2020 Democratic presidential primary

I would prefer "I Hate Politics But Really Love Picking At Scabs"

i mean that should definitely be the name

I'm reading Black Boy and it's astonishing how little has changed from the 1930s when American communists hand waved the economic worries of black Americans.

I certainly don't think that everyone would love Bernie if only they knew what he stood for. My boss, for one, half-jokingly threatened to fire anyone who votes for him because his taxes will go up.

I'm reading Black Boy and it's astonishing how little has changed from the 1930s when American communists hand waved the economic worries of black Americans.

― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, October 16, 2019 7:27 AM (one minute ago) bookmarkflaglink

this also happens in native son and yeah not much has changed

By "astonishing" I think you mean "unsurprising"

Can we not discuss AOC in two threads, please?

She's less special than the Coen brothers?

there might be voters who have an accurate idea about who Sanders is and what he stands for, and just don't like it.

Sure. They're wrong.

One of them said she was a capitalist once!!!

I think she's keeping her bones. Hopefully not her Newthink on historical wage growth.

i mean, Wright was correct about a lot of the racism of the communist party.

he was also a snitch, and that shouldn't be forgotten

I think that's a fair criticism of American communists/leftists to a point (I take some exception to it being descended from American communists who put race at the forefront of their activism), but in what sense are liberals or centrists any better on that? Doesn't pretty much the entire spectrum of white voters have a tendency to hand wave the economic worries of black americans?

i don't think any of us are saying that liberals (lol i loathe the distortion of this word) or centrists are any better on it

Well, anvil, you seem like one of them, sorry. And it was motivated by treeship thinking we misunderstood Bernie's thoughts on 'class identity'.

― Frederik B,

No need for apologies! Clarity is preferable to inference of course. Let see if we can move forwards a little.

I feel like there is like a filter on here, where a lot of posters refuse to countenance the thought that there might be voters who have an accurate idea about who Sanders is and what he stands for, and just don't like it.

So firstly, we'll start off with countenancing the above idea. There are many voters across the political spectrum that have an accurate take on
Bernie and decide they don't like it, and there is nothing wrong with this. Hopefully we can kill off that idea

We can have accurate takes on all the candidates, including Bernie, and decided positively or negatively about them. People who prefer a particular candidate are perfectly able to do this based on an accurate reading. For some this may be based on a dislike of one or more of his policies, for others it might be his personality/character. For others it might be around identity and representation. All these reasons are valid, we don't need to suggest people don't have accurate takes in order to do this

We have Warren/Bernie people, we have Warren/Biden people, we have Warren/Kamala people (and Bernie/Warren, Bernie/BIden, maybe even Bernie/Kamala people). The range of different second choices shows the range of different lenses people view this through. None are any more valid than any other. There are other things at play than 'stated policy', psychology is a huge factor. For different types of voter different people are 'closer to' Bernie/Warren, depending on their lens. And the same is true of AOC. To you and me it is obvious that AOC and Ilhan would endorse Bernie I agree, pretty difficult to see otherwise. But through a different lens AOC and Bernie are not close together, and for some people it will be a surprise (certainly a good 10% of my colleagues will be surprised)

Does that include the very large portion of liberals and centrists who are in fact black Americans?

xxp

"what about these other people, they suck too!" ok but communists should not suck at this

xp

i loathe the distortion of this word

What do you mean by this?

Does that include the very large portion of liberals and centrists who are in fact black Americans?

say it louder for the people in the back

idk "liberal" meant something different to me ten years ago, it is now shorthand for "neoliberal" and i think it's tiresome

That's true, "progressive" have essentially replaced the old meaning of "liberal."

I remember when Obama called himself progressive. I lol'd.

Does that include the very large portion of liberals and centrists who are in fact black Americans?

say it louder for the people in the back

― brigadier pudding (DJP), Wednesday, October 16, 2019 9:41 AM (two minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

I made it clear I was talking about "the entire spectrum of white voters" ignoring black American economic concerns, not excluding black Americans from liberals and centrist (there were black American communists too, and a "large portion" of the left is also black)

idk "liberal" meant something different to me ten years ago, it is now shorthand for "neoliberal" and i think it's tiresome

― american bradass (BradNelson), Wednesday, October 16, 2019 9:41 AM (four minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

The current usage of liberal is actually much more in line with the historic usage of liberal. Liberal briefly meant "kind of leftish" when the left had dwindled to almost nonexistence and conservatives started using "liberal" to bash people to their left.

If by "historic usage of liberal" you mean "19th century definition of liberal," then it's close to what I see from people further left.

o_O ok

xp

All I'm pointing to is that this winds up becoming a bad faith argument sometimes in the hands of liberal and centrist politicians -- " "If we broke up the big banks tomorrow would that end racism?"

If by "historic usage of liberal" you mean "19th century definition of liberal," then it's close to what I see from people further left.

― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, October 16, 2019 9:49 AM (twenty-four seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nFvhhCulaw

Literally everything becomes a bad faith argument for someone; that doesn't make it an invalid argument or a concern unworthy of consideration.

Sure, but saying, in a presidential primary thread "The left ignores the economic concerns of black Americans just like back in the day" seems like a distortion if the (white) left does so no more than any other (white) part of the political spectrum

yeah what about the white republicans

A couple of the more savage anti-Clinton voters in fall '16 did cover themselves in spittle while yelling on my FB wall about Hil the Corporate Shill who's dying to sell off queer people. Not once did they show their concern during the primaries. Fuck'em.

I feel I have every right to be suspicious when someone yells "break up the big banks" and I say "I agree but let's make sure we don't adversely hurt minorities in comparison to white people when we do it" and the response I get is "why does everything have to be about race"

^^^ otm

given the classes that their ideology prioritizes, the left ignoring the economic concerns of black americans stings way more than my shallow expectations for neolibs and centrists

"working class Americans" never includes "black working class Americans"

And I also don't think it makes a lot of sense to spend time criticizing the obvious and well-documented failings of the modern right on race on a thread titled "2020 Democratic presidential primary"

If you're going to come at me with some "but Democrats aren't on the left" nonsense, we don't really have anything to discuss

Sure, but saying, in a presidential primary thread "The left ignores the economic concerns of black Americans just like back in the day" seems like a distortion if the (white) left does so no more than any other (white) part of the political spectrum

― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Wednesday, October 16, 2019 10:54 AM (one minute ago) bookmarkflaglink

Wouldn’t it be that people have expectations with the spectrum of the left when it comes to racial issues?

only when it's a media dipshit trying to explain Trump America does "working class" equal white. Leftists go out of their way to note that the actual working class isn't majority-white or majority-male.

"working class Americans" never includes "black working class Americans"

^I hear this all the time and it's true in many cases, but surely more people are conscious that it does and must, compared to 3-4 years ago?

xp

Yes, I've seen improvements in media coverage.

To me it also feels like ‘working class americans’ never includes immigrants.

I feel I have every right to be suspicious when someone yells "break up the big banks" and I say "I agree but let's make sure we don't adversely hurt minorities in comparison to white people when we do it" and the response I get is "why does everything have to be about race"

― brigadier pudding (DJP), Wednesday, October 16, 2019 9:56 AM (twenty-three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Is there an argument that breaking up the big banks would actually disproportionately hurt minorities? I don't mean that as a rhetorical question, but I don't think that was what Clinton meant and I've also never heard it before.

You do understand the historical context of how virtually every major American policy has been instituted at the expense of minorities, particularly black and native people, right?

No, I actually don't understand what you're talking about here, that's a highly vague and general statement that doesn't respond to what I asked, sorry.

i.e., yes in a general sense I understand that and no here I don't see what point you're making

To take one example (not related to banking): the New Deal's existence required a coalition comprised in part by Southern Dem racists who made sure black Americans saw little to nothing of the program's benefits.

IE DJP is saying "I agree but let's make sure we don't adversely hurt minorities in comparison to white people when we do it <s>as happens every fucking time</s>"

bah, teach me to keep out of US politics threads.

Would there not also be adverse effects to black and native communities by leaving things as-is or, as per usual, things are further deregulated?

New Deal carve-outs noted, but I’m not sure how that would work in 2019, particularly at the fed level and with Warren or Bernie in charge.

perhaps things that were implemented at the state or local level...?

the New Deal's existence required a coalition comprised in part by Southern Dem racists who made sure black Americans saw little to nothing of the program's benefits

and then abandoned the coalition by the mid-30s in part because they understood that the new structures of power the new deal was creating endangered southern white supremacy safeguards or no

Any changes in a banking system could lead to unintended consequences like even less home ownership for minorities. It could be a question of suddenly higher rates because fractured banks would be less willing to take risks, which would expand bias against minorities trying to take out loans. It could be many other things. Maybe nothing happens. The point here is about a holistic approach in which every point of view needs to be addressed, so it’s a bit odd that one would be defensive about race vs class when thinking about the policy when it’s still very abstract and upstream.

nah, the South loved that federal boodle! That's why they got so many Army bases. WWII was another federal program.

https://www.history.com/news/gi-bill-black-wwii-veterans-benefits