Someone Has To Do It: US Elections 2020

[Flynnie]

The US government handed trillions of dollars in bailout money a decade ago to rich white Bankers and the sky has yet to fall in. I like the way you are inflating numbers to prove your point.

It won't happen because people like you wouldn't vote for it. 5 years ago, you could easily shut down the topic of reparations, now you are being forced to discuss it, who knows where we will be in 5 years. But until then, black people should and will sit out the elections in last numbers.

Why wouldn’t it be trillions of dollars? There’s 40 million black people in America, are we giving each black person twenty bucks? What is this, buy black America a beer and say “rough times, bro, sorry about Jim Crow”? You’re choosing that over universal social programmes? Maybe the Republicans should back reparations!

Yes, the government handed the money to bankers because the prospect of financial meltdown was an existential crisis for capitalism. The banks used this money to foreclose on black-owned homes. So how are we to expect the government to suddenly turn around and pay reparations? At least I can point to Social Security and Medicare.

also, reparations won’t happen because of the white socialist vote? Have you met any other white Americans? Or any American who isn’t black? Reparations are not popular at all, would be even less popular if they were actually the kind of life changing amounts that would close the wealth disparity gap (which has to be bucking up on $2 trillion now) and l doubt the rejection of reparations in the Republican voting suburbs is due to a belief in class-based politics. That’s not even discussing other racial groups, Latinos will damn well also want their wealth matched to white people’s and they’re an even bigger group of people than black people.

if the 6 in 10 black Americans who favour reparations aren’t happy with that and willing to say fuck the Democratic Party, then fine, that’s their right. But I don’t see how they’re ever going to get the kind of broad movement for ADOS-focused reparations.

[Tactical Genius]

Why wouldn’t it be trillions of dollars? There’s 40 million black people in America, are we giving each black person twenty bucks? What is this, buy black America a beer and say “rough times, bro, sorry about Jim Crow”? You’re choosing that over universal social programmes? Maybe the Republicans should back reparations!

What are these universal social programmes you speak of. Welfare pays you just about enough to survive and isn't meant to fix structural imbalances.

Yes, the government handed the money to bankers because the prospect of financial meltdown was an existential crisis for capitalism. The banks used this money to foreclose on black-owned homes. So how are we to expect the government to suddenly turn around and pay reparations? At least I can point to Social Security and Medicare.

They didn't have to hand out so much bailout money, how much they needed to pay is shrouded in mystery, but the common consensus it that they could have got away with one less zero on the cheque. Unfortunately Goldman Sachs are so far entrenched into the federal reserve, nobody really knows.
My point is, if there is a will, the money will be found.

also, reparations won’t happen because of the white socialist vote?

Yes, white socialists are not the friends of black people, they will make sympathetic noises, pick up the placards and march around in circles with you, but when it comes to any tangible benefits, things start getting interesting (Sanders, Beto, AOC, Warren)

Have you met any other white Americans? Or any American who isn’t black?

Nope, I have never met a white american in my entire life.

Reparations are not popular at all, would be even less popular if they were actually the kind of life changing amounts that would close the wealth disparity gap (which has to be bucking up on $2 trillion now)

Nor was the abolition of Slavery in the south and it still happened, Nor was the Voting rights act and civil rights bills and they happened too.

and l doubt the rejection of reparations in the Republican voting suburbs is due to a belief in class-based politics.

Ditto in Democrat or Liberal areas. Both Don't want it for the same reason.

That’s not even discussing other racial groups, Latinos will damn well also want their wealth matched to white people’s and they’re an even bigger group of people than black people.

But they are immigrants, they knew the score before they turned up.

if the 6 in 10 black Americans who favour reparations aren’t happy with that and willing to say fuck the Democratic Party, then fine, that’s their right. But I don’t see how they’re ever going to get the kind of broad movement for ADOS-focused reparations.

Where are you getting this 6 in 10 figure from?

I am still waiting for your evidence regarding Bernie's policies. I want ot see it coming out of his own mouth or you have to accept my point.

[anton pulisov]

How would the logistics work?

Would it be a case of tax breaks for black people? In that case people would start identifying as black on tax returns to get the money. Who is going to enforce who is black and who isn't? And what if somebody is 25% black, do they only get 25% of the tax break?

Or would targeted investments in black communities be a better solution?

The problem with the USA is that it is a country built on slavery that still wears inequality like a badge of honour. The main good thing about Bernie and AOC is that they are saying that inequality is not good and making inroads. They are changing the conversation. For the past thirty years in the USA, economic inequality was seen as a good thing, because it was thought it promoted competition. And that all the rich people became rich through hard work and the American dream. Now there are finally politicians suggesting that the American dream is bollocks and the mainstream media isn't accusing then of being Russian commies (because it is too busy accusing republicans of being Russian stooges). That recognition of inequality being bad is the first step on the very long road to something resembling reparations.

I understand where Bernie is coming from. He wants to transcend beyond race politics and concentrate on social and economic justice for all. He campaigned for civil rights for those reasons, after all. He refuses to get into liberal identity politics optics and play up his story of being the son of dirt poor Jewish immigrants. He wants to move beyond race. But for the descendants of black slaves in a country that still has a two track education and criminal justice system, race and economics are still very much intertwined, for obvious reasons. He needs to tune into that.

[Tactical Genius]

How would the logistics work?

Would it be a case of tax breaks for black people? In that case people would start identifying as black on tax returns to get the money. Who is going to enforce who is black and who isn't? And what if somebody is 25% black, do they only get 25% of the tax break?

I don't claim to have all the answers, my take would be.
Tax breaks are inadequate as there would only benefit people who are working.
Like I have said numerous times, give them the benefit that have been afforded to whites. So that would include Land, housing grants, business grants, free education up to university level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._Bill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts
https://www.history.com/topics/great...ssion/new-deal
Check out Dr Claude Anderson.

I have said this numerous times yet everyone here comes and asks exactly the same question.

Or would targeted investments in black communities be a better solution?

See above.

The problem with the USA is that it is a country built on slavery that still wears inequality like a badge of honour.

Agree 100%

The main good thing about Bernie and AOC is that they are saying that inequality is not good and making inroads.

They are not doing anything Beto or Elizabeth Warren are not doing. They are making sympathetic noises, but when it comes to tangible benefits will mention schemes that will compensate black people last (Sanders) or try and slipstream Latinos into the payout (AOC)

They are changing the conversation.

Not true, they are reacting to black people opting out of the democratic process and withholding their vote.
They initially tried to ignore it, they then tired to dismiss as Russian bots, now they are attempting to redefine the meaning of Reparations (AOC) or just playing dumb (Sanders)

For the past thirty years in the USA, economic inequality was seen as a good thing, because it was thought it promoted competition. And that all the rich people became rich through hard work and the American dream.

I think even those who say that struggle to keep a straight face. The Government have been subsidising the rich white population for centuries and the poor white people go along with it as long as they are sure the system is set up to ensure they are always doing better than black people. Lyndon Johnson mentioned this over 50 years ago.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lb...est-white-man/

Now there are finally politicians suggesting that the American dream is bollocks and the mainstream media isn't accusing then of being Russian commies (because it is too busy accusing republicans of being Russian stooges). That recognition of inequality being bad is the first step on the very long road to something resembling reparations.

Politicians (black and white) have been saying this for years. people are only paying attention because black people are not voting democrats in large enough numbers to put them in office.
The mainstream have no problem with admitting racism or White privilege. When you mention some tangible changes, that when they become aggressive.

I understand where Bernie is coming from. He wants to transcend beyond race politics and concentrate on social and economic justice for all. He campaigned for civil rights for those reasons, after all. He refuses to get into liberal identity politics optics and play up his story of being the son of dirt poor Jewish immigrants. He wants to move beyond race. But for the descendants of black slaves in a country that still has a two track education and criminal justice system, race and economics are still very much intertwined, for obvious reasons. He needs to tune into that.

You are too intelligent to subscribe to all this stuff.
When it comes to addressing other special interest groups like white Jews, white LBGT, white women and poor white people, these politicians make specific tangible policies. But when it comes to black people, its all "lets move away from racial politics" let's have stuff for everybody and all that bollocks.

Sanders has been in politics for 1000 years, and has been either a Mayor Congressman or Senator for the best part of 40 years. what has he done (I mean done, not talked about) with regards to (and I am using your own words):

Justice for all
social and economic justice for all
Civil rights
two track education and criminal justice system

Thanks.

[Tactical Genius]

See this exchange
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCScYPXCJpQ

[anton pulisov]

When it comes to addressing other special interest groups like white Jews, white LBGT, white women and poor white people, these politicians make specific tangible policies. But when it comes to black people, its all "lets move away from racial politics" let's have stuff for everybody and all that bollocks.

Sanders has been in politics for 1000 years, and has been either a Mayor Congressman or Senator for the best part of 40 years. what has he done (I mean done, not talked about) with regards to (and I am using your own words):

Justice for all
social and economic justice for all
Civil rights
two track education and criminal justice system

Specific policies, yes, but not reparations. Marriage equality is a civil right for LGBT people, it's not reparations. Have the LGBT people received reparations? Sanders campaigned for civil rights for blacks in the 1960s as he campaigned for civil rights for LGBT people since the 1980s. In both cases, he did these things when it was still mainstream political suicide to do so. Obama didn't come out in support of support marriage equality until 2012, for example. So we can at least give Sanders credit for trying to do what is right ahead of what is popular, on a number of occasions at least (not all occasions, obviously).

However, from my limited knowledge of the USA, I do see white people's policies being prioritised in mainstream politics, for sure. Drug policy, for example. For years, crack cocaine was punishable by five years in prison and powder cocaine (preferred by white people) only one year. And the minimum amount of possession liable for prosecution was 100 times lower for crack cocaine. And we have also seen a huge wave of legislation for decriminalisation of marijuana, because it is the drug of choice of educated whites with political influence and features heavily in Hollywood road trip comedies. Sanders, to his credit, has pointed these disparities in criminal justice for years and was one of the leading voices in getting the crack/powder thing reformed a few years ago. But he has generally been all over the place on the issue. In the 70s he was completely against drug laws, saying people should be free to do what they want with themselves. And now I just found a piece from 1995, where he rightly expresses his outrage about the crack/powder disparity by saying that it discriminated heavily against black people. But his solution in 1995? Increase the sentencing on powder to match that of crack. How does that wash with being against the war on drugs? 1995 was a long time ago, but still. At least his recognition of the black/white disparity has remained consistent, even if his views on drugs have changed.

As for reparations: I believe that Native Americans and African Americans should receive reparations. They have suffered some of the greatest injustices in the history of our species. Sanders wants to create a level playing field (which still doesn't exist). But simply creating a level playing field will not make up for those past injustices. But, reparations aren't going to happen, for the reasons you outlined: whites will go apeshit (I didn't click on the LBJ quote you referred to, because I know exactly what it is - make a poor white man feel better than a black man and you can keep him happy, or something along those lines). What Sanders and AOC are doing now is at least highlighting that current levels of inequality are bad, which will eventually allow the conversation to evolve into addressing the consequences of past systematic inequality. As far as the latter, I agree that Sanders and AOC aren't pushing enough for it. You are saying that it is because they care less about black people than others, I think it is more of a tactical decision on their part to not commit electoral suicide in a white dominated electorate. But yeah, leadership is about changing the conversation and representing minorities, so maybe they should try harder? Difficult.

[Sporting]

What liberal politicians should be pushing for, among a myriad of other things,is vast voting reform all across the US to ensure that a) everyone of voting age is automatically entitled to do so and faces no extra hurdles on election days and b) the electoral system(s) in themselves, in many cases at least, move out of the dark ages. The vote helps to free people.

[Tactical Genius]

What liberal politicians should be pushing for, among a myriad of other things,is vast voting reform all across the US to ensure that a) everyone of voting age is automatically entitled to do so and faces no extra hurdles on election days and b) the electoral system(s) in themselves, in many cases at least, move out of the dark ages. The vote helps to free people.

Malcolm X called Bollocks on this back in the early 60's. I have seen nothing to invalidate his point.
Liberals are only interested in black people voting when:
1. They will vote.
2. Will vote for them.

Otherwise they are not interested.

[Sporting]

Malcolm X called Bollocks on this back in the early 60's. I have seen nothing to invalidate his point.
Liberals are only interested in black people voting when:
1. They will vote.
2. Will vote for them.

Otherwise they are not interested.

But you wouldn't say no to electoral reform?

[ursus arctos]

Any reforms that would reliably increase electoral turnout to 80 percent or more would have a massive effect on politics in this country.

[Sporting]

That's a high number. I'd have to Google but 50-70% seems from memory to be the norm for countries with more or less functioning electoral systems.

[Tactical Genius]

But you wouldn't say no to electoral reform?

Of course not, however it will not resolve anything as long as the choices are what is on display. This is from a black perspective of course.

[ursus arctos]

It depends on what kind of elections we are talking about.

2016 was a bit less than 60 percent, which was a 20 year low. But that's a presidential election, which always are the peak.

The 2018 midterms had the highest turnout in a century at 49.3 percent (that being a key factor in the Democrats winning 40 seats) and Chicago just held a mayoral election with turnout in the mid-20s.

[Tactical Genius]

On the crack vs. cocaine disparity, there was also a perception among some liberal whites (and some conservatives could have agreed) that crack was more socially harmful in the context of poverty than powder cocaine was in the context of affluence.

Do you really believe this bull jive or are you copying and pasting for the sole purpose of stimulating debate.
Liberals and conservative went along with it as it ensured the mass incarceration of black people whilst leaving white people mainly unaffected.
Its the same shit that's being going on since the emancipation proclamation. It started with Vagrancy laws, the man act.

If the black community was their primary concern, maybe they would have told the CIA to get out of the Drug Trade.

Bernie could have recognised in 1995 that being against the war on drugs had to start with addressing injustice. It was politically untenable to recommend reduced sentences for crack users, but it was politically worthwhile to expose and threaten white privilege, especially if the white coke users were Wolf of Wall Street types.

Didn't he vote for Clinton (and Biden's) mass incarceration laws?

[ursus arctos]

Yes, he did.

Though as the links makes clear, he was somewhat less enthusiastic about being "tough on crime" than other Democrats.

[Tactical Genius]

Yes, he did.

Though as the links makes clear, he was somewhat less enthusiastic about being "tough on crime" than other Democrats.

Bernie Sanders voted for the 1994 tough-on-crime law. But it's complicated.

Hmmmmmm it sure is...........

[ursus arctos]

There aren't a lot of Black people in Vermont, TG

[anton pulisov]

Malcolm X called Bollocks on this back in the early 60's. I have seen nothing to invalidate his point.
Liberals are only interested in black people voting when:
1. They will vote.
2. Will vote for them.

Otherwise they are not interested.

Yes, HRC was extremely interested in the plight of blacks in Alabama and Mississippi in during the primaries, when she realised that the south could (and did) give her the edge in the nomination process. She wheeled out John Lewis and everything. In the general election, Alabama and Mississippi are a lost cause for the Democrats, so they suddenly got ignored and she spent most her time in Pennsylvania trying to woo moderate Republicans. Which failed spectacularly. The main difference between Sanders and Clinton is that he has more of a general election 50 state strategy, whereas she had a, erm... well I'm going to have to admit that I haven't read What Happened.

There is an inherent problem with democracy and being a minority, you only count when your vote is needed. I've seen it with the Moroccans and Turks in the Netherlands. The Dutch Labour Party took their vote for granted for years, and then enacted 'integration' policies to appeal to Geert Wilders voters. The Netherlands is a small nation with multi-party democracy with national lists, so the Turks in the Dutch Labour party simply told them to take a hike and started their own party called Denk. And they've done fairly well for themselves.

[San Bernardhinault]

Jay Inslee is in the race. I know almost nothing about him other than that he's the governor of Washington. It appears that he's putting climate action at the front of his campaign, which makes him an outlier compared to the other candidates.

[San Bernardhinault]

Sadly, this turns out to be a parody and not a real fundraising ad...

https://twitter.com/dannybarefoot/status/1099119486505046016
https://twitter.com/dannybarefoot/st...19486505046016

[Femme Folle]

I have to say this somewhere, and I don't want to offend a friend by saying it on Twitter or Facebook. So here goes:

FUCK BERNIE SANDERS

[Tactical Genius]

I have to say this somewhere, and I don't want to offend a friend by saying it on Twitter or Facebook. So here goes:

FUCK BERNIE SANDERS

Oh dear, what has he done to offend you?

[Femme Folle]

I voted for him in 2016, so I'm not a Sanders-hater. I'm just over him now. The old white guys need to sit down and let the women and poc handle it.

[Flynnie]

I voted for him in 2016, so I'm not a Sanders-hater. I'm just over him now. The old white guys need to sit down and let the women and poc handle it.

Diversity isn’t a policy position.

[anton pulisov]

I don't think he is the ideal candidate, but he is by far the best of a bad bunch. Warren comes close. Why e.g. Booker should be better because he is not white or old, despite having his pockets lined by the insurance industry, is beyond me.

In my opinion Sanders' age is an advantage. He has been in politics for decades but never sold out to big money. In that way, he walks the walk.