He’s the blackEST President we’ve had to date, no question. And he was more than black enough to rile the bigots. But it still took a mixed race man who grew up in a white family for a majority of American voters to finally give a non-white guy a shot at the White House.
That’s not a dismissal of Obama’s cred as a black man, it’s an indictment of just how slow the American electorate has been in accepting diversity.
Democrats are blowing it right now. Republicans are groping, raping, assaulting, and keeping their jobs. Democrats are groping and losing their jobs. That’s the way the world is: convince the sheep to eat their own and just keep being the wolves you always were.
If the Democrats don’t hold their own party to higher standards than those who are actively backing sexual predators then they will cease to be a party that deserves to win.
Maybe I’m reading too much Dahlia Lithwick, but deserves to win != wins.
Franken’s almost certainly out, Conyers is right out. Good. They’ll probably be replaced by Democrats regardless.
But if it only matters for one side and the other keeps winning, then it doesn’t mean squat overall, particularly if there was a scandal and a Democrat resigned and was replaced by a Republican by a Republican governor. I mean let’s say Ed Markey was in Franken’s position. Should he also resign, given the fact that if he goes, then he could be replaced by a Republican by his Republican governor? Because that definitely would feel like “unilateral disarmament” to me if that happened.
It seems that “whataboutism” becomes much more popular when liberals are doing it.
It looks like the leadership has decided to cut Franken loose, though. That probably wasn’t too hard to achieve; the right wing of the party didn’t like Franken anyway.
There are already many other reasons why neither party deserves to win.
Fortunately, the party is not the same thing as the people. And:
Thank you for bringing reason and clarity to what is a highly emotive and skewed discussion. The level of vitriol against HRC among otherwise seemingly open minded people is way beyond any reason. An ample demonstration of how misogynist US society really is!
The system is rigged in many fold ways.
@lolipop_jones @lava @Snowlark @anon62577920
I am making assumptions here. But by the sound of your comments you are all white males discussing how racism lost HRC the elections. It might be worthwhile to listen to what Black Women like
or
have to say on Clinton rather than hang out in your misogynistic echo chamber.
BW voted for Clinton en block and not because she is racist but bcs she called out Trump’s racism during the campaign. Read it for yourself:
She warned people that Trump was a White Supremacist campaigning on a platform to undo 5 decades of civil rights progress. And that f***ing lost her the election in a racist system that disenfranchises POC.
Going on and on and on about how the same racist White Supremacist who got Trump elected were all waiting to be saved by a Brooklyn Jew is just delusional!
I couldn’t agree more. The very day of the election, it was clear Trump is America’s way of saying black lives don’t matter. The people who call BLM “thugs and rioters” swarmed to the polls to elect the most racist candidate, as payback for Obama. They are terrified of uppity blacks. It’s being taken out on Muslims and Mexicans, but I suspect that’s temporary.
Read the title of this article again.
Just like that muslim ‘boy’ from Kenya that was unelectable, huh?
Maybe because he had a message and vision beyond being not McCain/Romney.
Regardless of whether or not that vitriol was based in reason to any extent, it was a fact in being at the beginning of the 2015 campaign.
What came out during 2016 about the large thumb placed on the scales by the DNC in her favor did nothing to help reduce that vitriol.
Nominating Clinton was therefore an objectively weak choice compared to nominating another equally qualified candidate.
Given that it’s Minnesota, he can reliably be replaced by a Democrat.
If the (D) senators from Indiana, West Virginia, or North Dakota were to be caught up in a sex scandal, you’d be hearing a lot more (Moore?) about letting the voters decide.
I do not think it was hyperbole.
If the 2020 Democratic primaries shake out to a strong white candidate versus a strong non-white candidate, there will absolutely be at least insinuations if not outright allegations of racism directed against supporters of the former, if not the candidate him/herself. I’d stake a good sized bet on that.
Are you questioning my reading comprehension or trying to make an argument.
If you are trying to make an argument it would be helpful to introduce some evidence into the conversation.
There. is. absolutely. no. evidence. that Sanders would have won against Trump. It is a belief which Cory and many others on BB vehemently defend. However this does not make it true.
I am happy to engage in a reasoned argument, but not really happy to be patronised by adults behaving like a mid-tantrum-feet-stamping toddler, which is what you are doing here:
Let me respond with evidence:
POC are underrepresented in the US electoral system. This has been the case historically, by design and is increasingly the case do to demographics & GOP legislative efforts.
The fact that a black man of mixed racial heritage who culturally is not African American has been elected President after five decades of civil rights movement doesn’t prove anything except that change in US politics happens at a glacier speed.
Trump has proven his racist credentials over four decades: As a landlord and as a vigilante who incited violence towards the Central Park Five. He was a racist candidate and he is a racist president. He was elected because of his racism not in spite. And yes, after Obama there has been a unsurprising racist backlash.
94% of Black Women voted for HRC and they haven’t got many good things to say about Sanders which is kind of interesting?
EDIT: to add HRC was and is standing for something: Women. And she has realised legislative changes which have benefitted women and children.
How about standing for something and doing something about what you stand for. Does that count?
Precisely my point. The Democrats ceased to be a party of integrity a long time ago. The recent allegations of sexual assault are just icing on the cake, emblematic of a long-standing pre-existing condition. And, as much as we’d like to call 'em rubes, Republicans have played this to their further advantage, while they already enjoyed the advantage. Not a shred of long-range strategy among the D’s.
The waspy lady from wall street thinks trump needed a time-out but that wasn’t enough to win an election.
Thanks for regurgitating all the talking points during the election. It sounds like you spent more effort stumping against the left than the right.
How things worked out are exactly how primary polls were showing them too, Clinton-Trump within a margin of error, Sanders trouncing him.
And yet, we acted surprised when it actually happened.
No, its not. She cheated in the primary, she sought to over-rule the democratic process to ensure she was a candidate - an entirely unnecessary effort as she would have won anyway. And she refused to acknowledge or accept any consequences for those actions - she should have stepped down. In fact she exhibited just the kind of behavior which is now so obvious in Trump. And Trump made the most of it - painting her as a flawed and corrupt candidate which many were easily convinced of given the history of past accusations - true or not. She was a vulnerable and flawed candidate from the start, and she will be again in 2018.
I don’t deny any of the explanations of racism and sexism that all worked against her. But this is about winning the next election, and that is something that she has proven she can’t do. We can not give her another run at this.
I agree. I gave her my vote because it was the right thing to do. She would have been infinitely better than Trump. But another run? No way. I was also a huge Bernie supporter, gave him about $250 bucks over the course of his campaign. But I am not in favor of him running again, either, and it looks like he’s gearing up to do so. I would like all of the D’s to clean house and put up a fresh candidate. Bernie, for everything he stands for, is rather tone deaf to many of the issues that get in people’s faces. He tries. I’ll give him that. But there are reasons beyond simple party loyalty & establishment politics why he did so poorly among the southern black populace, esp. women.
Whoever said US politics moves at the speed of a glacier is dead wrong. It’s slower than that. Glaciers actually move and calve off icebergs. Politics here is the speed of mechanical weathering of a mountain range. It’s fucking maddening beyond belief. We can so clearly see the issues: the middle class is being gutted, black lives matter, women’s rights, marriage equality, the police state, the environment, federal overreach… and yet here we are talking about minutia while the party leaders completely forget to make any rational strategy.
AAAAAAARGH!!!
During the primaries, two people were able to gather huge crowds at their events - Sanders and Trump. That’s when the media and the HRC camp started telling us all that crowd size does not matter. We were told it was about the size of the campaign chest. After all HRC is a corporatist who received massive donations from Wall Street (which was a good thing right?). Then we all watched as the DNC displayed naked favoritism for HRC and began a campaign to minimise the grass roots support for Sanders - because crowd size didn’t matter. So, the DNC nominated HRC, supported the narrative that Sanders could not win (because crowd size does not matter) and lost the election to the candidate with the larger crowds.
I don’t know what factors caused HRC to loose the election, but I do know the DNC lost a lot of supporters when the clearly more popular Sanders was marginalized and pushed out for the establishment supported HRC. I don’t know if Sanders could win if he ran again but I do know that many on the left are still mad at the DNC and HRC for taking away their only chance to give positive progressivism a national voice.
It’s kinda funny that both Sanders and Corbyn being relevant in politics today since it bucks the theory that the “end of history” is liberalism. For me, this just proves that ideas that were once thought dead or wrong like socialism are in fact the right ones. And it may take an existential crisis as big as the effects of global warming to force the people all over the world (and here in the US) to finally make the change just for the basic necessity of not dying out.
Sadly, the rich got this game locked up and it’s going to end with many people dying before they’re subdued. The fact you got nuttier than a fruitcake types like Peter Thiel who have Prez Cheeto’s attention really frightens me. This guy has no qualms subjecting people to untested (on animals) vaccines, taking blood from teenagers so he can live longer, and spying on folks for the govt/“datamining” purposes. We literally got cyberpunk vampires running the show and this isn’t some Spierig brothers film.
Have you read Snow Crash? We are becoming that America. In that book, everything has been corporatized and it’s a wacky conglomeration of city-states with weird overlapping jurisdictions, unclear roles, everyone is a capitalist, the mafia are mainstream, and it’s all intermixed with cyberspace (the “metaverse”), media, hyperinflation, drugs and propaganda. IOW, a big fucking mess, and that’s right where we are headed, and well along the path.
Those posts highlight the exact reason Roy Moore still has some chance. A sicko is better than some baby eating, satan worshiping, abortion every weekend having Democrat.
ETA - I’d like to call again my plea to have some sort of weighted voting system that might trigger more viable 3rd parties whose stances align more for what is good for America as a whole.
