Presidential Election 2016

Introductions - Urban Issues - Miscellaneous News, Topics, Interests
User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 853
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Tiller » January 18th, 2016, 8:18 pm

That Vox article is completely in bad faith.

Meanwhile, Hillary's comprehensive pragmatic moderate progressive Healthcare plan:
Defend the Affordable Care Act. Hillary will continue to defend the Affordable Care Act (ACA) against Republican efforts to repeal it. She'll build on it to expand affordable coverage, slow the growth of overall health care costs (including prescription drugs), and make it possible for providers to deliver the very best care to patients.

Lower out-of-pocket costs like copays and deductibles. The average deductible for employer-sponsored health plans rose from $1,240 in 2002 to about $2,500 in 2013. American families are being squeezed by rising out-of-pocket health care costs. Hillary believes that workers should share in slower growth of national health care spending through lower costs.

Reduce the cost of prescription drugs. Prescription drug spending accelerated from 2.5 percent in 2013 to 12.6 percent in 2014. It’s no wonder that almost three-quarters of Americans believe prescription drug costs are unreasonable. Hillary believes we need to demand lower drug costs for hardworking families and seniors.

Transform our health care system to reward value and quality. Hillary is committed to building on delivery system reforms in the Affordable Care Act that improve value and quality care for Americans.
It looks like Healthcare is still a reason to support Sanders. The correct term to describe Hillary's plan is "conservative".

User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 853
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Tiller » January 18th, 2016, 8:32 pm

Didier wrote:Tiller, who do you think won the debate?
Depends on how you define "win". The way it's covered, used, and perceived, both by the media and by everyone else, is more important than the debate itself (because most people didn't watch it), even though the debate precipitates everything else. I'll have to wait to see.

LakeCharles
Foshay Tower
Posts: 832
Joined: January 16th, 2014, 8:34 am
Location: Kingfield

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby LakeCharles » January 20th, 2016, 10:30 am

Last week Bernie Sanders was asked whether he was in favor of “reparations for slavery.” It is worth considering Sanders’s response in full:
"No, I don’t think so. First of all, its likelihood of getting through Congress is nil. Second of all, I think it would be very divisive. [...]"
For those of us interested in how the left prioritizes its various radicalisms, Sanders’s answer is illuminating. The spectacle of a socialist candidate opposing reparations as “divisive” (there are few political labels more divisive in the minds of Americans than socialist) is only rivaled by the implausibility of Sanders posing as a pragmatist.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ource=SFFB
If not even an avowed socialist can be bothered to grapple with reparations, if the question really is that far beyond the pale, if Bernie Sanders truly believes that victims of the Tulsa pogrom deserved nothing, that the victims of contract lending deserve nothing, that the victims of debt peonage deserve nothing, that that political plunder of black communities entitle them to nothing, if this is the candidate of the radical left—then expect white supremacy in America to endure well beyond our lifetimes and lifetimes of our children. Reparations is not one possible tool against white supremacy. It is the indispensable tool against white supremacy. One cannot propose to plunder a people, incur a moral and monetary debt, propose to never pay it back, and then claim to be seriously engaging in the fight against white supremacy.

grant1simons2
IDS Center
Posts: 4290
Joined: February 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm
Location: Marcy-Holmes

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby grant1simons2 » January 20th, 2016, 10:54 am

Sanders full quote...

No, I don’t think so. First of all, its likelihood of getting through Congress is nil. Second of all, I think it would be very divisive. The real issue is when we look at the poverty rate among the African American community, when we look at the high unemployment rate within the African American community, we have a lot of work to do.

So I think what we should be talking about is making massive investments in rebuilding our cities, in creating millions of decent paying jobs, in making public colleges and universities tuition-free, basically targeting our federal resources to the areas where it is needed the most and where it is needed the most is in impoverished communities, often African American and Latino.

LakeCharles
Foshay Tower
Posts: 832
Joined: January 16th, 2014, 8:34 am
Location: Kingfield

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby LakeCharles » January 20th, 2016, 11:04 am

Yeah, which is the whole point of the article.
Coates:
This is the “class first” approach, originating in the myth that racism and socialism are necessarily incompatible.
...
Sanders’s anti-racist moderation points to a candidate who is not merely against reparations, but one who doesn’t actually understand the argument.
I just already quoted a lot of the article, so I only quoted the main part of Sanders quote to which Coates replied.

grant1simons2
IDS Center
Posts: 4290
Joined: February 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm
Location: Marcy-Holmes

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby grant1simons2 » January 20th, 2016, 11:13 am

Here's when we did it for Japanese Americans

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/21/us/se ... rnees.html
An estimated 60,000 of the 120,000 people interned are still alive. Those sent away as a result of an order issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1942 included 77,000 American citizens and 43,000 legal and illegal resident aliens. The last camp was closed in January 1946.
Under the legislation, $500 million would be paid in the year starting next Oct. 1, with $400 million paid the following year, then $200 million, then $100 million in each of the following two years.
''The awards will be made on the basis of age,''
So if there were ever reparations for slavery, how much do you propose all 41.7 million Black Americans get? $10,000 each? $5,000 each?

User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 853
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Tiller » January 20th, 2016, 11:35 am

Quick note: This is a Clinton surrogate who is part of the broadside happening right now.

Bernie not only has the most comprehensive platform for racial justice in this election, but probably one of the, if not the, most comprehensive racial justice platforms in a long time.

The issue of literal cash reparations for African Americans is a terrible and devisive idea. You won't end the legacy of slavery by just giving someone cash. That is probably one of the *least* helpful things you can do.

Bernie's suggestion of "targeting our federal resources to the areas where it is needed the most and where it is needed the most is in impoverished communities, often African American and Latino." is exactly what it is needed, and is *also* what Hillary suggested when asked.

The big difference is that Bernie would not only direct far more resources into marginalized communities, but he would also work far harder and more comprehensively to dismantle systems of racial oppression.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4760
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby David Greene » January 20th, 2016, 11:57 am

Right. Different people have very different ideas on what "reparations" means. Some people literally mean a cash payout. Others talk about things more in-line with what Sanders proposed - focused federal investments in areas to close various racial gaps.

He's not wrong that "reparations" is a divisive word. That means we need to educate people about the really huge set of things to pick from that fall under that idea.

I do agree that Sanders' immediate dismissal of "reparations" as an idea is the same old, same old white liberal/"progressive" response.

LakeCharles
Foshay Tower
Posts: 832
Joined: January 16th, 2014, 8:34 am
Location: Kingfield

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby LakeCharles » January 20th, 2016, 12:06 pm

grant1simons2 wrote: So if there were ever reparations for slavery, how much do you propose all 41.7 million Black Americans get? $10,000 each? $5,000 each?
I'm not trying to make the case for reparations here, but if you want a good one, you can read Coates again:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ns/361631/

I think there are a few things going on here. 1) It was silly of the Sanders camp to not respond to Coates, especially given where he is polling among African-Americans. 2) Coates reasonably says that feasibility is not a good excuse from Sanders given that many of the things he proposes are not currently feasible either. The same question was not posed to Clinton because she does not propose to do much of anything outside of the status quo.

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2298
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby EOst » January 20th, 2016, 4:04 pm

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ernie.html
Take the recent Monmouth University poll of the Democratic race. Between December and January, Clinton lost her lead with white Democrats. Indeed, it vanished, dropping 23 points. Now, she’s tied with Sanders, 43 percent to 43 percent. But she’s grown her lead with black and Latino Democrats, winning 71 percent to 21 percent for the Vermont senator, up from 61 percent in January.

...

Which gets to a broader, more important point. Minority voters—and black Americans in particular—are the firewall for Clinton’s candidacy and the Democratic establishment writ large. As long as Clinton holds her lead with black Democrats, she’s tough (if not impossible) to beat in delegate-rich states like New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Ohio, and Texas. Even with momentum from wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, it’s hard to see how Sanders overcomes Clinton’s massive advantage with this part of the party’s electorate . That’s not to say he won’t excel as an insurgent candidate, but that—barring a seismic shift among black Democrats, as well as Latinos—his coalition won’t overcome her coalition.
Bernie Bro mantra that minority voters will start to like him more once they know about him, er, not quite working out.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1759
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby amiller92 » January 21st, 2016, 11:06 am

Tiller wrote:[Reparations are] probably one of the *least* helpful things you can do.
Hm. There's no question that slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, etc. resulted in a huge wealth gap. I don't see how cash would be particularly unhelpful in reducing it.

That said, Bernie's 100% right that reparations are not happening, so we need other strategies.

trigonalmayhem

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby trigonalmayhem » January 21st, 2016, 12:35 pm

Did anyone ask Clinton if she'd support reparations? Because I'm pretty sure she wouldn't and her answer might be even more condescending. This is a pretty slimy political move by her team, but I'm hardly surprised.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1759
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby amiller92 » January 21st, 2016, 1:05 pm

trigonalmayhem wrote:Did anyone ask Clinton if she'd support reparations? Because I'm pretty sure she wouldn't and her answer might be even more condescending. This is a pretty slimy political move by her team, but I'm hardly surprised.
I'm not sure where we're getting the idea that TNC is "her team."

LakeCharles
Foshay Tower
Posts: 832
Joined: January 16th, 2014, 8:34 am
Location: Kingfield

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby LakeCharles » January 21st, 2016, 1:13 pm

Anyone who questions Bernie is clearly a paid shill of Clinton. No one else has any doubts about the man.

grant1simons2
IDS Center
Posts: 4290
Joined: February 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm
Location: Marcy-Holmes

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby grant1simons2 » January 21st, 2016, 1:21 pm

Oh you want this broken down? Here's a good look at it

http://www.mediaite.com/online/hillary- ... t-support/

And here's an article about black supporters defending Bernie

http://observer.com/2016/01/black-ameri ... s-attacks/

Sanders actively fought in the Civil Rights Movement, even was arrested for it and now has it on his record. He wants to see communities of color succeed.

User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 853
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Tiller » January 21st, 2016, 1:25 pm

As far as reparations go, I think it would be far more efficient to invest theoretical reparations money into concrete things for marginalized areas, which is why I said "least helpful", as they certainly wouldn't hurt.

Reparations would maybe make sense if marginalized areas were already going to recieve things like improved healthcare, education, and infrastructure, but even then said money would probably still be better spent improving services as opposed to direct payments. If you give someone $10,000, maybe for a couple of years, but they still don't have access to a good education, to healthcare, to good infrastructure, to a good environment, to jobs, then what's the point? You've got to teach people how to fish, not just give them some fish and hope they figure it out on their own.

One reason I say this is that we already have a record of the effects of general "direct payments" to the populace in the form of tax breaks, and they don't work. An extra $100, $500, or $1000 doesn't last long, considering people make tens of thousands of dollars in just one year.

Direct payments would have to be massively expensive to actually make a dent on their own, in terms of hundreds of billions, probably trillions, of dollars. It would make *way* more sense to focus our money, effort, and political capital to increase investments in healthcare, education, and infrastructure for the general public, and to focus investments in marginalized areas.

I'm not willing to die on a hill for "reparations" that may not even work, and would be almost entirely impossible to EVER implement politically. Who here really thinks that the needed portion of the 90% of America that isn't black would be willing to pay trillions of dollars for people they most likely never even see on a day to day basis? If anything would happen, this would send us into a territory of bigotry that would put even Donald Trump to shame, spreading the worst vitriol of the worst of his supporters and making it mainstream in America.

User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 853
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Tiller » January 21st, 2016, 1:27 pm

It's rather simple. This is a question of political tribalism. There are themes, slogans, words, messages, etc. that clearly identify whose team one is on.

I'd even be willing to bet that the split in this forum largely falls along a split in age. Younger people on this forum will tend to support Bernie, while older people will tend to support Hillary.

To me it seems that there is some pathology to many who were democrats in the 90's and supported Bill and Hillary Clinton, that creates a lot of the divide, in terms of things like rhetoric.
Last edited by Tiller on January 21st, 2016, 1:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.

LakeCharles
Foshay Tower
Posts: 832
Joined: January 16th, 2014, 8:34 am
Location: Kingfield

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby LakeCharles » January 21st, 2016, 1:31 pm

grant1simons2 wrote:Oh you want this broken down? Here's a good look at it

http://www.mediaite.com/online/hillary- ... t-support/

And here's an article about black supporters defending Bernie

http://observer.com/2016/01/black-ameri ... s-attacks/

Sanders actively fought in the Civil Rights Movement, even was arrested for it and now has it on his record. He wants to see communities of color succeed.
From the first article, on the suggestion that Coates is a Clinton minion:
I don’t know many “Hillary minions” who would attack Chelsea Clinton in defense of Bernie Sanders, and of course, Coates said nothing to remotely suggest that Bernie is a bigot or a racist, unless that’s what “anti-racism moderate” means. The timing of this brouhaha is bad for Sanders, but then it wasn’t Coates who gave that quick “no” and then refused to engage followups. As has been his pattern with black issues, Sanders has handled this poorly.
I fully support Sanders for President, he'll get my vote if it still matters by the time Minnesota votes, but I also recognize he has room for growth, and I hate the suggestion (not just here but Facebook, reddit, etc.) that anytime anyone dares to question Bernie, they are wrong, should be yelled at, and must be doing it because they work for Hillary.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1759
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby amiller92 » January 21st, 2016, 1:51 pm

Not to get into an extended debate, but the "teach a man to fish" argument sounds rather profoundly paternalistic. Also, my understanding is that there is some good evidence in favor of direct cash payments in making real changes in people's lives. Much more so than tax incentives and in-kind contributions.

But yes, there are all kinds of pragmatic reason why it isn't going to happen and makes little sense for an actual politician to push for.

TNC's point is that those things do not stop Bernie from taking other similarly unrealistic positions. That's valid.

I don't know that its pathological, but yes, exactly no one thinks Hillary is a idealist.

User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 853
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Tiller » January 21st, 2016, 2:18 pm

I typed up a resonse, but deleted it. Instead I'll leave this video here. Bernie supporters are being defensive because he is under attack, and this is such a crucial time.


"TNC's point is that those things do not stop Bernie from taking other similarly unrealistic positions. That's valid."

Not everything that is "unrealistic" is equally so. Reparations are FAR more unrealistic than what Bernie is proposing, and Bernie has the most comprehensive racial justice platform you'll probably see in decades, unless of course Bernie wins and tries to get re elected in 2020.

I'll repeat that.
Bernie has the most comprehensive racial justice platform you'll see in decades, past and future.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/

Insisting that Bernie is bad in some way because he doesn't support the most purist potential issue in politics to ever exist is bullshit, which is exactly what Hillary's campaign, and TNC, are doing. This could have been a critique of "white liberals", or even America at large, but instead it calls out Bernie Sanders less than 2 weeks before the Iowa primaries on a topic his opponents have been trying to ratfuck him on for months despite his relative strength.


Return to “Anything Goes”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest