Agnostic.com

5 2

I for one am already weary--and just a bit alarmed--by the hatred expressed (by some posters) for some of the Democratic candidates.
I understand we all have our favorites. That's to be expected. That's normal.
BUT the enemy is not the in-party competition.
All these candidates are allies of one another. They may have their disagreements about how to accomplish certain goals (for instance Bloomberg thinks Warren's surcharge on capital gains ineffectual) but they agree on the goals, almost without exception.
No, the enemies are the oligarchs who now run this country, and will destroy what's left of our democracy if left unchecked.
I'm asking the well-meaning (non-trolls) to keep that in mind.
Also please keep in mind Trump is only a sideshow designed by his handlers to distract us from the REAL barbarians at the gates: the plutocrats running our oligarchy, pulling the strings.
Divide and conquer will work yet again if we let it.

Storm1752 8 Feb 26
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

I don’t know. I think it’s my responsibility as an aware human being and voter to post about all the candidates’ actual record and positions. If those are considered negative, it’s because the record/positions are anathema to whom the Democratic Party once stood for, namely the poor and working and middle classes. For example, posting about Bloomberg’s stop-and-frisk policy is fair play, especially because the black and Latinx communities repeatedly presented their case about the awful impact of stop-and-frisk and BEGGED him to end the policy. He chose to ignore them. That’s not bashing, that’s real life stuff. And nobody can seriously expect him to become a changed human being now. In fact he only apologized for the policy after he decided to run for office, knowing he needs the votes from those communities. Sorry, not what you were looking for, but hopefully Explains my little graphic.

Okay I get the arguments against racist policies, but what's better- stop and frisk or a much more laid back approach to crime and then you get Chiraq level results? Please tell me how inner city crime gets fixed. Because it needs to get fixed yesterday.

Nice graph, btw.

@Flowerwall Glad you like the graph. Read about stop and frisk and you won’t think it’s a viable approach. [thenorthstar.com]

@Bobbyzen Okay, here's one for you to read. [motherjones.com]

@Flowerwall Actually, the article questions the study’s conclusion the stop-and-frisk led to a drop in gun violence. From the article;

“In late 2015, the Chicago Police Department reached an agreement to drastically cut back its use of stop-and-frisk, which has led some to call the murder epidemic a result of the “ACLU effect.” Is that fair?“

“I dunno. We’ve got broken windows. We’ve got community policing. We’ve got stop-and-frisk. We’ve got targeted drug raids. We’ve got the Ferguson effect. And now we’ve got the ACLU effect. We have a long history of trying to blame crime rates on specific police tactics—or the lack of them—and in the long run they never seem to hold up. In the case of Chicago, we’ve got one data point, namely that homicides started to increase at the same time that stop-and-frisk ended. Despite the length of this latest paper, that’s really all the authors have—and even that’s belied by the fact that murder rates had already increased 15 percent the year before. Maybe Cassell and Fowles are right, but I’d keep an open mind about this until and unless we get a whole lot more evidence.”

@Bobbyzen I DID read the article, but as it states at the end I am keeping an open mind. I don't immediately label police practice as racist unless it is clear it IS. And as article points out Chicago is not New York. Your article states stop and frisk was horrible PTSD inducing, and I understand, NOT GOOD, but what about the crime itself? I think that produces PTSD also when people don't feel safe because police are NOT policing enough, when people are living in constant possibility of violence or have lost family or friends. From what I hear it creates a huge disconnect between community members and the people meant to protect them. I am getting off topic somewhat. This is about Bloomberg and New York, though comparisons to Chicago are useful. If you read up on Chicago, I think the murder rate is 4x higher than New York.

@Bobbyzen I watched a video showing exactly what Bloomberg said. I can find and repost if anyone is interested. Also found this video.

0

I must agree but as an outsider looking in I can’t really comment on the politics.

There does seem to be a lot of energy spent on things that can’t be changed and all the while the eye is well and truly off the ball.

I am sure if more attention was paid to real problems in the country there would be much more insidious and pernicious problems to be concerned with than party political in/fighting

1

You are naive if you think the DNC would rather beat Trump, even if it meant nominating Bernie, than deny Bernie the nomination and keep him from becoming prez. The DNC is fine with the status quo and would much rather have another four years of Trump than have Bernie as prez and leader of the party. So, in a word, the Dems are not all on the same team..

Sadly, I agree with you that the DNC’s focus is keeping Bernie from the top of the ticket. And not for their stated reasons that “he can’t win” and “he would hurt down-ticket candidates” for the House & Senate. The Republican establishment had the same arguments against Trump, and guess what...? If Bernie is as popular with the wide and diverse electorate as the Iowa, NH and Nevada results indicate—to say nothing of the size of his rallies—voters who select Bernie at the ballot box will overwhelmingly select the down-ticket Democrats.

0

Agreeing on goals isn't the problem. Agreeing on the scope of the goals and the process to reach those goals is where thier differances lay.

The debate format doesn't encourage exploring how to bring those about, just reduces it to "I'm experienced" vrs "We need a new way". Time is short, answers need to be dumbed down for the average voter (political IQ of 65) and negativity is about the only things that fit those 2 criteria in showing a differances between the candidates.

Other than that, great system we've got.

1of5 Level 8 Feb 26, 2020

@Bierbasstard because that's time they need to spend fundraising and pressing flesh. Often they'll just say "the details or answer is already on my website", even when it isn't.

1

If there is a way to fuck this up the Dems will certainly find it. It is what they do best, that and whining between elections. I am a life long Dem, but I do wonder why at times.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:464007
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.