your tirade against how Trump did much worse when you read the first few paragraphs of the article I posted.
|>>|| No. 89185
I'm hoping that calling him "The Bernald" catches on.
|>>|| No. 89187
I think that one isn't really his fault. He seemed to genuinely try to shut it down multiple times, even signing an executive order to make it happen but both congress and senate on different occasions shut the process down not by impeding the process itself but by impeding the logical necessities of the process. In one case they introduced a bill which made it illegal not to transfer prisoners out of Gitmo, but illegal for Gitmo prisoners to be transferred to the USA or indeed any other country in the world. Then in 2015 when he had the last of at least 3 or 4 goes at scrapping gitmo they each went full NIMBY on having Gitmo prisoners in each of the 13 prisons proposed to house the detainees so they could have a trial in the USA.
Overall Obama managed to reduce the population of Gitmo by about 80% from around 250 to 50 and the things he did would have led to it being shut down without someone actively preventing his orders from happening.
One can only assume he wanted rid of Gitmo because it damaged his image and while the drone strikes would be equally damaging if they weren't firmly relegated to conspiracy theory territory they also provided vital oil and heroin to the USA in its time of need.
|>>|| No. 89188
He could've cancelled the lease on Guantanamo or had his justice department actually litigate once and for all the constitutional status of the prisoners. Instead he signed two executive orders knowing they would go nowhere and then shrugged and pretended he'd exhausted all his options.
|>>|| No. 89191
Maybe you're right and he could have done something about it, the impression I got was he wanted to do it properly. Simply cancelling the lease on Gitmo would have scattered daft militant wogs and political prisoners god knows where if congress and senate didn't play ball. Those men would have done some blowing up and secret sharing I tell you that much.
You're definitely right he should have used the legal department on it a lot more. I don't know why he didn't. I suppose it comes down to a gut feeling, and to me it looks like Obama took steps designed to shut down Gitmo, not just to look like he was trying to shut down Gitmo.
|>>|| No. 89192
That doesn't really work as a retort when I've linked to the source of it happening.
|>>|| No. 89193
That doesn't really work as a retort when what you've linked to isn't as you've described it.
|>>|| No. 89194
I scrolled your linked tweet for longer than I should have done. Not a single person I saw stated or implied removing education to prevent propaganda is a good idea as you suggested they did. The confusion may have arisen because of almost every post rebuking the implication that American education is free of propaganda by reciting their experience of 'pledging allegiance to the American flag and the Republic for which it stands every morning,' 'almost failing a history exam because the teacher didn't believe the eugenics movement existed' and a link to a Guardian article expressing outrage that some American school textbooks still referred to slaves as workers.
Here is the original tweet for context on why these people responded as they did.
>.@BernieSanders was right about Cuba's literacy push in 1961. Over 700,000 people learned to read and write. They also got a hefty dose of ideology. <link removed>
If anything the people responding seem to be pro-Bernie, with PolitiFact making a politically charged statement that doesn't condemn American education in any way but merely adds context to what I assume was a statement Bernie made about how the Cubans gave the population literacy out of the goodness of their heart with no ulterior motive.
It's thought processes like yours that make me laugh at Americans. Please don't import that kind of thinking over here.
|>>|| No. 89197
We've all been there mate. I once saw someone mention Jill Dando when I was on a similar mad one and it took me a while to process what was going on. She's still dead btw.
|>>|| No. 89267
It's a five-way contest, and Bloomberg is currently sixth.
|>>|| No. 89268
Does this mean Biden is going to win and all the Bernie supporters will refuse to vote (again) and hand Trump the presidency (again)?
|>>|| No. 89272
The boot equally fits the people doing the thing they know will cause that reaction. It doesn't fit either of them anything like as well as it fits the people who actually will vote for Trump. It's just interesting how you look a system where everyone is involved but apportion blame to just one specific part.
|>>|| No. 89273
Blaming the people for refusing to play a game rigged against them just because it marginally hurts their interests to have a decepticon in office rather than a Neolib with the exact same agenda is kind of like blaming a dog for sulking in a corner when you keep kicking it. Stop kicking the dog and it might play you fucking monster.
|>>|| No. 89274
Are the results in? Did Bernald lose?
If they want to put Biden up against Trump we might as well just give him another term and save everyone the bother.
|>>|| No. 89279
It means the relentless march of the ovaltine window will only continue.
More seriously, Elizabeth Warren has no chance to win at this stage but she has remained in the race because she might potentially have a place in a contested election where no clear winner emerges. As a result she has draws left-learning votes away from Bernie and ran an attack campaign on all her rivals to steal voters.
The problem is that moderate dems have their shit together and when they drop out they (the candidate and supporters) flip to Biden. Usual stuff essentially. Biden will now walk it like a senile Keir Starmer.
|>>|| No. 89283
The ironic part is that up til now I've mostly seen the Warren/Buttplug supporters spewing some bizarre shite about how Medicare For All is a bad idea because it won't solve dolphin rape. I really don't know what these people don't understand about the word "all".
|>>|| No. 89285
It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to appear to make sense. If a critical mass of stupid people repeat it often enough it becomes the truth. If you challenge said stupid people by explaining that statement is fundamentally false they deflect your argument because you're attacking it in a way it was designed to counter, if a phrase is said by "smart" people it must be correct so when you ask them to examine its correctness you're actually asking them to pit their own intelligence against their perceived betters which their ego simply will not allow them to do. It's not uniquely an American phenomenon but it does work remarkably well on them and Germans, it's probably to do with their large chunk of German ancestry.
That piece of psychological chicanery aside the argument itself isn't necessarily false. Feminism in America is largely focused on showing support for outcomes. It's about finding a statistic with different outcomes for men and women, to take a purely hypothetical example cancer survival rates, then campaigning to "fix it." This is going to be made up nonsense to illustrate a point so don't absorb the facts, but let's say men have a 50% chance of surviving cancer in America while women only have a 45% chance. Let's also imagine this is because the types of cancer women get are more likely to be fatal because they're deeper or metastasise faster, American feminism is about calling doctors evil for not trying hard enough to save those 5 percentage points of women. In Britain we might simply screen women more regularly for cancer than men, but in America suggesting this would be political suicide because of the perceived inequality. The Americans instead choose to blame someone and wait for the next statistic to follow without understanding the reasoning. Again I must stress I know nothing about cancer so this was purely a hypothetical example to demonstrate a point, but you can see why they say "equal medical care for all is not good enough" in America, because they can't say what they actually mean.
If you're really interested in having someone examine the propaganda they repeat ask them to explain what they think would be a better option than equal medical care for all. They're unlikely to engage but you might find one eventually. If you simply want to win the argument against them just act like they're misogynists for not wanting equal health care for all, basically the opposite of what they're doing. Neither of you will be telling the truth but the weight of the implication will make them sperg out online so they say something that can be perceived as racist in front of their internet friends, though it turns out most of the Bernie supports were actually closet racists all along so it's not much of an achievement.
|>>|| No. 89286
Oh, the penny just dropped, I just realised why left-wingers get called "cultists" when they really get behind a candidate and their policies. It's because the overwhelming majority of voters actually do vote based on the idea of "I'd most like to have a beer with them!" rule, they don't think about policy in anything but the most abstract terms. We are actually fucked, and there's nothing you, me or anyone else can do to stop this because most people are still in serf-brain mode.
|>>|| No. 89287
The best illustration of this is American politics around the wage gap.
A huge deal is made of the wage gap and that it is inequality and the 77 cents to the dollar. The Obama administration conducted a huge investigation into it and made a big deal of doing it. Then promptly buried the results.
Because the conclusion of course pointed to the simple truth that men focus more time on work and take the less pleasant jobs that pay more and women divide their time more with other responsibilities (i.e children) and take the jobs that are more convenient to accommodating that other aspect. This result of normal family life in a child rearing family where couples divide labour, I'm not saying it has to be that way but that is how most choose to divide the roles.
The answer that there isn't institutionalised sexism on a massive scale. Is of course deeply unpopular.
|>>|| No. 89304
He's fucked it. Over the last week he's completely failed to regain any momentum and he's going to suffer badly tomorrow as a result.
I'd cut off my foot for a single leftist politician capable of any kind of dynamism.
|>>|| No. 89312
From what I've read, Bernie's supporters are very vocal online but are far less likely to actually bother to go and vote.
|>>|| No. 89314
That's balls, he's just popular amongst younger people and younger people are better at the internet than oldies. They are voting, but you also can't assume politically active young left-wingers are all young people.
|>>|| No. 89315
>They are voting
No they aren't. That's been widely reported.
The 78-year-old is uniquely popular with the young - according to some polls, he's the first choice of about 50% of Democratic primary voters aged 18-38.
On Super Tuesday, surveys suggest Mr Sanders won the youth vote in every single state - yet there wasn't a spike in overall youth turnout, and Mr Sanders still lost out to former Vice-President Joe Biden, 77, who won 10 out of 14 states. Mr Sanders has admitted that it was "not easy" mobilising the youth vote. "Have we been as successful as I would hope in bringing young people in? The answer is no."
It's like Brexit all over again. Remain would have won if young people actually bothered to go out and vote.
|>>|| No. 89316
You didn't say "the young", you said "Bernie's supporters". I made a clear distinction between the two in my reply: "They are voting, but you also can't assume politically active young left-wingers are all young people."
The amount of times on this website I just read people's posts back to them is incredible.
|>>|| No. 89317
>It's like Brexit all over again. Remain would have won if young people actually bothered to go out and vote.
Except that's a very optimistic assumption at best.
You're overly confident in knowing how they would have voted if they did, when the obvious fact staring you in the face is that they really didn't care either way. That's why they didn't bother to vote. If they did care, they would have voted. But they didn't, because they didn't.
So for all you know, all it would have done is increase the number of spoiled ballots, or even increase the leave protest vote. It's not a simple matter of young people "bothering to vote", you have to engage them in the first place. And really that's a question more worth asking- Why ARE young people so disenfranchised with politics?
|>>|| No. 89319
>The amount of times on this website I just read people's posts back to them is incredible.
Not him but to me but that seems to be an expression of your desire to not lose an internet argument rather than a genuine or valid attempt to further the worth of the discussion you're having with your interlocutor. In this case the distinction between the post that kicked all this off saying "Bernie voters" and "young voters" is so small as to be irrelevant and does nothing more than deflect from the fact that you got schooled by statistics and now we're all laughing at you like that time you went up to ask out the popular girl in school because you heard she liked you but then you shat yourself.
|>>|| No. 89320
Why is Sanders so unpopular amongst black people?
|>>|| No. 89324
I was reading a book on how the Labour party has done so poorly recently and it went into this territory a bit, because a similar sort of thing applies to British Asian voters.
The short answer is that lefties (or rather, the "liberal" establishment) tend to assume the black vote is automatically on their side because the other side is racist, the other side is the slave owners from the bad old days. But the truth is more nuanced, in that back voters often have a streak of traditional conservatism about them- They'd much rather solve their own problems and climb out of the ghetto on their own two feet, and not just have a different flavour of whitey prescribing the solutions of their problems to them. From that perspective there isn't much meaningful difference, especially in the sphere of neo-liberalism where you can barely slide a credit card between a Republican and a Democrat.
This is a dramatic oversimplification but you get the gist of it. With Bernie it's definitely a regional thing, and there's no small part played by the usual suspects in American politics.
|>>|| No. 89325
Americans are livestock fit only for slaughter.
|>>|| No. 89336
I think it's relative to Biden.
The reason why Biden is so popular with them is 3 fold.
1. Biden is perceived to have helped black people with civil rights. E.g. Bussing (counter-intuitively).
2. Black people are "pragmatic". In that they think Biden can win 2020, so they support him.
3. His association with Obama.
|>>|| No. 89341
Black Americans are much more optimistic about the economy than white Americans. Unlike their white counterparts, working- and middle-class black Americans have seen significant real-terms improvements in their standard of living over the past few decades. Bernie's rhetoric on the economy doesn't connect with black voters, because it doesn't reflect their lived experience.
Also, black voters tend to be economically liberal but socially conservative. They don't want to vote Republican because they (not unreasonably) perceive the party as racist, but they don't see their social values reflected in the left of the Democratic party.
|>>|| No. 89343
I see the armchair analysts have started early. Guarantee these same people were crowing about Bernie having a real shot at winning because of his African-American base six months ago.
|>>|| No. 89345
I didn't realise there was a restriction on amateur political conversation. The very nice Gestapo officer in the pub checking conversations last weekend didn't seem to mind us talking about Bernie.
|>>|| No. 89346
I mean, he did have a realistic chance of winning until the party kneecapped him.
Pretty funny to see the same people who were crowing about how badly America needed an intersectionalist progressive female candidate like Warren three weeks ago coalesce around someone who's so establishment he's part of the brickwork now, just to avoid confronting Sanders' material politics.
|>>|| No. 89347
>until the party kneecapped him.
How dare people vote for other candidates!
|>>|| No. 89348
I don't think that's what happened. I also don't think you think that's what happened.
|>>|| No. 89349
There's only been a very brief period where Sanders (Green) has been more popular than Biden (Blue).
You can't call it a stitch up that Sanders has only won about 6 out of 26 contests and trails Biden by roughly 7.3million to 5.8million in the popular vote. I think you're paying too much attention to very vocal loons on the internet who aren't representative of the wider population.
|>>|| No. 89352
That's where the trend was going though. Biden was plummeting, and the sudden upward surge is where the kneecapping happened.
|>>|| No. 89356
Chelsea Manning just looks like a man with lipstick and slightly long hair. It must suck transitioning later in life.
|>>|| No. 89357
People are informed by results. The first three actual contests were all small states, and included two caucus states and two very white states. Joe has won in landslides in southern states with large black populations.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]