Presidential Candidates? Presidents? as I said Europe is no better.
No, but some US states are fairly comparable in size and diversity to some European states. It is not a bad measure of whether the religion would play a role.
Weâre not discussing Clinton.
Sanders has been working on civil rights for 40+ years with the Black community.
She was supporting Goldwater. Other women in their generation were being asked to get coffee for Tom Hayen apparently.
I think dem politics is about trust between governed and governing, constituents and representatives.
POC, women and the rest of us also support our political representatives because we trust the relationship in some way.
I donât know why some POC and women trust their political relationship with Hilz. I donât think it means that they donât trust Bernie.
OTOH, I donât think itâs possible for political trust to be forced.
Just because you say something doesnât make it how the Black community actually views things. Iâm just parroting the reception Iâve seen when looking in comparison. Speaking of which, it might be hard to be taken all that seriously when youâre trying to talk from a mountaintop when the state you come fares no better on these issues despite having more progressive policies. Thereâs plenty to like Bernie for, and I hope he wins, but itâs pretty delusional to think itâs just âname recognitionâ.
There is an awful lot of âthe 60s revolutionâ that doesnât stand up well to modern-day scrutiny. Treatment of women probably leads the list.
Clintonâs choice of Goldwater (probably following family politics) is interesting, only because in Illinois there were far more moderate Republican choices. Chuck Percy was the paradigm of what a responsible Republican candidate could look like. Even Ev Dirksen, while a serious conservative and slightly crazy, was well to Goldwaterâs left.
Translation: I donât know nothing about this so Iâm going to post about it.
If you donât know his civil rights record, why are you giving an opinion on it?
Translation: I donât care how other people are voting or what they think, so letâs just parrot Bernie Sanderâs campaign website without actually talking to people.
Iâm talking about his civil rights history, which is a matter of public record and has been discussed in the media. If you want to be blissfully unaware of it, thatâs on you. Read a book (or a newspaper).
You can quit moving the goalposts anytime you want.
Yes and no. It depressing when the anti-semitism still rears it head. It isnât, though, statistically. Especially in North America, where Jews are basically a vanishingly small percentage of the population (1-3%).
Though, that isnât to diminish the first bit, at all. I know lots of rational, liberal, people who still hate Jews with a firey passion. Something something conspiracy, something something Bilderberg, something something Elders of Zion. It is actually pretty damn creepy.
And POC.
I wonder how it felt to be caught between 60s era racism and sexism on the left and the pragmatic need to retreat from the right.
After 1968 some women and POC formed a counterintuitive rapport with âthird wayâ dems like HRC and socially moderate GOP candidates.
Not that there are any moderate GOP candidates left. But HRCâs politics still seem to consider race and gender equity as compatible with a partial corporate power base.
That makes little sense to me except there does seem to be a continuum of positions on race and gender equity within corporations and corporate culture.
And working class whites did mostly drop the ball for thirty years on race and gender.
Who cares? Right is right, and dem socialism is right.
Except insufficient support from POC and women has contributed to the dem socialists trailing in the primaries. So we should care.
That any woman or POC felt as safe or safer with any GOP candidate than the working class progressives deserves very serious consideration from dem socialists in my opinion.
He was such a slimeball you wanted to wash your hands after being around him. Goldwater was actually the more decent human being, believe it or not.
Nonsense, to put it politely. Mainstream national polls (CNN, Quinnipiac, PPP, Gallup, Bloomberg) show Bernie beating Trump by a sounder, safer margin than Hillary. Plus, Hillaryâs much-hyped favor among voters of color is entirely from early primaries in red states in the Deep South, from before it was apparent that Bernie was the more viable candidate in the general. If the older, more compromised, more conservative Tom Hayden is endorsing Hillary, itâs not because she has a better chance of beating Trump or because black people like her better. As with many of the superdelegates who have declared for Hillary, I suspect thereâs a less palatable consideration involved.
Considering that the polling date indicates that Hillary would beat Trump, but that Sanders would beat Trump by a much larger margin, the âfight against trumpâ argument is an argument for Sanders not for Hillary.
I didnât know Tom Hayden before but given reasoning like the above, or the later in the article reasoning that he should vote for pro-big-money in politics, pro-big-finance, pro-big-corporation Hillary in order to support the poor and downtrodden brown people, Iâve gotta say, I have less respect for his reasoning than before I read the article.
Thereâs an argument to be made that African Americans are actually quite conservative. What keeps them from voting for Republicans more often is that partyâs embrace of racism for political gains elsewhere and regressive policies toward the poor. Hillary Clinton appears to be the right kind of politician for the African American community, hence widespread support for her in the community. Hereâs a book on the subject more generally:
I think the 60s movements made a real/conscious effort on race in a way they didnât on women, which of course is not the same thing as saying that progress since then has been better for POC than for women. Also, I think that some of what progress that there was on race in the late 60s was more a side-effect of the draft than it was of the movement.
We should have a discussion of this sometime, but maybe not in this thread. I remember many of my friends decided they hated him because of one of the big Nazi deportation cases, but I donât remember any other issues where he represented especially immoderate views. I only met him once, at a LOWV workshop on campaigning in the 70s, and he seemed to be as genuinely repelled by some of the GOP speakers and their suggestions as I was.
Yes, and white progressives also felt alienated from POC in the civil rights movement, like CORE, and later the Panthers.
Working whites dismantled the Great Society coalition and helped expose POC to the excesses of the war on drugs and discriminatory state and federal crime bils.
I think the seeds of the current distrust of white male progressives by some POC were planted in or around 1968.
Dem socialists are acknowledging the lost trust. Or, rather, some are starting to acknowledge it.
The Black and Hispanic communities here in California overwhelming supported Prop 8, as I recall, to ban gay marriage. Clearly, politics in these communities is not as simple as GOP or Democrat.
Those are ipso facto not rational liberal people.
Touche, and good point.