General Politics Discussion (III) [ARCHIVED] • Page 617

I agree, for those of us paying attention. I think the billion years of Hilary in the spotlight contributed to her specific negative numbers. (And that she was a woman.)

 

Ties to DeVos is terrifying, and Wall Street was a big turn-off for Hillary for a lot of people. I don't think the Dems would do that to themselves again

 

It's so sad that this is so true in 2017

 

Oh they're dumb enough to do it. Which is why the ground work to stop it is being worked on now. Hahah.

 

Sadly, you're right.

 

Booker will drive turnout way better than Clinton was able to.

Unless, of course, people like you campaign against him on social media like you/they did against Clinton

 

He supported charter schools as a mayor of a large minority population city, this is not uncommon, especially since so many of those populations want charter schools. "Ties to DeVos" sounds way more ominous than it actually is.

 

Voters don't look past headlines though. That's the problem.

 

Well worst case scenario is Bernie backs a candidate that has no chance of winning the primary and when they lose we get relitigation 9000 and Trump wins walking away. Now I think Bernie's running, so that leads to other issues with what happens there and his die-hard fans. Wish he'd get on board with someone we can introduce to the world now and start working toward instead and vetting.

 

Which is why having left wingers already start with "He has ties to DeVos" bullshit is a problem. Fuck that narrative. Dude isn't going to fucking put her in charge of education, nor is he going to champion her policies.

 

Sorry, I can't be another silent negro, while you folks push another bougie one upon us.

 

You're absolutely right. Scary that people won't dig deep into that though.

 

This is one of those things some white liberals do, where they say it is okay to endorse something because black people do, even though their policies produce the conditions in which they're forced to look for any available alternative.

 

And there we have it. Now I need to go for a walk.

 

No, it's more about a mayor of a city being beholden to the people that voted for him. That's literally what politicians are supposed to do (to a certain extent)--do what their constituents are asking.

 

Question: if the majority of a minority endorses something that does the second part of your post, or is bad policy, what is the best thing for someone like David in this case to do? Not point out they support it? Speak against it? Feels very rock/hard place. Saying nothing seems to let it keep rolling.

 

Cool, Trump until 2024 will work out great for everyone, including black people.

 

I mean, she did some actually terrible things during her time, which earned her rightful animosity. But, Booker has been around the block. The overwhelming negative response he received when he voted against the bill that would have allowed the importation of cheap drugs, I think, is just the beginning. Also, I still don't see Bernie running. He'll be really old and I can't see him making it through it.

 

Heh. I'm sure Fox is pissed.

 

She did. But I think it's undeniable it was amplifed by some pretty horrendous sexism and ridiculous coverage around certain things as well. I think Booker is mid-tier in comparison. Never really vetted on the national stage and someone people who couldn't force themselves to vote for Clinton could actually get behind. I think he can be inspiring enough as well. But I'm also certain he's going to be torn down by the same apparatuses that benifit most from tearin him down. Which is one of multiple reasons I don't want him to run, even if I think he'll win / woulda won 2016.

 

Speaking of 2020: the one thing all candidates need to do is not worry about how anything is paid for. Don't get bogged down in wonky technocrat shit. Aim big. Make big pronouncements. Bernie was good at that very idea in a few places and Trump clearly mastered it. Talk about how you wanna do something big and huge and great and ignore the questions about it.

 

Booker will have about 10-12 years of national exposure by the time the campaign starts, and hasn't been under the microscope in that time nearly as much as Hiillary was for 20+ years before she ran. He def won't be looked at as negatively she was because the GOP hasn't spent 20-25 years trying to throw dirt on him lol.

But yeah he's a hell of a speaker and very good articulating his positions. That will play very well in the debates and that's why I think he gets it. None of the other candidates being mentioned have the charisma+speaking skills that he does. Bernie might beat him if he runs just based on policy and where the base is now, but otherwise....Franken has some quips but every time I watch him speak in interviews I can't see him performing well in a debate.

 

I hesitate to bring this up, because it happened in the '90's, but I can recall David justifying the crime bill because there were segments of the black community pushing it. Alternatively, there was significant push-back and we know the result. It was understood that it would contribute to an already racializes and skyrocketing prison population. So, it is selective in many regards first of all, but it is also easy. You have black parents who live in bad neighborhoods, who go to bad schools, who experience and are subjected to crime at a disproportionate rate than other parts of the population. There's an easy answer that is easy precisely because it is linked to a foundational racist mechanisms and there is an actual answer, which is to enact policies that make public education better, that provides low-income people with a living wage, that desegregates housing and places an emphasis on addressing the roots of the phenomena. That's hard, but many people were advocating it even back then. So, I guess my argument would be: as with any community, it is composed of different classes, with different outlooks, some are conservative and some are far to the left. They should be approached as such and should act accordingly, i.e., those who are trying to get to the root of social problems.

 

Gonna get super elitist here but...I think voters on the left tend to be a little bit more curious about details like this. Not sure if it's enough to make a difference, but I def don't think the left is as easily swayed as the GOP base is.

 

THe problem with that approach for a city, as a mayor, is the only way to do those things is to increase funding to them. And at that level, the only way to do that is to raise taxes on people--a lot.

It's a lot easier, and has shown to work enough in some places, to instead shift already existing money from the state around.

As for the crime bill, there's a difference between justifying it, and understanding why it happened. When enough people in that area are sayign they want more cops and more crackdown on crime, some of their legislators are going to listen.