Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

[wareyin]

Watch the damn video. The whole thing is a clip of Sanders making the connection between impoverished areas and criminal behavior, and basically saying that we should be tackling the poverty angle rather than putting more people in jail.

It's exactly the same sort of thing he's been saying in his present campaign. There's no scandal here, and he hasn't even changed his message since.

Similarly, there is no scandal when Clinton is talking about gang members connected to drug cartels, but those desperate for a talking point against Clinton are pretending there is. So, if you want to hold both candidates to the same standard about their 20 year old remarks, I'm fine with that.

 

[Manopolus]

Similarly, there is no scandal when Clinton is talking about gang members connected to drug cartels, but those desperate for a talking point against Clinton are pretending there is. So, if you want to hold both candidates to the same standard about their 20 year old remarks, I'm fine with that.

...or you could realize that not all gang members are even particularly psychotic. Some are just in it for the money, etc. I've known a few. They aren't all "super predators." Some of them are even fairly decent people if you ignore their criminal activities, which consist mainly of selling an illegal product.

 

[wareyin]

Yeah, it probably won't be by quite that much. Where did I say so? I remember saying something like "up to 80%" relating to various polling phenomena, but it certainly was meant to include less than that, and was sort of a generalized rule-of-thumb made partially in jest. The main point was that the polls were WAY off (skewed towards Hillary) in Idaho and Utah, as they have been in a number of other places -- somewhat consistently, although there certainly have been exceptions.

I thought you said earlier that there had been no polling? Or no recent polling? It's hard to keep track when polls are both not-predictive, and predictive-if-they-support-what-you-think-is-going-to-happen.

 

[wareyin]

...or you could realize that not all gang members are even particularly psychotic. Some are just in it for the money, etc. I've known a few. They aren't all "super predators." Some of them are even fairly decent people if you ignore their criminal side.

You do realize that Clinton didn't say "all gang members", just as she didn't say "inner city kids", right?

 

[Manopolus]

You do realize that Clinton didn't say "all gang members", just as she didn't say "inner city kids", right?

Yes, but that's the nature of dog whistling. Characterize, and even politicize through exaggeration, while maintaining deniability through the vagaries of who it applies to. The main issue here is that she was name calling, you know? "Criminal" is a generally accepted term for someone that broke the law. "Super predator" is a whole new characterization/description that goes a bit beyond that.

 

[wareyin]

Yes, but that's the nature of dog whistling. Characterize while maintaining deniability through the vagaries of who it applies to. The main issue here is that she was name calling, you know? "Criminal" is a generally accepted term for someone that broke the law. "Super predator" is a whole new characterization and description that goes a bit beyond that.

Yeah, "deeply sick" and "sociopathic" also go a bit beyond that, too, but don't let the truth get in the way of your attempts to give Sanders a pass.

 

[Manopolus]

Yeah, "deeply sick" and "sociopathic" also go a bit beyond that, too, but don't let the truth get in the way of your attempts to give Sanders a pass.

Sure, if you don't realize that they refer to mental illness and take it as purely derogatory instead.

 

[wareyin]

Yeah, "deeply sick" and "sociopathic" also go a bit beyond that, too, but don't let the truth get in the way of your attempts to give Sanders a pass.

Sure, if you don't realize that they refer to mental illness and take it as purely derogatory instead.

Wait, are you claiming that Sanders says we need to imprison people with mental illnesses? Here I thought you earlier said

Watch the damn video. The whole thing is a clip of Sanders making the connection between impoverished areas and criminal behavior, and basically saying that we should be tackling the poverty angle rather than putting more people in jail for longer sentences. It's exactly the same sort of thing he's been saying in his present campaign. There's no scandal here. He hasn't even changed his message since. It's the same thing he's saying now.

So is he wanting people jailed for mental illnesses rather than treatment, or is he against putting more people in jail? Your constant contradictions make it hard to have a conversation.

 

[Manopolus]

Wait....

Sorry, but you've passed the line where I can continue to believe that this is an honest argument. You won't get further replies.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Except that "superpredator" is and always has been a racist dogwhistle invoking an image of extreme violence from black, inner-city youth. The "superpredator" phenomenon originated as a piece of racist junk science that was used to inflate fears about black youth gangs running wild and committing increasing brutal and frequent acts of violence. There is no way Clinton could have been unaware of the nature of the term, since she specifically uses the gang and kid references from the junk science paper. At best, it was a huge gaffe that she should have owned up to and apologized for long ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/u...recalls-superpredator-threat-of-90s.html?_r=0

http://fair.org/extra/superscapegoating/

Considering that this was from, I believe, 1996... Had the paper been shown to be junk science at that point? And if not, then why blame those that used it any more than anyone that used the paper that declared that there was a link between Vaccinations and Autism shortly after it was published?

From my understanding this was right at the beginning of the whole thing, and blaming a politician for discussing what at the time was believed to be correct now that we know it wasn't is ridiculous.

 

[PhantomWolf]

"Super predator" is a whole new characterization/description that goes a bit beyond that.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/superpredator

When exactly did it get these extra connotations, or is it like "Thug" and just acquire them because it was a way of calling people racists even when the term didn't have them to start with?

 

[Axiom_Blade]

I understand now why you are a fan of someone who said that "inner city kids" are "superpredators" who need to be "brought to heel."

Protip: "inner city kids" is dog whistle for African Americans.

Black Lives Matter confronted her over this. Gotta love her reaction.

 

[PhantomWolf]

And cause no on else is likely to post it....

http://time.com/4238230/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matter-superpredator/

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Black Lives Matter confronted her over this. Gotta love her reaction.

Yeah, she tired to have an intelligent discussion with them and they didn't get it. But she meant well.

 

[Trakar]

And cause no on else is likely to post it....

http://time.com/4238230/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matter-superpredator/

How do I know she isn't just telling Time what she wants them to repeat for her? How do I know that her views have actually changed?

"Looking back, I shouldn’t have used those words, and I wouldn’t use them today"

Sounds to me like she just feels that she used bad words, not that she is sorry and has changed the thinking that gave birth to those word choices.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You really need to get out more. It's been around for just over 20 years now.

I guess I don't obsess over race like others.

It was created by racists. I'd ask if you've read the article, but the answer to that is really obviously no, which is exactly what I expected. Trolls gotta troll.

So we have another racist who assumes that "super predator" automatically refers to blacks? Sick. But, at least you own it!

 

[PhantomWolf]

How do I know she isn't just telling Time what she wants them to repeat for her? How do I know that her views have actually changed?



Sounds to me like she just feels that she used bad words, not that she is sorry and has changed the thinking that gave birth to those word choices.

I knew I should have added... Not that it will matter a jot to those that hate her.

 

[wareyin]

Sorry, but you've passed the line where I can continue to believe that this is an honest argument. You won't get further replies.

This whole argument began by dishonestly claiming that Clinton called "inner city kids" super predators. Once you begin to build your argument on such a dishonest foundation, I'm not sure how you can expect a claim to want an honest argument to be taken seriously.

 

[Trakar]

I knew I should have added... Not that it will matter a jot to those that hate her.

Those were serious questions. If you seriously don't trust someone, how does anything they say change how you feel about them? If you feel that someone has in the past, and will in the future, say whatever they think will curry favor with those they want to influence, how do you believe anything they say?

I do not hate Hillary, but I don't trust her or have faith in the integrity of her words.

 

[Tony Stark]

Those were serious questions. If you seriously don't trust someone, how does anything they say change how you feel about them? If you feel that someone has in the past, and will in the future, say whatever they think will curry favor with those they want to influence, how do you believe anything they say?

I do not hate Hillary, but I don't trust her or have faith in the integrity of her words.

Do you trust Donald Trump more? Because either Hillary or Trump (assuming Republicans can't find a way to deny him the nomination) will become the President of the United States on January 20th, 2017.