Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 27, 2016, 04:38:32 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 269
76  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican Grand Finale Tuesday results thread (1st polls close @8pm ET) on: June 07, 2016, 08:14:20 pm
I actually think this speech is pretty good...
77  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Grand Finale Tuesday results thread (1st polls close @8pm ET) on: June 07, 2016, 07:19:06 pm
Rushing home from work now. I hope I don't miss her HISTORY-MAKING speech!
78  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: FL-Public Policy Polling: Trump 41 Clinton 40 on: June 07, 2016, 01:59:06 pm
Bernie's fault, but yes, this will be close.
79  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What does Obama do if Bernie takes the fight to the convention? on: June 07, 2016, 12:25:07 pm
Once it becomes apparent that Clinton is going to win the nomination, he is not going to hurt the situation by endorsing her. He has let the voters have their say. (one could argue that endorsing before DC votes might be problematic, in a sense, but not a big deal if Clinton clinches today or tomorrow) Obama is very intelligent and is popular with Democrats. This is not going to be a problem. Three key superdelegates have not endorsed: Carter, Biden, and Gore.

(edit: and Nancy Pelosi)

It is already apparent lol. She is the presumptive nominee. She has enough delegates to clinch the nomination.
80  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What does Obama do if Bernie takes the fight to the convention? on: June 07, 2016, 12:24:23 pm
I think he needs to attack Sanders. These Bernie supporters have a death grip on their saviour and seem to be locked in with him for eternity. Let's pry them away one by one.
81  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: In this thread, we post r/S4P reactions to tonight's news on: June 06, 2016, 09:21:35 pm
CNN did a segment earlier interviewing Bernie supporters at their San Francisco concert tonight, and I almost puked in my mouth.
82  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary Clinton in 2004: "Mahatma Gandhi ran a gas station in St Louis" on: June 06, 2016, 03:32:03 pm
Trump has so lowered the bar that this is peanuts.
83  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Obama to endorse Clinton on Wed? on: June 05, 2016, 11:55:57 pm
seems like that's the plan..will be bittersweet to see obama hand off his legacy to clinton after their bruising 2008 primary...can't wait for tues night when hillary clinches.

I think it will be absolutely fitting to see these two equals, who have so much respect for each other and who started their public relationship as rivals, finish off as close friends.

Bernie does not even begin to match the calibre of these two giants.
84  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Donald Trump a racist? on: June 05, 2016, 07:15:52 pm
Yes, but only as a byproduct of the fact that the only thing he cares about is himself. Attacking anything that goes against that is fair game, and he launches any attacks that work.
85  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump: 'It's possible, absolutely' Muslim judges are also biased against me on: June 05, 2016, 06:10:18 pm
I'm quite confused by these responses. Why wouldn't such a person be biased against him?

I guess the comment plays poorly no matter how you look at it.

If you look at it like "why wouldn't such a person be biased against him" and agree with Trump, you're basically lending credence to the idea that he actually has been advocating for racist policies. Obviously all Muslims would be against him, because he's against all Muslims!

If you look at it the other way, it still demonstrates some Trump racism, because he's calling into question the integrity of a judge based entirely on his race/ethnicity/religion/what-have-you.

So he's gotten himself into quite the pickle.
86  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sandernistas and White Entitlement on: June 05, 2016, 05:57:14 pm
Many Sanders supporters do act quite entitled. I don't know that I'd call it a racial thing though.

I think a bigger issue is that most people read news that reinforces their viewpoints instead of reality. Oh, it doesn't help that every Millennial got a trophy growing up.

I would agree. Sanders supporters believe in entitlement. But not White entitlement, universal entitlement. Literally. That's why Sanders talked about free college for everyone, free healthcare for everyone.

Clinton was the candidate who believed in selective entitlement. Free healthcare but only for the destitute, free college but only for the destitute. If you make $2000 bucks a month though, you are on your own.  Hillary figures you can somehow afford to pay hundreds of dollars in co-pays and deductibles, 10s of thousands of dollars in tuition off the median national income. And if you can't, that's cool, you're probably White, "let them eat privilege", you can just sit back and think about how you're slightly less likely to be asked to show your receipt when leaving WalMart, that thought will provide you with warmth and shelter somehow.

Sander's supporters ARE white entitlement in action.

I just explained how they weren't in detail and this is your counter argument.

Sorry but the rest of your post didn't make much sense to me. I have no comment on it.

Answer this question then: How is advocating for entitlements for everyone an example of White entitlement? They are by definition, two mutually exclusive things. If someone in the Sanders campaign was calling for healthcare for White people only, this article would have a point. No one was so this article doesn't.

Because people of colour face additional obstacles that can't be accounted for using a one-size-fits-all solution. The "one size" ends up defaulting to the "norm" or majority, which, I hate to break it to you, is white. And once the solution is applied, the problem will be considered solved when nothing in the process ever actually made an effort to account for race. So discrimination will still fester within this utopian socialist system, except there will be no room to address it because "we already made good on our universal entitlements!"

The major thing to consider here is that law in theory and law in application are two different things. And when you do not deliberately consider how to account for discrimination and assume that the system will be fair because we found all the right magic words when drafting the policy... well, that's when discrimination is given its biggest pass to infuse systems and institutions.

I am not saying it is inherently bad to structure your politics around universal entitlement, but it's not a catch-all that solves everything. And Bernie so far has not really addressed racism in the comprehensive way that I think is necessary. Not everything defaults back to a common denominator of class and economics.

Free healthcare and free tuition IS a one size fits all solution that would solve the problems of racism, at least in regards to healthcare and tuition.

What would be a solution that would take into account racism? Free college for Blacks but making Whites pay?

Also, you're basically saying, since universal healthcare won't end racism, it's a racist policy. What policy would end racism? Why not get rid of Social Security? It doesn't end racism after all.

I have not said anything about Bernie's policies being racist. I have said I do not like the way that race comes second to all these economic projects. "If we only do all these things then the racism will disappear" is a meme that has seemed to spread like wildfire as a rebuttal to Hillary's rhetoric around intersectionality.

Re: college tuition as just one example, you're actually wrong, which is sort of the problem I'm getting at. It doesn't "solve the problems of racism, at least in regards to [...] tuition." The issue is not as simple as a price tag. Let's say everyone gets free tuition. Where's the conversation around who will actually be able to access that help? What of the black kid who grew up in a sh-tty neighbourhood, went to a sh-tty school, and got sh-t grades because he came from a fatherless home and worked during most of his spare time to supplement the income his mom made working two jobs? What of the kid who just doesn't get in to college for something as simple as the fact that her name is Laqueisha Jackson and not Claire Pennington? What of the kid who grows up playing in McDonald's ball pits instead of using trendy new learning apps on a sleep iPad?

I know not all of this can be addressed by one policy on tuition, and I don't dispute that free tuition would be a valuable lifeline for people of all stripes. But how the candidates talk about these issues matters a lot because it speaks to what their approach to these concerns would be when in office. Maybe it's a gut feeling thing, so feel free to scoff, but I don't sense the same emphasis on intersectionality from Bernie that I see from Hillary. She's the one who made sure young black offenders in South Carolina weren't jailed as adults. She's the one sitting down with the parents of young black kids who've been victims of gun violence. She's the one who's been linked in with black communities for decades while Bernie was refusing to engage with black activists in Vermont (leaders who did get attention from Vermont's other progressive senator). So I just think things are a little more complex than the relatively simple but bold solutions Bernie champions on the stump.

And I can see why some of Bernie's emphasis would seem a little tone deaf to black voters who claim to have felt a little more love from Hillary.


You say you don't like how Sanders talks about economics and then in your rebuttal of him...you talk about economics. A kid growing up in a neighborhood with no jobs, underfunded schools, having to work to survive, his mom having to take two jobs...that's economics.

Also, your comment about Black kids not getting into college because they have Black names is pure fantasy. Full stop. I know you will just dismiss this as being an out of touch White man but seriously. No one turns down a qualified student for college admission because of their Black name. That is cartoonish Klan style racism that even most intersectionalists acknowledge isn't really widespread anymore. Maybe in the criminal justice system but certainly not in liberal bastions like the admissions office of a university. IT. DOES. NOT. HAPPEN. Full stop.

Re: Black kids and college admission, you can say it as emphatically as you want, lol. And yes, progress has been made in race-conscious jurisdictions that seek to right the wrongs of historic and continuing discrimination. But it has not been solved wholesale. In places with affirmative action bans in college admissions processes, African American enrollment has declined substantially since these bans came into effect. Obviously this trend is a result of numerous factors, but when you consider the 2003 study Raphael provided above, it is not outlandish to suggest that there would be some racism in the process. That is why affirmative action is important; whites often benefit from an unconscious kind of affirmative action that favours them.

As for my rebuttal being about economics, that is true. But it is not the kind of one-size-fits-all program I was criticizing. For the most part, these are programs meant specifically to address inequalities for minority groups living in struggling areas. This kind of thinking requires segmenting issues, looking at various stages of different processes, accounting for a variety of factors, and implementing a far-reaching plan that approaches an issue from multiple angles. This is not the kind of thinking Bernie embraces, and to be frank that's why he's so popular: Simple solutions play well. Again, this may be more of a style thing than a substance thing, but I think style does matter in the person America chooses to sit in the bully pulpit and steer the agenda of the federal government.

87  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sandernistas and White Entitlement on: June 05, 2016, 05:27:16 pm
More "White/male privilege" nonsense from the regressive left.  The system is rigged against them.  It's rigged against everyone that doesn't have many PACs and/or lobbyists in D.C.

And Bernie isn't running against a black, latino, or other minority. It's against Clinton and or Trump.  Two white people.

The GOP rigged the system against Ron Paul.  They tried it with Trump (and failed). Bernie the Dems managed to keep down.

It doesn't have to do with color, and anyway last I looked blacks are getting plenty of attention lately (BLM) and we've had a black person the last 8 years in the White House. And I find it highly ironic that BLM are making noise, interrupting presentations and meetings, blocking roads and being as belligerent as Sanders' supporters and this guy wants to complain about whites doing it.

Bottom line: drop the race card.  Americans of all colors and creeds are pissed off and want real change and not Obama's hopey-changey stuff.  This might come to civil war.

The luxury of being colour blind is only ever something you will see white people hoist on the population, because white people would prefer to call the whole "race" thing a done deal than address the hard truths that come with it.

The problem is not solved because a white male libertarian decides it is. That's not how this works. And that's why BLM has legitimacy and the people who rise up against them because they think white men are now being oppressed do not.

It's fair to say that people of all colours and creeds are frustrated and want change, but to completely discount the way that intersecting realities generally build up to create more difficult challenges for people of colour is simply wrong. And it's a position that can only be borne out of unchecked privilege.

Ok, some exists but it is way overblown as the cause of all these peoples' problems.  For example: Black communities should work to stop black-on-black violence, then worry about the 10% of other violence against them. I got a feeling if they did that, they would find the police violence against them would drop as well. 

And I'm saying the political system is rigged for the rich and corporations.  That's a handful of white people and faceless entities (and why Bernie rails against Citizens United).  Most (poorer) whites, blacks, Asians, Hispanics are all in the same place, politically: frustrated without a real voice.

 

Black-on-black crime does not exist in a vacuum. People should of course be accountable for their own actions, but they are also a product of the conditions they are brought up in. So it's not just a "black only" issue, and it's not as simple as basically asking black people to clean up their act, like what you're doing. 
88  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump: 'It's possible, absolutely' Muslim judges are also biased against me on: June 05, 2016, 05:20:52 pm
I hope I'm not letting my bias completely colour the way I've been interpreting news footage, but lately the Trump surrogates on news channels have been coming across as exceptionally desperate and unhinged, and I can't help but feel like even normal people would see that their arguments are weak/unravelling.

Soooo... I'm starting to be a bit more optimistic that this whole thing could actually be a walk for Clinton. Tongue
89  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sandernistas and White Entitlement on: June 05, 2016, 04:01:30 pm
Many Sanders supporters do act quite entitled. I don't know that I'd call it a racial thing though.

I think a bigger issue is that most people read news that reinforces their viewpoints instead of reality. Oh, it doesn't help that every Millennial got a trophy growing up.

I would agree. Sanders supporters believe in entitlement. But not White entitlement, universal entitlement. Literally. That's why Sanders talked about free college for everyone, free healthcare for everyone.

Clinton was the candidate who believed in selective entitlement. Free healthcare but only for the destitute, free college but only for the destitute. If you make $2000 bucks a month though, you are on your own.  Hillary figures you can somehow afford to pay hundreds of dollars in co-pays and deductibles, 10s of thousands of dollars in tuition off the median national income. And if you can't, that's cool, you're probably White, "let them eat privilege", you can just sit back and think about how you're slightly less likely to be asked to show your receipt when leaving WalMart, that thought will provide you with warmth and shelter somehow.

Sander's supporters ARE white entitlement in action.

I just explained how they weren't in detail and this is your counter argument.

Sorry but the rest of your post didn't make much sense to me. I have no comment on it.

Answer this question then: How is advocating for entitlements for everyone an example of White entitlement? They are by definition, two mutually exclusive things. If someone in the Sanders campaign was calling for healthcare for White people only, this article would have a point. No one was so this article doesn't.

Because people of colour face additional obstacles that can't be accounted for using a one-size-fits-all solution. The "one size" ends up defaulting to the "norm" or majority, which, I hate to break it to you, is white. And once the solution is applied, the problem will be considered solved when nothing in the process ever actually made an effort to account for race. So discrimination will still fester within this utopian socialist system, except there will be no room to address it because "we already made good on our universal entitlements!"

The major thing to consider here is that law in theory and law in application are two different things. And when you do not deliberately consider how to account for discrimination and assume that the system will be fair because we found all the right magic words when drafting the policy... well, that's when discrimination is given its biggest pass to infuse systems and institutions.

I am not saying it is inherently bad to structure your politics around universal entitlement, but it's not a catch-all that solves everything. And Bernie so far has not really addressed racism in the comprehensive way that I think is necessary. Not everything defaults back to a common denominator of class and economics.

Free healthcare and free tuition IS a one size fits all solution that would solve the problems of racism, at least in regards to healthcare and tuition.

What would be a solution that would take into account racism? Free college for Blacks but making Whites pay?

Also, you're basically saying, since universal healthcare won't end racism, it's a racist policy. What policy would end racism? Why not get rid of Social Security? It doesn't end racism after all.

I have not said anything about Bernie's policies being racist. I have said I do not like the way that race comes second to all these economic projects. "If we only do all these things then the racism will disappear" is a meme that has seemed to spread like wildfire as a rebuttal to Hillary's rhetoric around intersectionality.

Re: college tuition as just one example, you're actually wrong, which is sort of the problem I'm getting at. It doesn't "solve the problems of racism, at least in regards to [...] tuition." The issue is not as simple as a price tag. Let's say everyone gets free tuition. Where's the conversation around who will actually be able to access that help? What of the black kid who grew up in a sh-tty neighbourhood, went to a sh-tty school, and got sh-t grades because he came from a fatherless home and worked during most of his spare time to supplement the income his mom made working two jobs? What of the kid who just doesn't get in to college for something as simple as the fact that her name is Laqueisha Jackson and not Claire Pennington? What of the kid who grows up playing in McDonald's ball pits instead of using trendy new learning apps on a sleep iPad?

I know not all of this can be addressed by one policy on tuition, and I don't dispute that free tuition would be a valuable lifeline for people of all stripes. But how the candidates talk about these issues matters a lot because it speaks to what their approach to these concerns would be when in office. Maybe it's a gut feeling thing, so feel free to scoff, but I don't sense the same emphasis on intersectionality from Bernie that I see from Hillary. She's the one who made sure young black offenders in South Carolina weren't jailed as adults. She's the one sitting down with the parents of young black kids who've been victims of gun violence. She's the one who's been linked in with black communities for decades while Bernie was refusing to engage with black activists in Vermont (leaders who did get attention from Vermont's other progressive senator). So I just think things are a little more complex than the relatively simple but bold solutions Bernie champions on the stump.

And I can see why some of Bernie's emphasis would seem a little tone deaf to black voters who claim to have felt a little more love from Hillary.


Your points about the existence of racism are well taken, but you didn't answer his question/offer any actual political solutions, just said that Hillary talked about it more

... which is kind of all you have to go on when you're just a normal person following a presidential campaign.

So I'm not sure what your point is.

There are affirmative action policies that could start rectifying some of these issues, tech programs in schools, performance-based pay for teachers is a controversial one, offering incentives to good teachers who are willing to work in traditionally difficult areas... there are lots of creative solutions. But I'm not the one running for office, and it's up to the candidates to put things on the table. Both of them haven't really gone into the kind of details I would like, but my whole point is that of the two, Hillary's overall approach to race shows more promise than Bernie's. She seems more interested in the nuance of the situation, which matters a lot when you're dealing with something as pervasive as racism, while Bernie goes for the big flashy solution that plays well to people on TV but doesn't really get into the finer points of what we're discussing. I believe Hillary's approach predisposes her to being more attentive on these issues. Is that so ridiculous?
90  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: 2016 PAPOY Creepfest on: June 05, 2016, 03:24:47 pm
Looking good, folks.

I recently rebranded myself on social media after a long stint with the same profile picture, so here's an updated photo from a pretty hipster pizza place we went to last night. (I recently got braces, so toothy photos are now out of the question... and eating pizza with a fork is absolutely one of the most embarrassing things.)




And in the vein of Miles' transformation photo, here's me a few years back... Tongue


91  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Republicans for Hillary safe space on: June 05, 2016, 02:51:25 pm
I'm in a competitive state (an intensely competitive state), and I've decided to vote for Johnson. While I do prefer Hillary to Trump, my conclusion based off polling is that she will win without my vote and that I don't have to soil my hands by marking the ballot for her. Johnson is far and away the most palatable choice of the three.

Again, if it looks like both the nation and Ohio are competitive on Election Day, I would probably end up voting in this fashion. But if Hillary maintains her consistent lead in Florida, then there's nothing to worry about.

Even if he were polling at 30% there'd still be lots to worry about by virtue of the fact that he's a candidate and still has a chance.
92  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sandernistas and White Entitlement on: June 05, 2016, 02:46:48 pm
Many Sanders supporters do act quite entitled. I don't know that I'd call it a racial thing though.

I think a bigger issue is that most people read news that reinforces their viewpoints instead of reality. Oh, it doesn't help that every Millennial got a trophy growing up.

I would agree. Sanders supporters believe in entitlement. But not White entitlement, universal entitlement. Literally. That's why Sanders talked about free college for everyone, free healthcare for everyone.

Clinton was the candidate who believed in selective entitlement. Free healthcare but only for the destitute, free college but only for the destitute. If you make $2000 bucks a month though, you are on your own.  Hillary figures you can somehow afford to pay hundreds of dollars in co-pays and deductibles, 10s of thousands of dollars in tuition off the median national income. And if you can't, that's cool, you're probably White, "let them eat privilege", you can just sit back and think about how you're slightly less likely to be asked to show your receipt when leaving WalMart, that thought will provide you with warmth and shelter somehow.

Sander's supporters ARE white entitlement in action.

I just explained how they weren't in detail and this is your counter argument.

Sorry but the rest of your post didn't make much sense to me. I have no comment on it.

Answer this question then: How is advocating for entitlements for everyone an example of White entitlement? They are by definition, two mutually exclusive things. If someone in the Sanders campaign was calling for healthcare for White people only, this article would have a point. No one was so this article doesn't.

Because people of colour face additional obstacles that can't be accounted for using a one-size-fits-all solution. The "one size" ends up defaulting to the "norm" or majority, which, I hate to break it to you, is white. And once the solution is applied, the problem will be considered solved when nothing in the process ever actually made an effort to account for race. So discrimination will still fester within this utopian socialist system, except there will be no room to address it because "we already made good on our universal entitlements!"

The major thing to consider here is that law in theory and law in application are two different things. And when you do not deliberately consider how to account for discrimination and assume that the system will be fair because we found all the right magic words when drafting the policy... well, that's when discrimination is given its biggest pass to infuse systems and institutions.

I am not saying it is inherently bad to structure your politics around universal entitlement, but it's not a catch-all that solves everything. And Bernie so far has not really addressed racism in the comprehensive way that I think is necessary. Not everything defaults back to a common denominator of class and economics.

Free healthcare and free tuition IS a one size fits all solution that would solve the problems of racism, at least in regards to healthcare and tuition.

What would be a solution that would take into account racism? Free college for Blacks but making Whites pay?

Also, you're basically saying, since universal healthcare won't end racism, it's a racist policy. What policy would end racism? Why not get rid of Social Security? It doesn't end racism after all.

I have not said anything about Bernie's policies being racist. I have said I do not like the way that race comes second to all these economic projects. "If we only do all these things then the racism will disappear" is a meme that has seemed to spread like wildfire as a rebuttal to Hillary's rhetoric around intersectionality.

Re: college tuition as just one example, you're actually wrong, which is sort of the problem I'm getting at. It doesn't "solve the problems of racism, at least in regards to [...] tuition." The issue is not as simple as a price tag. Let's say everyone gets free tuition. Where's the conversation around who will actually be able to access that help? What of the black kid who grew up in a sh-tty neighbourhood, went to a sh-tty school, and got sh-t grades because he came from a fatherless home and worked during most of his spare time to supplement the income his mom made working two jobs? What of the kid who just doesn't get in to college for something as simple as the fact that her name is Laqueisha Jackson and not Claire Pennington? What of the kid who grows up playing in McDonald's ball pits instead of using trendy new learning apps on a sleep iPad?

I know not all of this can be addressed by one policy on tuition, and I don't dispute that free tuition would be a valuable lifeline for people of all stripes. But how the candidates talk about these issues matters a lot because it speaks to what their approach to these concerns would be when in office. Maybe it's a gut feeling thing, so feel free to scoff, but I don't sense the same emphasis on intersectionality from Bernie that I see from Hillary. She's the one who made sure young black offenders in South Carolina weren't jailed as adults. She's the one sitting down with the parents of young black kids who've been victims of gun violence. She's the one who's been linked in with black communities for decades while Bernie was refusing to engage with black activists in Vermont (leaders who did get attention from Vermont's other progressive senator). So I just think things are a little more complex than the relatively simple but bold solutions Bernie champions on the stump.

And I can see why some of Bernie's emphasis would seem a little tone deaf to black voters who claim to have felt a little more love from Hillary.
93  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sandernistas and White Entitlement on: June 05, 2016, 02:11:58 pm
Many Sanders supporters do act quite entitled. I don't know that I'd call it a racial thing though.

I think a bigger issue is that most people read news that reinforces their viewpoints instead of reality. Oh, it doesn't help that every Millennial got a trophy growing up.

I would agree. Sanders supporters believe in entitlement. But not White entitlement, universal entitlement. Literally. That's why Sanders talked about free college for everyone, free healthcare for everyone.

Clinton was the candidate who believed in selective entitlement. Free healthcare but only for the destitute, free college but only for the destitute. If you make $2000 bucks a month though, you are on your own.  Hillary figures you can somehow afford to pay hundreds of dollars in co-pays and deductibles, 10s of thousands of dollars in tuition off the median national income. And if you can't, that's cool, you're probably White, "let them eat privilege", you can just sit back and think about how you're slightly less likely to be asked to show your receipt when leaving WalMart, that thought will provide you with warmth and shelter somehow.

Sander's supporters ARE white entitlement in action.

I just explained how they weren't in detail and this is your counter argument.

Sorry but the rest of your post didn't make much sense to me. I have no comment on it.

Answer this question then: How is advocating for entitlements for everyone an example of White entitlement? They are by definition, two mutually exclusive things. If someone in the Sanders campaign was calling for healthcare for White people only, this article would have a point. No one was so this article doesn't.

Because people of colour face additional obstacles that can't be accounted for using a one-size-fits-all solution. The "one size" ends up defaulting to the "norm" or majority, which, I hate to break it to you, is white. And once the solution is applied, the problem will be considered solved when nothing in the process ever actually made an effort to account for race. So discrimination will still fester within this utopian socialist system, except there will be no room to address it because "we already made good on our universal entitlements!"

The major thing to consider here is that law in theory and law in application are two different things. And when you do not deliberately consider how to account for discrimination and assume that the system will be fair because we found all the right magic words when drafting the policy... well, that's when discrimination is given its biggest pass to infuse systems and institutions.

I am not saying it is inherently bad to structure your politics around universal entitlement, but it's not a catch-all that solves everything. And Bernie so far has not really addressed racism in the comprehensive way that I think is necessary. Not everything defaults back to a common denominator of class and economics.
94  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Predict Hillary Clinton's popular vote percentage in the GE on: June 05, 2016, 01:55:52 pm
I'm gonna go with the crowd guessing 52%.
95  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sandernistas and White Entitlement on: June 05, 2016, 01:53:14 pm
I'm loving Hagrid's (a white man) big insights into the lives of 'people of colour' and the challenges that they face.

Not my insights. Do some basic reading on the subject. One good entry point is Visitor: My Life in Canada by a black English professor named Anthony Stewart. He compares his experiences in Canada to his experiences in the United States. While his condemnation of Canada is actually tougher than what he says about the US, his words are certainly applicable in pretty much any Western white-majority society. From casual racism in faculty lounges to institutional racism in university admissions policies or hiring processes, it seems pretty clear that people of colour face invisible barriers while whites often receive invisible hands up.

(If you're curious, the primary difference he sees between Canada and the US is that the black population in the United States is large and concentrated enough in some places that there is actually space for these conversations to happen. People talk about race. In Canada, we congratulate ourselves for our "multiculutralism"/"cultural mosaic" without doing any work. The thing is, "cultural mosaic" invokes images of a fixed society where everyone has their place. The American melting pot has some problems and things can definitely boil over at times, but at least there is some movement and interplay. Anyway, I digress).

Either way, it shouldn't be revolutionary, ground-breaking, or in anyway difficult to see that black Americans face, on average, more challenges than whites. If that is a blasphemous suggestion for a white person to make then North America has more hurdles to overcome than I thought...
96  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sandernistas and White Entitlement on: June 05, 2016, 11:06:27 am
More "White/male privilege" nonsense from the regressive left.  The system is rigged against them.  It's rigged against everyone that doesn't have many PACs and/or lobbyists in D.C.

And Bernie isn't running against a black, latino, or other minority. It's against Clinton and or Trump.  Two white people.

The GOP rigged the system against Ron Paul.  They tried it with Trump (and failed). Bernie the Dems managed to keep down.

It doesn't have to do with color, and anyway last I looked blacks are getting plenty of attention lately (BLM) and we've had a black person the last 8 years in the White House. And I find it highly ironic that BLM are making noise, interrupting presentations and meetings, blocking roads and being as belligerent as Sanders' supporters and this guy wants to complain about whites doing it.

Bottom line: drop the race card.  Americans of all colors and creeds are pissed off and want real change and not Obama's hopey-changey stuff.  This might come to civil war.

The luxury of being colour blind is only ever something you will see white people hoist on the population, because white people would prefer to call the whole "race" thing a done deal than address the hard truths that come with it.

The problem is not solved because a white male libertarian decides it is. That's not how this works. And that's why BLM has legitimacy and the people who rise up against them because they think white men are now being oppressed do not.

It's fair to say that people of all colours and creeds are frustrated and want change, but to completely discount the way that intersecting realities generally build up to create more difficult challenges for people of colour is simply wrong. And it's a position that can only be borne out of unchecked privilege.
97  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: CLINTON EVISCERATES TRUMP on: June 05, 2016, 10:34:43 am
Straight white males mostly do not understand oppression. As such, they often feel like they are the ones who are being oppressed when they are simply being asked to shed their privilege so that others might have an equal shot in life. So no, I will not stop.

That is just a fashionable belief based no part in reality, truth or fact.



Forgive me for not putting much stock in someone who posted with misogynistic signatures for months on end.
98  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: NDP Leadership Convention 2017 (2018) on: June 04, 2016, 12:01:22 pm
What a mess.
99  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: CLINTON EVISCERATES TRUMP on: June 03, 2016, 09:38:44 pm
This scripted speech delivered by a career politician surrounded by teleprompter screens will no doubt be the silver bullet that kills Trump's campaign!

That's not the point.  The point is that she unleashed the "fear" card, which is the most powerful card in politics, with brutal effectiveness.  There aren't many election cycles in which contenders can use it, but when they can, landslides are born.  Massive ones.

Americans are already afraid. They're afraid of what will happen to their nation if forced to endure another four years of pen-and-phone top-down liberalism.

You forget that some Americans aren't straight white males.

YOUR FU*CKING A WHITE MALE! YOUR A WHITE MAN

Can liberals stop with this white cis male meme.

Straight white males mostly do not understand oppression. As such, they often feel like they are the ones who are being oppressed when they are simply being asked to shed their privilege so that others might have an equal shot in life. So no, I will not stop.

And no, I am not a liberal. I just understand that it is actually possible for certain candidates and political parties to embarrassingly disqualify themselves from contention/legitimacy, and that when this happens I am no longer required to keep parroting the bullsh-t of the sinking ship.

I will be happy to support Republicans when they disavow all bigotry wholesale. They have gone running in the opposite direction.
100  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Taking a break on: June 03, 2016, 09:23:48 pm
Lol, the forum has not drifted significantly left. It's just that the Republican Party has drifted so significantly right (or not even right, just insane) that it has left anyone with more than half a brain behind.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 269


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines