Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 267: Dang, Yang Gang

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jakyl25 posted...

Yes?

I didn't see the Hillary is a racist ads and articles during the 2016 election. Must have missed them? I didn't see the African-American community shun her campaign as a racist. Are you saying the African-American community supports racists?

---

Corrik7 posted...

Left seems quick to mount the racism hat imo.

Is there more evidence that Bloomberg is racist?

I dont think its as much that hes personally driven by racial animus as the fact that hes an completely unfeeling technocrat that didnt care if his solution to reducing crime had a grossly disproportionate adverse effect on minorities. In other words, its not that he hates black people; its that he doesnt care about protecting their rights if its for what he thinks is the greater good (which is still pretty disturbing).

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik is a strict literalist when it comes to demonstrating racism

I know, but given that he said he said "more" evidence I wonder if this counts at all.

Like how many racism points do you need to fill up your meter and become a full racist?

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I dont think its as much that hes personally driven by racial animus as the fact that hes an completely unfeeling technocrat that didnt care if his solution to reducing crime had a grossly disproportionate adverse effect on minorities. In other words, its not that he hates black people; its that he doesnt care about protecting their rights if its for what he thinks is the greater good (which is still pretty disturbing).

Is that actually racist then?

---

Corrik7 posted...

I didn't see the Hillary is a racist ads and articles during the 2016 election. Must have missed them? I didn't see the African-American community shun her campaign as a racist. Are you saying the African-American community supports racists?

When the choice is between two racists...
---

Corrik7 posted...

Is that actually racist then?

Thats exactly how systemic racism happens
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I know, but given that he said he said "more" evidence I wonder if this counts at all.

Like how many racism points do you need to fill up your meter and become a full racist?

He is sexist and ageist by your criteria here also. Yet, also sympathizes for minorities because they are disproportionately the victims of crime also.

I mean, you are picking out a spot to judge the entire persons being as racist. It's kind of ridiculous don't you think?

Your party is so quick to plant the label, imo.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

When the choice is between two racists...

There was 5 choices. And the choice of not turning out to vote either.

But, you are saying 99% of African-American voters just picked between which racist they wanted to support?

---

Corrik7 posted...

Is that actually racist then?

I dont know what to label it. I guess the racism equivalent to the difference between amoral and immoral? Racish?

---

The comment itself could be a racist comment, if the stats do not support the comment. Making a misinformed comment that could be taken as racist doesn't really make the person themself a "racist".

---

Corrik7 posted...

There was 5 choices. And the choice of not turning out to vote either.

But, you are saying 99% of African-American voters just picked between which racist they wanted to support?

99% (Or whatever the percentage is) of all voters of all races picked between which one they preferred.

You might be surprised to learn that racism plays varying levels or importance to different people, and racism itself manifests in a million different ways
---

Corrik7 posted...

I mean, you are picking out a spot to judge the entire persons being as racist. It's kind of ridiculous don't you think?

I'll concede that I'm not judging his entire being, just the part of him that presided over a racist policy for over a decade that adversely affected people and communities of color, and the part of him that continued to defend it. So he might have a lot of non-racist bones in his body, but he also has a lot of racist ones, so I can say he is a racist.

Is that a good compromise?

---

Corrik7 posted...

Doesn't matter. You shouldn't care about yourself. That money could be used better elsewhere for people who need it.

Comrade Corrik is my favorite flavor of Corrik.

---

So the extreme left that says by voting for Donald Trump you are by correlation also a racist because you helped enable a racist to power are hypocrites because they voted for Clinton and thus they are all racists also because they enabled a racist?


---

Corrik7 posted...

I didn't see the Hillary is a racist ads and articles during the 2016 election. Must have missed them? I didn't see the African-American community shun her campaign as a racist. Are you saying the African-American community supports racists?

Yeah you actually did miss them.

Next.

---

For what its worth, Bloomberg now says he understands the harm his policy caused now.

So I dont know if he still holds racist viewpoints or not in 2020.

Same with Hillary and super predators
---

Corrik7 posted...

So the extreme left that says by voting for Donald Trump you are by correlation also a racist because you helped enable a racist to power are hypocrites because they voted for Clinton and thus they are all racists also because they enabled a racist?

Extreme Left

Words dont mean anything anymore


---

Corrik7 posted...

So the extreme left that says by voting for Donald Trump you are by correlation also a racist because you helped enable a racist to power are hypocrites because they voted for Clinton and thus they are all racists also because they enabled a racist?

The extreme left like me didnt vote for Clinton
---

Hillary (and Bloomberg's) policies stemmed from indifference, not animus. She supported racist policies because they were popular.

---

FWIW I would easily vote for Bloomberg over Trump and hes not my last pick in the primary. In some ways I think he would make a very good president. But ultimately, Im not confident that I can trust him to do the right thing and that pushes him below people like Buttigieg (who Im more worried about on the experience front) and Warren (who I disagree with more on policy).

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Extreme Left

Words dont mean anything anymore

Well, I mean Corrik professes to be center-right so I mean I assume anyone left of Biden is Xtreme in his eyes.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

FWIW I would easily vote for Bloomberg over Trump and hes not my last pick in the primary.

I agree with this though with the caveat that I only agree with the last part of that sentence because Gabbard is still in the race. If you restrict it to the Top 5 + Bloomberg he is definitely last place. I'm pretty solidly at: Warren >> Sanders >>>>> Klobuchar >> Biden > Buttigieg >>>>>>>> Bloomberg

---

xp1337 posted...

Well, I mean Corrik professes to be center-right so I mean I assume anyone left of Biden is Xtreme in his eyes.

I feel like by his own logic, if Bernie wins the nomination, his policies can no longer be classified as extreme left because now they are just what left stands for
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I'll concede that I'm not judging his entire being, just the part of him that presided over a racist policy for over a decade that adversely affected people and communities of color, and the part of him that continued to defend it. So he might have a lot of non-racist bones in his body, but he also has a lot of racist ones, so I can say he is a racist.

Is that a good compromise?

I don't know, bud. I think the argument is relatively flimsy based on the single comment. But, this is why I don't live in identity politics and cancel culture.

If he was already the Democratic nominee, this likely wouldn't be a thing for most Democrats and liberals. Just like it wasn't a thing really for Hillary. Or wasn't a thing for ally Gunn.

I think people are trying to create ammo to attack their opponents rather than using a bit of common sense before jumping to label people as bad people.

You could argue he sympathizes for minorities because he said they are predominantly the victims just as well as you could say he advocated targeting minorities because they are predominantly the criminals.

You could argue he is sexist by your criteria. You could argue he is ageist by your criteria.

Think of the males who were unfairly targeted under this policy! Think of the young people unfairly targeted by this policy! This is how systemic injustice happens to males in the system! This is how systemic injustice happens to young adults in the system!

I mean, it seems flimsy by common sense standards to me.

I can't see anyone rushing to be the first to pin the racism star on him for that unless it is somehow a benefit for them to do so.

---

Corrik7 posted...

You could argue he is sexist by your criteria. You could argue he is ageist by your criteria.

Think of the males who were unfairly targeted under this policy! Think of the young people unfairly targeted by this policy! This is how systemic injustice happens to males in the system! This is how systemic injustice happens to young adults in the system!

You say this like its not also what many of us believe
---

xp1337 posted...

Well, I mean Corrik professes to be center-right so I mean I assume anyone left of Biden is Xtreme in his eyes.

Extreme left refers to peaf, therock, gmun, and reg (sorry if I am leaving some of you out) and anyone that talks about politics on resetera and hasn't been banned.

---

Corrik7 posted...

But, this is why I don't live in identity politics and cancel culture.

pop quiz: what are your thoughts on kaepernick being effectively shut out of the nfl

---

Like, yes, when cops profile people because they are men, or because they are young, that is also injustice

Do you think thats some sort of gotcha?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

You say this like its not also what many of us believe

Jakyl25 posted...

You say this like its not also what many of us believe

So why aren't you saying it when you say he is racist? Lol.

People would laugh at the argument if you did. That is why.

Race card is the ace card, bruh.

---

xp1337 posted...

pop quiz: what are your thoughts on kaepernick being effectively shut out of the nfl

He was shut out because he wasn't good enough period, and especially in relation to the issues he would cause locker rooms or franchises. If he was as good as Peyton Manning, he could have pissed on the American Flag on live television and still got a job a year or two later tbqh.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Extreme left refers to peaf, therock, gmun, and reg (sorry if I am leaving some of you out) and anyone that talks about politics on resetera and hasn't been banned.

Im almost 100% certain you are the only resetera regular here.

---

xp1337 posted...

I agree with this though with the caveat that I only agree with the last part of that sentence because Gabbard is still in the race. If you restrict it to the Top 5 + Bloomberg he is definitely last place. I'm pretty solidly at: Warren >> Sanders >>>>> Klobuchar >> Biden > Buttigieg >>>>>>>> Bloomberg

I think right now Im at
Biden >>> Klobuchar > Buttigieg > Warren > Bloomberg >>> Sanders (>>> Gabbard)

Though the four after Biden are kind of a mess for me where if I reweighed different factors they could go in almost any order

---

Corrik7 posted...

So why aren't you saying it when you say he is racist? Lol.

People would laugh at the argument if you did. That is why.

Race card is the ace card, bruh.

Well I just said it. Feel free to laugh at my argument.

Its just that systemic racism is seen by many to be a bigger scourge than systemic sexism and systemic ageism, possibly wrongfully so.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I think right now Im at
Biden >>> Klobuchar > Buttigieg > Warren > Bloomberg >>> Sanders (>>> Gabbard)

Though the four after Biden are kind of a mess for me where if I reweighed different factors they could go in almost any order

This is a genuinely unsettling tier list.


---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Im almost 100% certain you are the only resetera regular here.

Gmun is your member there, bud. I just read the forum for the fast news cycles and the opposing views topics. (Banned). Sort of like how Suprak liked to browse T_D or whatever for the funnziez.


---

Jakyl25 posted...

Well I just said it. Feel free to laugh at my argument.

Its just that systemic racism is seen by many to be a bigger scourge than systemic sexism and systemic ageism, possibly wrongfully so.

You are just backing yourself into an untenable corner by being stubborn.

So, yeah, I will laugh at you.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Warren > Bloomberg >>> Sanders

Can you please explain this one to me? Why does Warren get the benefit of policy disagreements being ok but not Sanders?

---

Biden >>> Klobuchar > Buttigieg > Warren > Bloomberg >>> Sanders (>>> Gabbard)

Mine are I guess...

Gabbard > wow this is tough... Bloomberg > Sanders > Klobuchar > Biden > Buttigieg >>>>>>>> Warren


---

Corrik7 posted...

You could argue he sympathizes for minorities because he said they are predominantly the victims just as well as you could say he advocated targeting minorities because they are predominantly the criminals.

Also, people could argue this, and I could also argue he could still be racist even if these were true!

---

I thought I would support Biden greatly if he ran, but he seems like a mess. Sanders I would have voted for in 2016, but Trump in 2020 who has been so good for the economy and supports a lot of my stances pretty much down the line makes it hard to put Sanders above him in 2020.

I go back and forth on Trump because he isn't the best example I want in the presidency, but it is hard to argue with the results though.

I wish we had a better candidate with the same policies. But, take what we got I guess.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Can you please explain this one to me? Why does Warren get the benefit of policy disagreements being ok but not Sanders?

A few things

1. I think Warren is a lot smarter than Sanders and would generally be very good at being president (ignoring policy). Just based on this factor I might even put her in first overall
2. One of my big problems with Sanders is that he seems to reward loyalty over all else, and has staffed his campaign accordingly. I am very worried he would do the same for, e.g., cabinet appointments.
3. I like some of Warrens big ideas (I particularly liked her idea of the government manufacturing off-patent medication that wasnt being offered at a reasonable cost).

---

the racist card is totally the wrong one to use for bloomberg, for the record. his stop and frisk comment from 2015 - that audio recording - is pretty harsh but is largely true in racially diverse cities, the practice just had such a low success rate that it's hard to defend. but none of that matters since he's still gaining a large chunk of the black vote that biden is losing already.

i'd sooner hit him on the 3rd term bullshit he did.
the man literally rewrote the rules to give himself a 3rd term. still the worst part about his being mayor.

---

What results could possibly be worth Trump's attempts to destroy democracy in America as we know it?

Do you think he isn't trying to do that?
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I think right now Im at
Biden >>> Klobuchar > Buttigieg > Warren > Bloomberg >>> Sanders (>>> Gabbard)

Though the four after Biden are kind of a mess for me where if I reweighed different factors they could go in almost any order

This is remarkably similar to mine. I'd switch Bloomberg and Warren though. Buttigieg and Klobuchar can rotate depending on the day, and I'd need a few more >'s between Warren and Sanders.

---

Trump = Sanders > Gabbard >>> Buttigieg > Biden > Warren > Klobuchar > Bloomberg

The primary reason I have Sanders so far ahead of Warren is that I think that Sanders understands that good change for the working class is not going to come from within the system. Sanders understands that the problem is not that specific large corporations, specific banks, are doing bad things, but that our system systematically oppresses the working class and poor. I've heard a lot from Warren about specific (probably unconstitutional) things she wants to do, which show a lack of understanding of the structural nature of the problem.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I think Warren is a lot smarter than Sanders and would generally be very good at being president (ignoring policy). Just based on this factor I might even put her in first overall

Is there anything specific? I think they're both pretty smart politicians. If I was drawing major points of comparison, I'd say Warren's plus is that she's more likely to build a coalition within the party, Bernie's is that he seems to have a much better grasp on foreign policy.

Regard your #2 sure I have issues with people on both their campaigns but I don't think either is going to make bad appointments overall.

---

pyresword posted...

What results could possibly be worth Trump's attempts to destroy democracy in America as we know it?

Do you think he isn't trying to do that?

TBH if he were really trying to do that, he would have already succeeded.

---

Yeah with Buttigieg and Klobuchar I go back and forth between worrying about the formers inexperience and the latters staff abuse stories. Policy wise Im fine with either of them.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

This is a genuinely unsettling tier list.

---

red sox 777 posted...

TBH if he were really trying to do that, he would have already succeeded.

I mean, the whole impeachment saga demonstrates that he's at worst about 90% of the way there.
---