Sandernistas and White Entitlement

[Maxwell]

The GOP rigged the system against Ron Paul. 

Absolutely, unequivocally false. If anything, the archaic rules allowed Paul to manipulate and receive more delegates than he was entitled to.

[tallguy23]

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.

[Hermit For Peace]

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.

LOL!

[Famous Mortimer]

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.

[Wisconsin+17]

Hillary supporters claiming that Bernie is privileged and she is not? Astoundingly poor optics.

[Hermit For Peace]

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. But I also like the concept that every Millennial received a trophy growing up. That's priceless! LOL!

[Hermit For Peace]

Hillary supporters claiming that Bernie is privileged and she is not? Astoundingly poor optics.

Don't think anyone is saying that.

[Famous Mortimer]

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.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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...

[Hermit For Peace]

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.

[Famous Mortimer]

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.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Hillary supporters claiming that Bernie is privileged and she is not? Astoundingly poor optics.

Um, the article was written by a Sanders intern.
But thanks for playing anyway.

[Famous Mortimer]

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.

[Virginiá]

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.

Is that actually the case with her policies though? For example, on college she has repeatedly described it as debt-free college via numerous methods. Tuition-free community college (so you could swing that to make the first 2 years of your degree free), the ability to use grants for living expenses, increased pell grant funding, making sure colleges do not inflate tuition needlessly, as they have been doing for years now, and finally to allow refinancing. I'm sure there are a lot of other beneficial details, but I don't see how this singles out people making over $2k. All her plan does is ask for reasonable contributions from family (if possible) and that the student work at least 10 hours a week, which is again, very reasonable. It's possible it is slightly less helpful, but we won't know until it's actually submitted to Congress. To say they are 'on their own' seems like hyperbole.

So what are you basing your assertion on?

[Famous Mortimer]

You establish this standard of "needing to address racism" in order to make a policy acceptable. Of course it's a vague and meaningless standard. Clinton, your favored candidate, says "Black people are oppressed" and you say "oh, jolly good, she has addressed the racism". Sanders, the candidate you don't like, spends hundreds of hours talking about how Black people are oppressed and you go "hmmm, he hasn't really addressed racism to my liking." You can do that because, again, "addressing the racism in the system" isn't a concrete policy. It's a meaningless platitude.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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.

[RaphaelDLG]

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

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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?

[RaphaelDLG]

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?

Your solutions sound great, I would be interested in exploring them to solve the real problem of systemic racism, but I've never heard Hillary talk about any of them.

It seems like Hillary is just talking about race but not actually proposing or doing anything about it,  at least in any way that creates substantial daylight between her and Sanders.  She also doesn't really have any history of following up on racial issues in a way that Bernie doesn't, other than by "talking" and "reaching out."  All of which comes across as very cynical.

And makes it infuriating when Hillary supporters cast her as some progressive anti-racist crusader and Bernie as George Wallace.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

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.

 

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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. 

[Famous Mortimer]

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.

[RaphaelDLG]

Yeah, obviously black people actually get preferential treatment in college admissions.

However, there is some scientific research out there that suggests that, for job applications, if you send in identical resumes to an employer, one with a stereotypically "black" name, and one with a stereotypically "white" name, that the white ones are much more likely to get called back:

http://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/do-black-names-matter

[Bismarck]

I can't speak for everyone, but where I come from is very white yet people here look down upon anybody who feels a sense of entitlement, regardless of race. I was raised to not expect anything from the government. I have a friend who is the child of a single Hispanic mother and they never took government help and now are quite wealthy. People respect that in my home town.