DownIsTheNewUp
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I actually just watched a panel of activists (of different ideologies) discussing the idea of a Harris/Bernie ticket and that was brought up. Worth a watch if your are interested:
Political Discussion
- Thread starter David A.
- Start date
Yeah, I actually just watched a panel of activists (of different ideologies) discussing the idea of a Harris/Bernie ticket and that was brought up. Worth a watch if your are interested:
jaycee
Well-Known Member
Police are only needed in inequitable societies to propagate that inequity by keeping those who have from those who have not.
Police protect and serve the power structure.
Are all cops bad human beings or inherently evil - of course not, but their profession is an inherently unjust one and inherently corrupted.
Police protect and serve the power structure.
Are all cops bad human beings or inherently evil - of course not, but their profession is an inherently unjust one and inherently corrupted.
Dtknuckles
Well-Known Member
I don’t really have 25 minutes to watch that video, but I will say there really needs to be more supports before it gets to the point of chronic truancy.
Support for drug addicted parents
Mental Health support
Better ways to change bad parenting
More gang intervention
That being said there are alsways families that are hopeless and waste opportunities and resources. I’m cool with that. Not everybody is ready for the help they need at the time it’s given to them.
Chucktshoes
Well-Known Member
Normally y’all know I avoid posting in this thread like the plague, but I happen to have some information about this case as my current student is the cousin of the woman who was charged. What that CNN story leaves out is that not only did she initiate and press the confrontation, she also was the first to pull out a gun. The woman who shot her did so in self defense, which is why the grand jury declined to indict. To quote her cousin, “Man, it’s messed up, but wrong is wrong, and she was wrong.”
Alabama law holds that the person who initiates criminal activity is liable for the deaths of anyone that occur during that activity, innocent or coconspirator alike. In this case the mother engaged in an aggravated assault upon the other woman who shot the mother in self defense leading to the death of her unborn child, making the mother legally responsible for that death.
So, while one can debate the merits of the case or how wise it was to charge her (I wouldn’t have simply because of the optics) the article was written in such a way as to purposely gin up outrage by leaving out crucial facts of the case.
Woob_woob
Well-Known Member
All things I knew, and are being reported on fairly widely. Doesnt make any of it right.
Woob_woob
Well-Known Member
I dont care if it only ever happened to one parent and they were the most hopeless parent ever. Throwing them in jail is not the answer.
Woob_woob
Well-Known Member
Hard pass on all of this
Chucktshoes
Well-Known Member
I’m not here to debate any of it, I simply wished to share information that wasn’t in the CNN article as I believe its omission was intentional and purposeful on the part of CNN.
Dtknuckles
Well-Known Member
While I’d agree with you I would like to see how removing the child from the parents primary care would improve things.
Woob_woob
Well-Known Member
That can be done without sending the parent to prison
Woob_woob
Well-Known Member
I mean the democratic party threatened the unity of their own party just fine. I've never been more ashamed to support the dems than how they handled that last election. Bernie never got a fair primary and I dont see why he shouldve helped a party that did everything they could to not help him. Hopefully theyve learned their lesson and wont force Biden like they forced Hillary last time.
Woob_woob
Well-Known Member
You had me til that last line
DownIsTheNewUp
Well-Known Member
See you've kind of revealed yourself as a former Hillary supporter here who may or may not be bitter about the face that she was a bad candidate who ran an even worse campaign.
Bernie stayed in the race in order to have leverage at the convention when negotiating the DNC platform. And guess what, it worked. The entire party was moved to the left because even though he lost, he made it clear that his policies had nationwide appeal.
He endorsed Clinton, and he campaigned for her. He begged his supporters to listen to him about the dangers of Trump and most of them did. Only 12 percent of Bernie supporters voted Trump. Which is roughly half of the number of Clinton supporters who voted McCain in 08.
This is in spite of the fact that the primary WAS tipped against him by the DNC and the media. And in spite of her horrid record, progressives like me swallowed our pride and voted for her. A portion of his (more independent, right leaning) base was always going stay home or vote Trump because his whole campaign was built around swaying apathetic, disillusioned non-voters that he actually had their back. It's why I was canvassing without a registration list (unlike when I worked for Obama). And it's why the DNC desperately tried to get him to turn over said voter list.
As to his tone- I get it. Sort of? I sometimes wish he had the ability to be like Kamala and switch up his approach. But I also think Bernie is not actually grumpy. It's more that he may be a little bit on the spectrum. And for the record, it's not his perceived grumpiness that appeals to his supporters (unlike Trump who thrives on anger). Its his authenticity, his ability to be anyone but himself.
Because frankly, for many people this whole thing has become: I don't just care about what you are promising. I also care whether I can trust you to actually fight for me when you are in office. And Warren and Sanders are the only two that have me convinced they will do that.
Last edited:
DownIsTheNewUp
Well-Known Member
I'd add that I've recently come to the conclusion that there is a small contingent of Bernie bros (I still think the term is stupid as fuck because a HUGE amount of them are women). They were not in my large bubble of activists in 2016 because most of us who were volunteering for Bernie are the type who follow politics closely and had volunteered many times. However, as I mentioned our specific goal was bringing disillusioned people into the process via door to door knocking. And unfortunately, many of those people trust Bernie but are so new to the process that they a) are very poor messengers for the movement and b) cant distinguish between those who have co-opted his platform in name of the DNC (Harris) versus somebody like Warren who has been fighting economic inequality for years.
But that's not on Bernie. That's on the mainstream media and DNC for creating an environment so toxic in 2016 that it created an us versus the DNC mentality (instead of an us versus the corporate class mentality).
But that's not on Bernie. That's on the mainstream media and DNC for creating an environment so toxic in 2016 that it created an us versus the DNC mentality (instead of an us versus the corporate class mentality).
Last edited:
Woob_woob
Well-Known Member
Because I know he will fight for those ideas in office because hes been fighting for them for 30+ years. Afaik those others are adopting those ideas just to get the nomination because they have to. Hopefully they will fight for those ideas while in office, but I'm not 100% convinced like I am with Bernie.
Woob_woob
Well-Known Member
Because it's the right platform?
DownIsTheNewUp
Well-Known Member
A) Because a large chunk of the party HAS moved to the left on various levels of government local and national. Because it was important to show the masses that those policies could be popular outside of tiny bubbles in urban areas. That doesn't mean the donors that run the party aren't gonna run a couple candidates who job it is to reign things back in (much like the media has spent the past 3 years successful deflecting blame onto Russia instead of analyzing what went wrong and what needs to be reformed).
Again, both Woob_Woob and I have indicated that we really like Warren and trust her and would vote for her. I don't quite trust Harris because I watched her rise within CA and have close friends whose career is to run campaigns (one of whom I will mention later) who have made it clear how easy her move up the chain of command was (particularly over Loretta Lynch) as the chosen one. Yet I will vote for her if she is the nominee specifically because she has held firm thus far on Bernie's platform.
B) The primary was rigged. I could give you a laundry list of things that happened in Nevada leading up the caucuses (but I'd have to hit up my homie who has a better memory than I and who was down there the whole time). The one example that comes immediately to mind is the fact that The DNC had said that caucus locations had to be set in stone 2 weeks prior so that campaigns had time to get locations out to their supporters. Seems fair right? Except what happened was that I'm out at like 4:30, 5 in the morning putting door hangers up that have causes addresses on them and get a phone call: the caucus location has been switched up THE MORNING OF. And it happened all over the state. So now, the thousands of volunteers have poured their energy into passing out incorrect information. Later that evening as were all getting drunk and grieving over a close loss, somebody shows up with a Clinton hanger... and guess what- IT HAD THE CORRECT ADDRESS. Now can I confirm that Clinton had the correct info on all of her hangers for caucus locations that had been switched? Obviously not, but I can extrapolate.
When you have things like that happening on the ground level and Bernie's super volunteers (many of who are people who have been drawn into the process for the first time) are seeing stuff like this, how do you think that makes them feel about our political process or the DNC? Meanwhile, the media is reporting on none of it and Bernie supporters are being called conspiracy theorists for months (for sharing these type of stories on places like Reddit)... until the DNC emails dropped and the cat was officially out of the bag.
C) That said, the recent quote from Bernie about the 2016 being rigged was completely taken out of context and was the media successfully baiting him. Bernie fucked up. I think Bernie's biggest flaw (and the one place where he actually does get grumpy) is that he sometimes allows the media to get under his skin because he feels like he is held to a different standard. See his answer on guns for an other example.
In the case (I think) you are referencing... the talking head said something like "will you drop out if you lose" and he said "we plan on winning" and then she said will you drop out and "will you drop out" and he "we plan on winning"... then she said "some people think you cost Dems the election by staying in the race to long". Which is a talking point the media loves (and I will continue the conversation on below). Because of this Bernie got snippity and said "and some people say I would have beaten Trump if the race hadn't been rigged against me". Do I think it could have been handled better by Bernie? Yes? Do I think the media's goal is to bait with with no win questions that can be turned into a headline? Absolutely. But considering all the stuff I mention in point B and the fact that the media is engaged in non-stop hit pieces on him, I also understand it and think that anybody capable of critical thinking should be able to read between the lines. I have heard him say that we need to get behind the eventually nominee AT A RALLY in Los Angeles on March 23rd (I remember the date because it's my birthday). So yeah, which moment do you think says more about his intent? A moment with a talking head or Bernie talking directly to his core base?
D) I wish Bernie's closing statement had been prefaced with a "thanks to everyone on stage who has moved to my side of the policy debate". And I think most of his supporters do. He has to adjust to 2020. I also think (and I was with activists last night who actually know his hires and said as much) that he needs to fire his communications director ASAP. That said, what he said is inherent to what people like Woobs and I believe. That no change will happen so long as a candidate is taking Super Pac money. Specifically from Wall Street or Fossil Fuels. Because of Trump's fundraising, personal weath and the industries that get behind him-- I'm okay with money being taken from other places (in the general election) for this one go-round. But if you are talking money from Wall Street or Fossil Fuels than you have just become compromised in your ability to systemically fight this countries two biggest issues: economic inequality and climate change. And I think that's what people like myself use as the gauge for whether we can trust you: who are you taking money from? And I think that was Bernie's message... is not that nobody on that stage can be trusted-- but that he CAN be trusted.
I also think there is a ton of hypocrisy in your stance "That’s brinkmanship, not statesmanship" and "he fractured the party". No, the DNC fractured the party by blatantly tipping the scales AND THEN ARGUING IN COURT that they had the right to do so. Furthermore, brinkmanship is exactly what the Clinton's were known for. It's how they functioned. It's why I don't blame Warren from refraining in an endorsement of Bernie (where as some of his newer-to-the-process base do). Because I understand that by staying out of it until it was clear it was over = an endorsement for Bernie under those circumstances. She knew damn well that she would have no voice with Clinton if she did endorse Bernie and he lost. Furthermore, Bernie was never, ever going to have sway over the direction of the party under Clinton unless he played it as he did.
I'd add that no matter what the media tells you, it wasn't over until after CA. Bernie's organizers built their WHOLE operation around forcing a contested convention by stealing delegates in rural areas and closing the delegate count even as they were losing the popular vote in urban areas. And while the day that Ohio, Missouri, Pennsylvania, ext voted was the day it was clear he was probably going to lose, it wasn't 100% clear he was going to lose until after CA. Which is why Warren endorsed promptly there after.
E) The guy I was with last night ran Bernie's volunteer program in several key states. He is a Latino that grew up in the heart of Los Angeles. He is a very successful field organizer who was in the middle of running a campaign and got the blessing from said candidate to drop what he was doing and drive down to Nevada and work for Bernie. Last night he showed me a CSPAN video that he saw as a 10 year old kid while his mom was watching TV and his surrounding neighborhoods could be seen burning in the distance from the riots. It's the video that inspired his interest in politics and the reason he dropped everything he was doing (at a pivital point in his career) to go work for Bernie:
Last edited:
DownIsTheNewUp
Well-Known Member
This is all fair. But again, my main disagreement was based around the idea that his staying in the race had anything to do with Clinton losing. I'm slowly coming to terms with the fact that it isn't gonna happen this go round. Part of it is his age. Part of it is misguided bitterness from Clinton supporters. Part of it is that he has already deeply fucked up in his hires. For example-- in Nevada, he tried to earn favor with the establishment (and earn things like endorsements) by hiring a bunch of Harry Reid's people. Problem is, Harry Reid's people have no fucking idea how to run a grassroots based operation (and are already making bad decisions) which is how Bernie HAS to do it if he is gonna win. Cause the media sure as fuck ain't gonna do him any favors.
I'm waiting to see how it plays out (particularly if Bernie will learn from the debate that running with the exact same message as 2016 won't cut it), but I'm prepping myself for getting fully behind Warren and dedicating my time to convincing the left that she will follow through. But I will tell you this-- I 1000% believe that Bernie is our best shot against Trump in a general election if the blueprint involves winning the Midwest. And that's what has me most uneasy. I don't have a clue of who is the most electable of the non-Bernie crowd because I haven't spent time on the ground yet, but it sure seems like Democrats are about to convince themselves (again) that only they (the down ballot blue types) matter.
Last thing (unless you want to continue the conversation in which case, I'm obviously game), if the Dems nominate somebody whose messaging involves trying to pretend that Rome isn't burning (or that Rome is only burning because of Trump), they will lose this election.
Last edited:
jaycee
Well-Known Member
I absolutely despise Bernie supporters (or anybody campaigning on behalf of a candidate) portraying themselves as activists
The sales pitch of Bernie as somehow coming-up with the ideas that many of us have been arguing for through multiple decades of my own life is comical
The sales pitch of Bernie as somehow coming-up with the ideas that many of us have been arguing for through multiple decades of my own life is comical
DownIsTheNewUp
Well-Known Member
Activist [a definition]: a person who campaigns to bring about political or social change.
There are many different types of activists because there are many different causes and a person only has so much time on this capital driven planet. And there have been many things worth fighting for over the decades.
Nobody is saying Bernie came up with these ideas. He has been saying the same thing for decades but he was very clearly influenced by people like FDR and Dobbs (among others). And in his youth, he was only one activists among a sea of them.
You're case in point in how people put shit in the mouths of Bernie supporters or portray us as something were not.
Let me ask you something-- next week I'm going to make a 2 hour drive into the valley to canvass for a women who doesn't even represent my district because her opponent is in bed with fossil fuels and has created alliance among all the unions working for LAWP in a attempt to prevent green legislation from getting through. My friend I have already mentioned, flew out to CO on his own dime a couple years ago in order to help advise people who were collecting signatures to get anti-fracking measures onto the ballot.
So if we don't qualify as activists of modern times, than who exactly does?
Last edited: