Things heat up between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Thoughts?
- Stevennix2001posted 4 years ago
0During the democratic primaries, Bernie Sanders was accused of allegedly saying, to Elizabeth Warren personally in 2018, that he thought a woman could never be president. I personally think he was being set up with that loaded question to be honest, as I feel like that question alone tells me that this election is being rigged. I could be dead wrong, as I know this all falls under conspiracy theories, but it's just my opinion.
However what are your thoughts though? Do you think Bernie Sanders actually said a woman can never become president? Or do you think he's being set up to lose here? And if so by who and for what purpose? Please discuss.Before I respond in detail, how do you see this question alone as an indicator that the election is rigged? Can you connect the dots for me, please?
It just seems like the way the question was phrased makes it seem like CNN has an obvious bias towards Bernie Sanders. Almost like CNN was in cohoots with Elizabeth Warren to make sure he lost the democratic primaries.
First of all, are you telling me that you can imagine Bernie Sanders saying that to Elizabeth Warren in a private conversation in 2018? I sure can't. Bernie doesn't seem to be the type that would say something that egotistical and stupid even in a private conversation between just the two of them.
Secondly, I find it incredibly convenient that this alleged conversation they had in 2018 that nobody else knew about it but those two, which puts them in a he said she said situation. And given how woke the media is, Bernie is in a no win scenario. Seriously if he denies it, then people in the media will outright call him a liar. So what's the guy supposed to do?
Anything he says will be his word against hers because the woke media that brainwashes most people will usually crucify those that don't speak to their narrative. Take the Black Panther film for instance. There's this one film critic I follow, who gave the movie an 8 out of 10, yet he was called a white supremacist by the woke media because they felt all critics should give Black Panther a perfect review. I mean by god. I liked the movie too, but it wasn't that great, as I would've given it the same rating myself; arguably even a seven out of ten the more I think about it.
And I'm not even white either. Not trying to compare what happened to Bernie Sanders to what happened to the film critic i mentioned, but I'm just giving you an example of how the media will crucify anyone these days who doesn't parrot the narrative they want the masses to believe.
I firmly believe Bernie was set up because if you listen to the way the question was phrased, it was made in such a way that regardless of what Bernie might've said, he still would've looked like a bad person even if Elizabeth Warren and CNN were lying their butts off about the whole thing.
To paraphrase most of what was said. CNN asked Bernie why he told Elizabeth Warren in 2018 that a woman can never be president? If CNN was truly unbiased, the reporter would've said, "It was reported in 2018 that you said a woman will never be president to Elizabeth Warren. Is there any truth to this statement Mr. Sanders?" That would've been the correct way to ask it. Not say it "like why would you tell Elizabeth Warren a woman can't be president?" It's the way the question was phrased that irks me and kind of suggests there's more going on than meets the eye.
And of course when Bernie denied the allegations, CNN asked him to confirm what he said about him never saying that, and Bernie said "correct." Only for the CNN reporter to ask Elizabeth Warren immediately afterwards saying "How do you feel about Bernie saying a woman can't be president." It was like the CNN reporter dismissed what Bernie had said in favor of Warren.
And now with the recent mic leak of Warren being on the record of chewing out Sanders after the debate saying "You trying to make me look like a liar on TV?" Seriously what was Bernie supposed to say? It was like Elizabeth Warren was hoping by snapping at Bernie like that, then he would cowl and apologize saying "Oh no Elizabeth I'm sorry I didn't call you a liar", which would've made it all too easy for the media to spin what he said in her favor. Thankfully he was smart enough not to do that, but still. The whole situation with the way the question was phrased, and now with the mic leak after the debate coming out, it just seems like the Democratic party is trying to sabotage Bernie in favor of an establishment Democratic candidate.
Granted, I could be dead wrong, and I'll be the first to admit it if I am, but it just seems that way when I saw the thing online after it happened.I agree, I liked the movie too but it wasn't great. Patronizing really doesn't help.
There is a game of political correctness afoot used to pacify and misdirect the attention of people from what is substantive verses what is of no lasting significance, it serves as just another tool that is part of the SOP of the "Establishment".
Wall Street apparatchiks have acknowledged both Sanders and Warren as their biggest threat, so, of course this power and those that support it are going to pull out all stops.
In reference to your last paragraph, you are spot on, because I believe that is what is happening. The Establishment needs a candidate that while spouting out the standard platitudes about a just and equitable society will not rock their boat as a threat to their unearned advantages and privileges at the very foundation of inequity in this society.
Relative to the "heating-up" part of this topic, did anyone catch the clips of the 'hot mic' moment at the last debate where Warren confronted Sanders—accusing him of calling her a liar?
https://youtu.be/LxFKxglpM00
GAI did, and it only fuels to my theory that he was being setup to lose the democratic primaries. I don't care what Elizabeth Warren says. She knew she had that mic on. She was just trying to pull a fast one to make Bernie say something that would fit her narrative.
You said you thought this one question alone indicates that the election is being rigged. How so? I can see it possibly being a setup by Warren, but how does that fit in with a rigged election? I am genuinely curious.
I'm going to answer you. It's just that I'm still typing what I want to say, as I originally wrote you a long response earlier today but the site glitched on my phone and it never got sent so im having to retype a lot of it from memory.
That is an interesting perspective I hadn't thought of.
GA
I thought, more damning than that moment, was when CNN displayed obvious and calculated bias; by asking Bernie the question and, essentially, calling him a liar when they spoke to Warren.
Warren should be careful. They will use her in an attempt to derail Sanders but, if successful, the powers will find ways to derail her campaign in favor of Biden.This is what I am thinking too. This kind of angst is not typical of either of these candidates, and I would suspect the pro Biden/Bloomberg class as the fomenters to disperse and derail the true progressive and populist wing of the party. It may turn out to be an ugly revisit of 2016, accommodating the so called "moderates" who use the party machine to stay in power at all costs.
Combine that with the troubles that Trump has been having as of late, it gives Biden/Bloomberg a boost. I am not pleased at the prospect.You guys need to break that DNC machine and make certain the candidates you support aren't stabbed in the back, in the dark.
The problem I have with this theory is that both Warren and Sanders were present at this meeting where Bernie allegedly made the comments so both of them know what was actually said and one of them is not being completely honest. In other words, if this little flap was instigated by the Biden camp or the DNC, one of them has to be a willing participant. Do you think Warren is lying? Because if this spat was started by a third party, Warren is the one seemingly coming out on top.
Panther, what I don't get is that this alleged conversation occurred in December, 2018, why is the pot being stirred now? These are both incredible people that are smart enough not to allow themselves to be distracted, how does this happen?
Both parties left that meeting not in dispute.
I think there are sinister forces in the press and elsewhere that are part of the Establishment that fear what a Sanders or Warren candidacy would mean for their prospects. These sorts are ruthless and would stop at nothing to protect their precious status quo.Well, I thought Warren would be too smart to be lured into doing the establishment's bidding. I think it's possible it came out now because a Warren staffer either wanted it out or inadvertently spoke to the wrong person.
My main point is, either Warren is lying or Bernie did say it would be hard for a woman to win in 2020. I have a hard time believing he said a woman can't win, but I do think it's possible he speculated that a victory in 2020 would be difficult for a woman.
So, is Warren lying just to trash Bernie? I have a hard time believing that, too.
End result for me? It's a wash and I'm not taking sides or letting it affect my vote unless additional info emerges making all this more clear.
You are certainly looking at it on a deeper level than me. I was just thinking it was a sign the 'gloves are coming off' as the primary heats up.
GAYou betcha,GA, I smell a rat at the bottom of all of this.
Luckily, I only commented with the knowledge of the snippet I saw. I have gained insight from some of the comments in this thread.
I still believe it is a case of "the gloves coming off," but there may be a lot more calculation to it than I first thought.
Given my respect for the political savvy of both parties, I will just sit back and watch.
GA
All very convenient...
CNN broke the story
CNN's host asked the question(s)
CNN had a 'hot mike' and then released the 'confrontation'
More fake news... only now it seems Bernie is in the crosshairs instead of Trump.
I guess Bernie should have kept his HURRAH!!! for the workers to himself (over CNN's record payout of $76 million to settle union-busting case).And do you believe Warren is a willing participant?
My understanding is the corroborating sources all lie in the Warren camp. Why would you not believe Warren to be the source?
I'm confused. You all think Warren is in cahoots with Biden/the DNC/the establishment/the billionaires/CNN to make Bernie look bad?
I think Warren is being propped up by CNN with this bogus attack. I don't think she is in cahoots with Biden. What I believe is if they sideline Bernie they will then turn on Warren.
I think the DNC will do whatever it takes to ensure a moderate wins the nomination.
Edit. I could never consider a vote for Bernie because of his policies. But, he is a decent man who I believe is being smeared. I don't know that anyone using identity politics has ever won a national election. Warren should stick to policy and not lie about her opponents.Just saw your edit that shows you do think Warren is lying. Since I wasn't there, I don't know who is telling the truth, but it seems Warren has more corroboration.
Your position doesn't surprise me, though.Why is that? Because on some levels yours surprises me. You have no problem calling Trump a liar no matter what proof exists otherwise. Why take a proven liar at her word?
Yes, Trump lies several times a day, yet you won't call him a liar. Your prerogative.
I specifically stated I don't know who is lying.Yes, it's laughable for those who listen to Trump lie on a daily basis to become indignant about someone else lying.
I won't call someone a liar when they aren't. I won't call a person a liar when they are simply embellishing. I won't call someone a liar if the statement is demonstrably true.
Give me a specific statement Trump made and I'll tell you if I think it was a lie,or not, and why. Not something obscure and unimportant. Please.
Warren's lie smears Bernie's name. It stabbed him in the back for no reason but in hopes of a few poll points. She's trying to garner 'victim' votes.
Mark my words, she has hurt herself far more than she has Bernie.Okay, I'm not sure where you're going with this but I'll play for a bit.
"I was the person who saved Pre-Existing Conditions in your healthcare."Or, "Mexico will pay for the wall, believe me."
I talked to a friend of mine who's a republican and ex military veteran about that and he claims what they're going to do is raise taxes on trades with Mexico and that's how Mexico is going to pay for it. His words. Not mine.
Wanna buy some south Georgia swampland with an excellent view?
Yeah, that's always the first one that comes to mind but I was trying to be somewhat original. There is such a treasure trove of whoppers to choose from. ;-)
A friend of mine told me that supposedly Trump is going to raise trade taxes with Mexico and that's how they're going to pay for it
I have also heard that explanation before. I don't mean this in a mean or superior-sounding way, but to those of us that actually check what we hear on the news, it is frustrating to hear what the 'general' public actually believes from the media.
I have mentioned this before, but I distinctly remember when my late mother spoke with such concern about her medicare when the 'wheelchair over the cliff' media proclamations were all the news.
Telling her not to believe everything she heard on TV didn't help. And I think that is the mindset of a lot of Americans. They tune in for their evening news, after a hard day of just dealing with everyday life, and they believe what the 6:00 news tells them. Without wondering if it is a factual news segment or an opinion/pundit news segment.
GAWell if you read what I said earlier, I also said the same thing about the media and how they misconstrue facts to fit their narrative and corporate agendas.
However I get what you're trying to say. For the record, I never said I agreed with my friend but merely stating his explanation for it since he's a Trump supporter. I do realize that it's always best to fact check everything even when the source comes from one's own mother.
However this friend I'm talking about has never lied to me and he's helped me out on various occasions so I doubt he'd ever lie to me. Is there a chance he could be wrong or mistaken? It's possible. Who knows?
All I told him was that if that's the case then it's certainly a plausible explanation as to how Trump will make Mexico pay for the wall as I can't see the Mexican government just saying "hey senior Trump. Here's x amount of pesos to go towards building that wall of yours.". Um yeah I don't see that happening.Hi Stevennix2001. My anecdote was intended to be an example agreeing with you, not a criticism of your point.
The reason for it was not because I thought your friend was lying, but because his view may have been influenced as my mother's was.
That thought of imposing some sort of tax on Mexico to pay for the wall was floated in the news for a while, but it couldn't pass fact-checking. The wall's costs were just too great, (estimated costs), for an acceptable level, (to Mexico), of tax*.
*I am working from memory here, so a fact-check of my comment may be in order too
Sorry if my comment sounded other than an agreement.
GA
Kind of obscure. I never heard this one. On the surface, it's a laughable lie. I don't feel compelled to research this so we're in agreement that certainly sounds like a lie.
He said it just this month in a tweet. Want another one?
Sure, if it makes you happy.
Edit. Let's do this both ways. Would you say Warren lied when she claimed she was an American Indian?She claimed she had Native American ancestry which a DNA test supported.
My mother always claimed Native American ancestry because that is what she was told as a child, so I can see Warren's case being similar. For all I know,my mother was wrong. Or maybe she was right. Just like my dad claims to be "Black Dutch." In any caee, it has not been proven to be a lie, unlike Trump's statement which is a proven lie.
If your point is that Warren has lied some time in her political career, I'm not going to argue the point.
So, what is your point?https://youtu.be/uHDsaViTUvo
I didn't even know about this interview that Bernie Sanders did ages ago for time. apparently Bernie Sanders said himself a woman CAN be president of the United States back then so that only makes it harder for me to believe he'd tell Elizabeth Warren the complete opposite. Granted he could be lying in this video, or maybe he changed his mind as this is an old interview but it does fuel speculation that Bernie was set upIf you think a DNA test showing 1064th proves indian heritage then, I'm at a loss. I can't imagine any lie Warren might state being seen as a lie by you.
Seems like I read that most caucasians (Europeans and their descendants) are around 2% Neanderthal. That's 1/50th, a bit less than 1/1064th.
I DEMAND REPARATIONS FOR THE KILLING OF MY DIRECT ANCESTORS!!!!I was told the same thing as a child as many Americans have Native American ancestry. Seems to me if she were trying to hide something why make a bet with the biggest jerk in the universe, challenging the
question as to her ancestry if she knew otherwise? Anyway, compared to Trumps record and background, she is an angel.....
If that is the best that the Right can bring in about Warren, its got nothin'
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/10/the-f … -dna-test/
Here is a little more for you, L to L, and what is revealed therein is good enough for me.
You know something else, Trump claimed the DNA test were bogus. On what authority does he make such a statement, is it because the results were contrary to what he was seeking? This man is either stupid in his arrogance or arrogant in his stupidity, I will leave to you to choose.The results showed she had at least one Native American ancestor. You are the one showing your ignorance on this subject.
And, I specifically stated I wouldn't argue that she hasn't ever lied in her political career. I guess that's not good enough for you, but I will not say she lied on this subject because the facts show she didn't.
What was the point of your game, again?Can you tell me what facts you speak of that prove she's not lying about Bernie Sanders saying allegedly that a woman can't be president? Nothing personal against you but I'm generally curious since all the facts I've seen say she did lie but I'm willing to hear out anything you might know about the situation that I don't so far.
I was referring to her Native American ancestry. I don't know who is telling the truth in the Warren/Sanders conflict.
Maybe I am, or maybe not. It could have to do with where you live. Growing up. I didn't know a person who didn't claim to have at least one native American ancestor. As an adult, I've assumed most everyone who's family can trace their ancestry in America well back before the civil war or further had at least one native American ancestor.
Honestly pp, it's a white statement. It's insensitive to those with true native American ancestry. It's an embarrassment. The fact that she didn't see that years ago, didn't understand it to the point that she made a fool of herself proving her claim was just a white person scrambling for some link to another race is disturbing.
Maybe you are just one of those who doesn't have anything but Anglo European ancestry and think .001 percent of another race makes you that race however....many many Americans were discriminated against for life because of a smidgen of an ancestry. It is disgusting to see a white person get so much privilege from it and not understand the competely disgusting racist undertones.What privilege did she receive from it? Every article I read said there is no evidence she received any, including the factcheck.org article shared by credence.
Ok. Let's put that to the side. I've seen ample evidence where she stated that as her race in multiple circumstances. But, that to the side...it's still a white claim. It still shows an incredible insensitivity to the struggle real people went through. It shows a great deal of ignorance. We've been laughing at people for years who claim they are Indian because someone, somewhere in the distant past married an Indian.
If you don't see the embedded racism in this claim then there isn't much more for us to discuss.Well, the original question put to me was did she lie when she claimed to be an "American Indian." I corrected that by saying she claimed to have "Native American ancestry, " which is a more accurate characterization of her claims.
I have not touched at all on whether there was any racism involved. Now, in this post, you use the term "Indian." I assume you mean "Native American " rather than native of India?What do you think pp? Trying to weasel out of discussing the racist Democrat running for office?
Lol, changing the subject from lying to racism? It is my prerogative as to which discussions I care to join. I guess we are done with the "Elizabeth Warren lied" discussion.
She lies so often it's hard to know what she believes to be the truth. However, that particular lie showed racism.
You're entitled to your opinion. I never knew my Mom was such a racist. Thank you for enlightening me.
I didn't know you were Elizabeth Warren's daughter. You have my sympathies.
I now see why you so willingly defend Trump. You seem to enjoy deception.
Feel better now?
As usual, you can't answer a question and turn it into a way to insult another.
Another day. Same behavior.Your little quip was not a deception? You really didn't know I was referring to my own Mom who I previously stated had been told she was of Native American ancestry?
Lol, come on.No. I didn't see that. I,too, come from a family who claimed ancestry. My great grandmother was Cherokee. So, a lot more DNA than Warren has.
I remember as children we proudly proclaimed it. But, when I grew up and we heard how true native Americans feel about that we stopped. Out of respect.
Warren is older than I am and should have known better by now.You didn't see my comment about my Mom? Strange, because you did reply to it. https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/346 … ost4116466
The question was whether or not she lied. The evidence says no. The rest is your effort to lay blame at her feet for something. Since she issued an apology to the Cherokee Nation, I believe she has addressed her insensitivity. You want something more?I will state, again. If you think 1/1000th of something makes you something I will point out that even the USDA would disagree with you. If I tried to sell something as ham that only had 1/1000th ham in it....it wouldn't fly.
Edit. What Warren is, essentially, doing is taking a cow patty and calling it beef.1/1000th? Is that what it was?
Is Warren a canned ham now?
Sorry, this conversation has become absurd. Maybe you should start a thread on Warren's extensive lies and racism so you can get it out of your system.It isn't in my system. I don't suffer Warren derangement. I just wouldn't vote for her.
It's just interesting that someone finds lies to be a problem with one and totally justifies the lies of another.
In truth, we learn, it’s possible that Warren’s great-great-great grandmother was herself partially Native American. This would make her around 1/32nd American Indian, a far cry from any reasonable threshold to embrace minority status for a job. That’s exactly what she did starting in the 1990s.
Then again, being 1/32 (and really, the math says 1/64th) Native American is the high-end possibility. It is just as possible that Warren is 1/1,024th Native American. (her report intially claimed it was 1/512th.) So maybe her great-great-great-great grandmother was part Cherokee.
Maybe.
According to The New York Times, the average white person in America has nearly double the amount of American Indian DNA (0.18%) as Elizabeth Warren (0.098%), who claims to be Cherokee.
I don’t much care about Warren’s ethnicity, but she is not, in any genuine sense, a racial or ethnic minority. Not in blood. Not in experience.
Most assuredly. She has shown a penchant for lying.
- Stevennix2001posted 4 years ago0
The whole thing about Elizabeth Warren claiming to be an Indian reminds of an episode of "Family Guy", where Peter finds out he too has like 1/50th amount of African American ancestry dating back to the slavery days, and he tries to get reparations from his father in law because allegedly his ancestor was the slave master to Peter's ancestor.
No offense to Elizabeth Warren, but I'm actually one quarter Native American myself as my grandmother on my father's side was an Apache Indian, but I would NEVER claim to be an Native American. Sure, I may bring it up a lot in reviews that I write, but that's only because sometimes movies will tend to have controversially racist subject matter that will force me to prefix what I'm about to say, so nobody can accuse me of being racist or being a white supremacist like that one critic mentioned that got slandered for not giving Black Panther a 10 out of 10. This is all bull$hit,
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKCN1V61C6
Do you really think that I care about Warren's ancestry as long as she is at the forefront of addressing long held grievances from Native American communities.
No more than I gave any consideration about Ted Kennedy's ancestry as he was champion for working class people and underserved groups.
In the face of that reality, Trump has no standing.
Conservatives and rightwingers and their intimidation regarding the topic of race is being laid bare. I really hope that the fears that lie behind those actually come to fruition for all of them.
How do you know who your grandmother was unless your momma tells you so? For all you stable geniuses out there, Warren's experiences takes place before DNA technology was available. But, of course, you all know that already, Right?Umm.... Do you credit Trump for inroads made into lowering black unemployment and raising black income?
Honestly, it isn't a race thing as much as an indication of how tone deaf I find Warren to be. I could name multiple examples but that won't effect your opinion of her because you agree on issues. That's the point. Don't complain about the behavior of those you dislike and then make excuses for similar behavior in people you do like.
Edit. I will add though, from my interactions with you, were this a similar thing where she had done something offensive to the minority you belong to your comment probably wouldn't be the same. You can be rather tone deaf to any other minority complaint.She apologized. Has Trump ever done that? I don't think the behavior is similar.
No matter how much you try to equate other candidates' behavior to Trump's it will not work.
Of course, I have little doubt you will keep trying.Good point, Panther
She apologized for any problems she may have caused, that is good enough for me.
When has Trump apologized for any of his displays of gross inaccuracy, lies or vulgarity?That's a good point but Warren refused to apologize until she realized the public was against her on that. Was it sincere or considered politically expedient? Other examples of her lies tell me it was the later.
When compared with Trump, at least she acknowledged what many thought was an error.
The fact is that Trump never apologizes neither in remorse nor whether it is politically expedient or not.
That Birther thing that he spearheaded against Obama and his administration goes well below the depth of decency for any politician or human being. It was without purpose as the lowest among the low.
As a result, it will be like pulling teeth for me to give him any credibility for anything positive. Just one example from many.....Yes, as I have pointed out to Trump's fans, he founded his political career on birtherism. Some people looked at that and thought, "that guy would make a great president." I looked at that and thpught, "lying con man." He has only cemented my initial judgment with his subsequent behavior.
Trump has always been his own worst enemy. But, your statement that you won't give him credit for the positive seems to me to do your candidates a disservice. If you constantly see the bad, insisting the good is bad too, it makes some who lean right less inclined to see the good in the left.
I see the candidates on the left as a bunch of people trying to pander to what they think you guys want. So, never giving credit when due leaves them flying blind and going over the deep end trying to please a bunch of people who insist on never being pleased. No wonder the far left is taking over.You see what you see. It is quite reasonable to watch Trump's birther antics in all their glorious stupidity and then flatly reject him as a serious person worthy of respect.
You see pandering on the left but reward Trump's pandering (Lock her up! Mexico will pay for the wall! We’re going to have insurance for everybody!) with your vote.
Politicians pander. It is not a left or right problem only."Trump has always been his own worst enemy"
You said it, L to L. Perhaps that is why he is consistently in trouble with the so called "liberal" mainstream press, and receives negative reports? He has only himself to blame.
I did not say that it was impossible for me to give him any credit, it is just that he starts in the negative with me and he would have to prove himself deserving. I did mention a couple of things to his credit, but I had forgotten them as they are overshadowed with so much negative.
For instance, the talk about improved employment stats for African Americans is shown to be a red herring and that the heavy lifting toward the improved stats took place under Obama. This is corroborated from any number of reputable sources.
As for those that seek to be pleased, have the conservatives and Republicans been more reasonable? I doubt it. Don't you think that Trump supporters support him because he offers them what they want?
So, what is the difference?It's a matter of perspective credence. There are quite a few black voices who disagree with you. A lot of black voices expressing disappointment in Obama's record. So. Obviously I'm inclined to listen to those voices over yours.
That is your prerogative, you listen to the small percentage of Black voters (10%) who support Trump because they advocate what you want to hear.
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling … trump.aspx
But, my position is clear and I explained why.Credence, do you find it comical at all that everyone, whichever side of the fence they stand on, claims that the rest of the nation is right there with them? That only a small number are on the other side, whichever that might be?
More and more I see this and it gives me a giggle every time, even as I recognize that I am sometimes guilty of doing the same thing: assuming every reasoning person in the country agrees with me.Well, Wilderness, we all like to think that our perspective cause is supported by the most people or if not that, then the smartest people.
We all do it, so when I proposed that the numbers on the "other side" is minuscule, I need to support that with substantive evidence beyond just my opinion.That's what I mean; we're all at least somewhat guilty of that, but more and more I'm seeing it presented as a simple fact. Unsupported, but a fact and one that both sides of the fence claims to be true. Comical, in my mind.
I respect your right to have a position. I do find myself saddened that so many opinions appear to be driven by too much emotion.
Good idea to trust those polling numbers. After all, they did let us know that Hillary Clinton was going to be elected president even before it happened.
Yes, your point is well taken, but there is nothing to suggest otherwise that Trump has made any greater inroads with Black voters than any other Republican presidential candiate in recent times.
They have to be more accurate than mere intuition or guessing right? How do you prove my assessment incorrect, what evidence can you present?Credence,
A race, nor a sex, nor a sexual preference, is a way of determining political beliefs.
Infact, you are far more likely to be able to 'collectivize' people along generational lines, than you are racial ones.
Or perhaps more on target, a combination of race and generation.
White Liberals and Blacks who are in there 60s have much more in common politically than say a middle class Black in his 30s who never lived through racial divide nor felt the 'oppression' of racism.
Not to say that racism was never something that had to be confronted, but it was not institutionalized by the government or society in a way that blocked the individuals ability to pursue whatever they were capable of.
A 30 year old does not have the same experiences to reference back to, nor the biases of someone who is over 60.
So it is highly probable that a successful 30 year old Black man, has much the same views as a 30 year old White man in America on some topics. Neither are likely supportive of 'open borders' and higher taxes required to support millions pouring into the country.
Neither like the idea of losing their jobs to support the interests of international corporations that want to move their companies to a country where they only have to pay workers a dollar an hour. They probably both support the idea of tariffs and taxation on imports that force companies to build here in America, and employ Americans.
So... its not so much about what Trump offers, we know now what that looks like... its what is the alternative? What are the Democrats putting out there that they want? Open Borders, Free College and Healthcare for all? Well, for those who are living in the real would where you earn money and pay bills... these things don't sell so well, because there is a price tag attached to them that the working class, the middle class, is always stuck paying for... just ask those that had to contend with the ACA's insurance fiasco.My point, Ken, is that the 9-10% Black support of GOP Presidential candidates has not really changed in the 35 years, what makes you think that all of the sudden it is going to change now? I hear your point but none of that has been reflected in Black voting patterns.
Black people are different, the psychology of the underdog tends to support people and circumstances involving trials that are not much different then they themselves had to endure through. You are not going to find many Black men with the attitudes and beliefs of White men of comparable age in this culture. I can never know for sure, but I doubt it.
As for racism, while not institutionalized in recent times, it still creates too many impediments making it less likely and more difficult for Blacks to succeed. When more of those impediments are addressed, maybe I, too, will acknowledge light at the end of the tunnel.
As for Trump's economy helping African Americans, here is my answer..
https://apnews.com/f78f4205f474482db8bb8fa7a5ebfa27
Again, that is a matter of opinion. I find Warren's action in this situation as not offensive. Obviously, you do.
Double standards on my calling out unethical behavior? It depends on what that behavior is, now does it not? You find Warren as tone deaf, I consider Trump to be lacking in character as a serial liar in comparison. Which is the least palatable?
So, while nobody is perfect, I have to consider the extent and degree when evaluating and comparing people.
Related Discussions
- 30
Is Bernie......CLUELESS........or WHAT?!
by Grace Marguerite Williams 7 years ago
According to yesterday's Election 2016 poll results, Hillary Clinton won the California Democratic primary. However, Bernie Sanders refuse to concede to Hillary Clinton. It is obvious that Hillary Clinton is the Democratic winner. Why WON'T Bernie Sanders bow out of...
- 26
Bernie Sanders’ name is not on the primary ballot in Washington, D.C.
by Susie Lehto 8 years ago
The Sanders’ campaign reportedly submitted the registration fees of $2,500 earlier this month well before the June 14 Democratic primary.But D.C. Democrats did not email the candidates' registration information to the D.C. Board of Elections until a day after the registration deadline of March...
- 39
Would Donald Trump have beaten Bernie Sanders in a general election?
by Stevennix2001 7 years ago
I don't know about the rest of you, but I think he never would've stood a chance against Bernie. No offense to Trump, but if he's not insulting someone on stage during a debate, then he's practically useless because he rarely ever goes over his policies during debates. That alone...
- 65
Is it time for for moderate Democrats to consider Bernie Sanders?
by Eastward 4 years ago
I came across this article, written by an author who initially was not a Bernie Sanders supporter. "If moderate Democrats are serious when they say their only concern is beating President Donald Trump, they should get used to the thought of backing Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.If you believe...
- 541
I guess that I have to EAT CROW congratulations to conservatives
by Credence2 7 years ago
And may God help us!This could be the biggest upset since Dewey claimed victory over Truman in 1948.All the pundits were wrong. Michael Moore was prophetic, and so was Ohio.So ends civility as America's most contentious alt right groups will be emboldened to intimidate and terrorize. So with a...
- 36
Eulogy for Elizabeth Warren
by Credence2 4 years ago
I am more than distressed with Warren's announcement that she is dropping from the Presidential race.I am reminded of a scene from Star Trek "First Contact" when the crew of the Enterprise are forced to go back in time from the 24th to the mid 21st Century to combat cybernetic creatures...