Understanding a problem is quite a bit different than having a solution to it. I don't think any reasonable voter should be looking to specific politicians for solutions to such complex problems as poverty and why minorities typically have higher proportions of it. You only need to look at what presidential candidates say during campaigns and what they actually do to know it's a waste of time.
I dunno, I feel like Bernie would try his best to do something to alleviate the poverty problem. Either way, citizens can do their part as well, at least the wealthy. IN MY OPINION.
Like, Trump keeps harping on about helpin the vets, but couldn't he just start by holding fundraisers? He's certainly in a position to do that given his celebrity status. Same with Hillary. Plus, Bernie or Hillary could also reduce the defense/warfare budget and use the money to help the vets and needy. I'd rather my tax money be used towards that than be unnecessarily spent in warfare and defense.
Not that I'm advocating for severely reducing the budget for it, but the amount we spend now is ridiculous, and a lot of that money would be better spent on helping people and bettering the infrastructure. Has any politician brought this up?
But the other user isn't the only person who thought that. Many others, including me, thought the same about Bernie when he said that.
I know.
Ah, I figured it could also be a genuine misunderstanding. I read that out of context, so I didn't know he actually meant white people can't relate to how it truly feels like to grow up in shitty neighborhoods. But yeah, now that I know the context, I agree with Bernie. He also has a better idea of how to deal with and help people too, just as Obama seems to have. Hopefully Bernie has plans to help.
I would disagree with his statement. Anyone going to several rural areas of the country say heart of west va or other south appalachia can see that the white peoples on poverty have it pretty bad or even worst than inner city minorities in poverty. At least there there are resources here there are little to none and theres not even jobs. Some of these tiny communities are pretty bad.
He could have phrased it better additionally people took offense that he generalized that blacks only live in poor communities or only experience racism there which many took offense too. Racism could exist at all income levels and environments. Still since he is failing to get the black vote it is clear he doesnt understsnd black issues repeatedly. Look at his performance in several southern and south eastern states.
Wow, nice cherrypicking dude. That totally was his point!
If you actually listened to what he said there's nothing wrong there, and I'm not one for white guilt or political correctness, or "checking my privilege". The devaluation of someone's opinion based on the randomness of ethnicity or gender bothers me just as much as anyone else. I'm not rich, my family isn't rich, but I can't pretend to know what it is like to live in a legit inner-city ghetto in the way he described. I've never been stopped and frisked because of my skin color or how I was dressed. I can sympathize however I wish to, but that doesn't mean I know what it's like to be Black, much less someone living in a veritable wasteland. That is the "blind spot" he was referring to in his answer to the question. Not that poor white people don't exist or that none live in ghettos. To take only that from what he said or to suggest that was his point is intellectually dishonest.
Oh but I thought you loved cherry picking, or is it only fun when you do it?
And it wasn't even cherry picking. It's literally what he said, let me quote it for you since you didn't listen to it:
"When you're white you don't know what it's like to be living in a ghetto, you don't know what it's like to be poor, you don't know what it's like to be hassled when you walk down the street or when you get dragged out of a car"
You're saying that he only talks about the white people that didn't experience this, but his "When you're white..." goes against your "intellectually honest" interpretation. Sure you can say he worded it badly, but that's how he said it and he deserves the heat for his poor choice of words like every other candidate does.
And even if you disregard the wording, your explanation for his blind spot still makes no sense. Both him and you only talk about white people that haven't experienced this, but what about black people that were never poor nor lived in ghettos? Why exclude them from the racial blind spot? Do they magically have full understanding of things they didn't experience unlike petty white people?
And even if you ignore both of that, his entire point is still factually wrong. If you look up the statistics, the american people who live in poverty are ~50% white people, ~20% black people. So it seems Sanders himself has a huge racial blind spot towards the bigger number of people living in poverty.
Btw your own story/experience(underlined) doesn't matter at all so don't even bring it up. I could also whip up stories of being poor and harassed as a white person, that's not an argument.
Clearly I'm not going to convince you that his whole speech was just a failed attempt at pandering to the minorities, which coincidentally are the groups of people that vote him the least. I was expecting you to come running to defend him, but that was just weak.
I would disagree with his statement. Anyone going to several rural areas of the country say heart of west va or other south appalachia can see that the white peoples on poverty have it pretty bad or even worst than inner city minorities in poverty. At least there there are resources here there are little to none and theres not even jobs. Some of these tiny communities are pretty bad.
He could have phrased it better additionally people took offense that he generalized that blacks only live in poor communities or only experience racism there which many took offense too. Racism could exist at all income levels and environments. Still since he is failing to get the black vote it is clear he doesnt understsnd black issues repeatedly. Look at his performance in several southern and south eastern states.
When did this become a competition about who had it worse? Only 10% of the the white population is under the poverty line, while over a quarter of the black population is under the poverty line.
I don't see how he implied that racism only takes place in poor communities and I fail to see see why anyone would be offended by such a misconception either. He was talking about what goes on in poor communities, not in general.
So then Marco Rubio doesn't understand any conservative issues because he usually fails to win republican voters over in nearly every primary? What is this logic?
"When you're white you don't know what it's like to be living in a ghetto, you don't know what it's like to be poor, you don't know what it's like to be hassled when you walk down the street or when you get dragged out of a car"
You're saying that he only talks about the white people that didn't experience this, but his "When you're white..." goes against your "intellectually honest" interpretation. Sure you can say he worded it badly, but that's how he said it and he deserves the heat for his poor choice of words like every other candidate does.
It was a run-on sentence, adding what he said in addendum....to be poor, hassled when they walk down the street, and dragged out of cars. How is this hard to understand? Or are you implying that white people have an equal, firsthand understanding of what racial profiling by the police is like? You know that runs contrary to any stop and frisk statistics available as well as common sense, right? Why are you trying so hard to be offended?
And even if you disregard the wording, your explanation for his blind spot still makes no sense. Both him and you only talk about white people that haven't experienced this, but what about black people that were never poor nor lived in ghettos? Why exclude them from the racial blind spot? Do they magically have full understanding of things they didn't experience unlike petty white people?
Complete straw man here. Where did I say they were excluded? Where was it said that black people who weren't poor had their experiences disregarded? How does a black person not experiencing racism on the level of someone who is poorer than them make it any less true or prevalent? You're just grasping at straws here. The topic was about poor, black communities and what it's like to be a member of them.
And even if you ignore both of that, his entire point is still factually wrong. If you look up the statistics, the american people who live in poverty are ~50% white people, ~20% black people. So it seems Sanders himself has a huge racial blind spot towards the bigger number of people living in poverty.
I don't think you understand how demographics work. Of course, his point would be factually incorrect if the population was made up of equal parts white and black, but they're not. 72% of the population is white, yet only 10% of those living in poverty are white. Roughly 13% of the country is black, yet more than a quarter of said population is living in poverty, more than any other major group. It's similar numbers for latinos as well. Black people are on average, poorer than whites. Why even bring up total numbers here? There is a clear and obvious disparity proportionately.
Btw your own story/experience(underlined) doesn't matter at all so don't even bring it up. I could also whip up stories of being poor and harassed as a white person, that's not an argument.
I don't think you're in the position to be telling me what I can and can't say. And if what I said there adds nothing to the argument for you, then there's no need for you to bring it up at all. Simple enough really, no need to be petty.
Clearly I'm not going to convince you that his whole speech was just a failed attempt at pandering to the minorities, which coincidentally are the groups of people that vote him the least. I was expecting you to come running to defend him, but that was just weak.
I know exactly what he was doing there. I'm not sure if I'd label it as pandering since he was asked a question. But anyway, all candidates pander to a degree, it's how they get elected. I don't see how this is a valid critique of what was said. Disliking something doesn't make it untrue.
I'm curious, are you devoting the same amount of time and energy to the amount of pandering YA BOY Trump is doing? Because that's all he does.
So then Marco Rubio doesn't understand any conservative issues because he usually fails to win republican voters over in nearly every primary? What is this logic?
Thats not true, Rubio performs very strong securing excellent finishes in Puerto Rico and Minnesota and lets not forget that extremely tight race in Virginia with some overwhelming numbers in some of the most fastest growing counties in America. The same can be applied to Clinton who delivers crushing blows to Sanders who has lost in some cases with only 30% of the vote or less in places in the south with heavy minority voter bases. Until Sanders gets a decidingly clear support of minority voters in the south he will forever be in the group of being yet another old white male that doesnt understand minority issues politician.
Until Sanders gets a decidingly clear support of minority voters in the south he will forever be in the group of being yet another old white male that doesnt understand minority issues politician.
So then Clinton is yet another old white woman who does understand minority issues? You do realize there's no difference in views between her and Sanders when it comes to things like this right? Sanders has been working against the DNC itself for this entire campaign since Clinton was practically anointed winner before the cycle ever began. And it isn't as if Clinton earned the support of minority voters solely on her own effort, her husband's administration had strong support from them as well. One could argue that her biggest accomplishment with them is not losing them, given her dubious support with other voter groups.
You do realize there's no difference in views between her and Sanders when it comes to things like this right? Sanders has been working against the DNC itself for this entire campaign since Clinton was practically anointed winner before the cycle ever began
I would disagree with his statement. Anyone going to several rural areas of the country say heart of west va or other south appalachia can see that the white peoples on poverty have it pretty bad or even worst than inner city minorities in poverty. At least there there are resources here there are little to none and theres not even jobs. Some of these tiny communities are pretty bad.
He could have phrased it better additionally people took offense that he generalized that blacks only live in poor communities or only experience racism there which many took offense too. Racism could exist at all income levels and environments. Still since he is failing to get the black vote it is clear he doesnt understsnd black issues repeatedly. Look at his performance in several southern and south eastern states.
I highly doubt it. I also doubt you've been to these poor rural areas full of impoverished people, based on the ridiculous statements you've made towards "lazy" people. I seriously doubt you even care about these people or communities. you likely think they're lazy and made bad lifestyle choices.
No, he does understand black issues, but again it's Hillary who has attention, who had more attention since the beginning.
Thats not true, Rubio performs very strong securing excellent finishes in Puerto Rico and Minnesota and lets not forget that extremely tight race in Virginia with some overwhelming numbers in some of the most fastest growing counties in America. The same can be applied to Clinton who delivers crushing blows to Sanders who has lost in some cases with only 30% of the vote or less in places in the south with heavy minority voter bases. Until Sanders gets a decidingly clear support of minority voters in the south he will forever be in the group of being yet another old white male that doesnt understand minority issues politician.
Again, there is proof Bernie does understand minority issues. He's been in trouble for protesting for black rights decades ago and has fought for them.
I know you republicans don't like fact checking or doing researches, so I did it for you. Bernie is pointing out Hillary's hypocrisy, where she was against refugee children from Central America in 2014 she somehow supports accepting refugee children from Syria.
Also, interesting how you keep attacking abortion because it takes away the fetuses' rights to live, but you have no problem with turning away refugee children and robbing them of their right to live.
@M3J
A bit of a low blow there, champ. Lol
Not that I don't sorta share your sentiments on the Republicans but it's not correct. There's loads of ignorance on all parties. From the politicians to the voters alike~ likewise there are individuals from any side who are more informed/educated than the average joe from an opposing party.
I'm not saying democrats are good, but republicans are the worst and have been for a while. They lie so openly and deceit people just to get what they want, and they're such hypocrites. I mean, Hillary is probably just as bad, if not nearly as bad. I know some democrats are against homosexuality and even accepting Syrian refugees into the country.
I think it's funny how a lot of people who vote Republican are heavily screwed over by them since many republicans (imo) slightly more so than democrats, tend to worship money instead of the "god" they claim to so fervently believe in and yet they keep voting for them. About the only things they truly see eye to eye are petty issues like gay marriage and such lol
I think it's funny how a lot of people who vote Republican are heavily screwed over by them since many republicans (imo) slightly more so than democrats, tend to worship money instead of the "god" they claim to so fervently believe in and yet they keep voting for them. About the only things they truly see eye to eye are petty issues like gay marriage and such lol
Religiosity is the ultimate lip service when it comes to political campaigns. I'm paraphrasing Sam Harris here, but you could be an incredible genius, look like George Clooney, have billions of dollars, have the social skills of Oprah and you would have no chance at winning the election if you don't say you believe in God. As if something like saying that you believe in God has any sort of definitive meaning for who you are as a person. I mean, I could argue that at best it means nothing, or something wholly benign, but I guess that's another topic.
Religiosity is the ultimate lip service when it comes to political campaigns. I'm paraphrasing Sam Harris here, but you could be an incredible genius, look like George Clooney, have billions of dollars, have the social skills of Oprah and you would have no chance at winning the election if you don't say you believe in God. As if something like saying that you believe in God has any sort of definitive meaning for who you are as a person. I mean, I could argue that at best it means nothing, or something wholly benign, but I guess that's another topic.
America was founded on the pursuit of religious freedom for christian values and to be the city upon the hill, if a president is not a believer in God then we cant be a city upon a hill and thus people wont vote for such a candidate.
America was founded on the pursuit of religious freedom for christian values and to be the city upon the hill, if a president is not a believer in God then we cant be a city upon a hill and thus people wont vote for such a candidate.
No it wasn't. It was founded on the pursuit of religious freedom full stop. That the state does not sponsor or endorse any school of faith and no one will be persecuted for their beliefs or lack thereof. One could argue that we don't even currently follow this premise fully, that we're essentially subsidizing such things due to them not paying taxes if given tax exempt status by the government, but I digress.
Either way, the founders of this country and the framers of the Constitution - Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine as well as Abraham Lincoln were Deists, not Christians.
I don't think you're in the position to be telling me what I can and can't say. And if what I said there adds nothing to the argument for you, then there's no need for you to bring it up at all. Simple enough really, no need to be petty.
>Implying that I devote a lot of time and energy on Sanders? As for your question, no need for you to worry. I pay much more attention to "muh boy", the republican side in general and the pandering that is done there. Although I've yet to see pandering on the same level as Sander's recent gem.
___
In other political news: Trump wins Mississippi and Michigan(not by a lot), Cruz and Kasich do okay, while Rubio does very badly(less than 10%).
Sanders wins over Hillary in Michigan but loses rather heavily in Mississippi where Hillary wins.
Overall not much changed this Tuesday as Trump and Hillary still remain in the lead of their parties. Still Rubio is pressured now as he has to win Florida else it's looking quite grim for him.
Nah, I was being a bit serious there. I was really just expressing my thoughts as a white male in this country. Never mind that I'm not wealthy either. However poorly worded you want to say that was, I knew what he meant and I didn't take it as an affront to me or whatever struggles I might have.
>Implying that I devote a lot of time and energy on Sanders? As for your question, no need for you to worry. I pay much more attention to "muh boy", the republican side in general and the pandering that is done there. Although I've yet to see pandering on the same level as Sander's recent gem.
In other political news: Trump wins Mississippi and Michigan(not by a lot), Cruz and Kasich do okay, while Rubio does very badly(less than 10%).
Sanders wins over Hillary in Michigan but loses rather heavily in Mississippi where Hillary wins.
Overall not much changed this Tuesday as Trump and Hillary still remain in the lead of their parties. Still Rubio is pressured now as he has to win Florida else it's looking quite grim for him.
Also, interesting how you keep attacking abortion because it takes away the fetuses' rights to live, but you have no problem with turning away refugee children and robbing them of their right to live.
But Im not proposing we rob them of the right to live, they still can live in their home country or an assortment of other countries. They just cant live here in America until its proven that they arent an economic and security liability. Since we in America embrace family values, it is better for the children to remain with their parents in their family structure as it leads to wholesome development. There are still opportunities in their home country or neighboring countries.
I highly doubt it. I also doubt you've been to these poor rural areas full of impoverished people, based on the ridiculous statements you've made towards "lazy" people. I seriously doubt you even care about these people or communities. you likely think they're lazy and made bad lifestyle choices.
The people in these areas have made the same questionable or bad lifestyle decision as those in Michigan and such, once the key industry (furniture making) left the area many of these job opportunities left leaving people unemployed for years. One could imagine that people could easily move. Same for people in the big steel, manufacturing, and car making industries up north that all closed shop yet people still live there struggling to get by.
interpretation. Sure you can say he worded it badly, but that's how he said it and he deserves the heat for his poor choice of words like every other candidate does.
