[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/politics/ - News & Politics

Politics, News, Current Events

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Flag *
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Sister Boards [ Third position ] [ Fascism ] [ National Socialism ] [ Anarchism ] [ Anarcho-capitalism ] [ Libertarianism ] [ Marxism-Leninism ] [ Psychopolitics ] [ Philosophy ] [ int ] [ History ]

[ Board log ] [ ###politics### ]


File: 1458141324617.jpg (66.81 KB, 759x398, 759:398, img-492149-hillary-clinton….jpg)

361d05 No.12874

Doing the math, Sanders has lost the Democratic nomination already. The reality is also pretty clear it was due to his low polling with Black and to a lesser extent Hispanic voters.

>In Missouri and Illinois, 29 percent of black voters chose Sanders. Sanders also took 20 percent in Florida — not as good as in Michigan and Ohio, but better than the approximately 1 in 10 black voters he had been taking in some Southern states. North Carolina also looked more like those Southern states on Tuesday, giving Sanders 17 percent of the black vote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/16/bernie-sanders-is-doing-better-with-black-voters-but-its-still-not-good-enough/

The Democratic party electorate is so minority heavy that it is virtually impossible to win the Democratic nomination without the black & Hispanic vote.

He's losing momentum now, but Sanders has been winning the white vote, especially in places like Michigan, where he won the Democratic white male vote by a huge margin.

> And among the 68% of voters who were white, Sanders won handily, 57%-41%.

>Clinton won with the 56% of the electorate that is female, 51%-46%, but Sanders did better with men, 55%-43%

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/03/09/high-turnout-late-deciding-voters-give-bernie-sanders-michigan-primary/81527800/

Here's the question: how are the millions of white liberal Bernie supporters going to deal with the fact that the niggers they have elevated to special victim/minority status robbed them of their dream candidate and given them instead Hillary Clinton?

c2e414 No.12876

>>12874

> how are the millions of white liberal Bernie supporters going to deal with the fact that the niggers they have elevated to special victim/minority status robbed them of their dream candidate and given them instead Hillary Clinton?

The evil DNC brainwashed them to vote Hillary!


a08873 No.12877

>how are the millions of white liberal Bernie supporters going to deal with the fact that the niggers they have elevated to special victim/minority status robbed them of their dream candidate and given them instead Hillary Clinton?

They will no longer feel guilty about thinking that blacks are dumb. They see Bernie as the savior of Americans, especially blacks, now they think blacks dug their own grave.


361d05 No.12883

File: 1458143434657.jpg (981.88 KB, 2558x1464, 1279:732, DEM_2016_Sanders.JPEG-0a3f….jpg)

Bernie was maligned by blacks even from the early part of his campaign.

Also, black writer Ta-Nehisi Coates went after him for not supporting reparations.

>For those of us interested in how the left prioritizes its various radicalisms, Sanders’s answer is illuminating. The spectacle of a socialist candidate opposing reparations as “divisive” (there are few political labels more divisive in the minds of Americans than socialist) is only rivaled by the implausibility of Sanders posing as a pragmatist. Sanders says the chance of getting reparations through Congress is “nil,” a correct observation which could just as well apply to much of the Vermont senator’s own platform.

>Unfortunately, Sanders’s radicalism has failed in the ancient fight against white supremacy.

>Some months ago, black radicals in the Black Lives Matters movement protested Sanders. They were, in the main, jeered by the white left for their efforts. But judged by his platform, Sanders should be directly confronted and asked why his political imagination is so active against plutocracy, but so limited against white supremacy.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/bernie-sanders-reparations/424602/


d94ce2 No.12979

>>12883

good find.

>If not even an avowed socialist can be bothered to grapple with reparations, if the question really is that far beyond the pale, if Bernie Sanders truly believes that victims of the Tulsa pogrom deserved nothing, that the victims of contract lending deserve nothing, that the victims of debt peonage deserve nothing, that that political plunder of black communities entitle them to nothing, if this is the candidate of the radical left—then expect white supremacy in America to endure well beyond our lifetimes and lifetimes of our children.

this is classic coates:

1. run on sentences filled with qualifiers.

2. useless rhythmic repetition at the expense of brevity,clarity, others.

3. coatesisms and general abuse of language.

4. victim complex and poor rhetoric around subjects with which he considers there to be a canonical interpretation.

let's take a look at the victims of contract lending and "debt peonage". I assume this is in relation to redlining covered reasonably (to at least an undergrad standard) on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

the conclusions we can draw:

1. not lending in low income neighbourhoods is racist because black people live in low income neighbourhoods.

2. trying to develop a lending strategy that incorporates the inherent risk of lending in low income neighbourhoods is racist because black people can't pay back these loans.

3. earning enough money to get out of the ghetto is racist if you are white. you should be enriching your local community with your income and stolen stereos.

How exactly does Oh'bama Co-ates plan to structure a reparations program for the so called victims of redlining that won't lead to government cash ending up in the despicable payday loans industry, or rewarding people for credit fraud?


361d05 No.12984

>>12979

Great post.

Plus there is the whole issue of sins of the fathers. Example

>if Bernie Sanders truly believes that victims of the Tulsa pogrom

The victims of Tulsa can certainly look to restitution, but this happened in 1921. WTF do their grandchildren and great granchildren deserve?


d94ce2 No.12989

>>12984

All these cases only make sense in the context of racial politics. It's impossible to do reparations without limiting it to black America, and that's by definition.

If you come up with a Tulsa reparations program is it not morally implied that you should also make reparations for the Ford Massacre? It's a decade more relevant and equally as abhorrent. But if you do so you're no longer providing reparations to the black community you're righting past injustices.

So too for people that lost homes in the 2008 credit crunch: a significant portion of sub-prime lending market was black, but that wasn't the true extent of the impact. If you come up with an (extremely belated) compensation program that is not limited to blacks then you haven't provided reparations.

Bernie is correct in labeling these policies as defined by Tahini divisive. Can't you just imagine how /pol/ and social media would rip them to shreds? It'd be the BET chainmail to the nth factorial.


361d05 No.13001

>>12989

>divisive

I don't know if there is any other racial issue that gets white Americans more angry. I'm not talking about stormfront/pol, I'm talking about your typical middle of the road guy who might call himself a liberal and really misses the old Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

It really, really sets people off.

I hope it is brought up more and more. Here is a Newsweek article from last summer where they talked about it "only" costing $14 trillion.

http://europe.newsweek.com/slavery-reparations-could-cost-14-trillion-according-new-calculation-331766


d94ce2 No.13003

>>13001

so just pony up 25 years of defense budget up front for little to no return?

I'm looking up the atlantic office and mailing this dude a calculator.


deec7c No.13023

File: 1458211978465.png (799.28 KB, 900x600, 3:2, family_2[1].png)

>>13003

This is the fun you can have with this:

Divide $14,000,000,000,000 by the current American population:

322,369,319

You get $43,428.45 from everyone living in the United States. Family of 4, which used to be the standard family size: You get about $174,000. Actually, it is worse than that, as people over 65 who are mostly not contributing to the economy make up 13.4% of the population. Subtract them, and you get

279,171,830

then you get $50,148.33 per person, or about $200,000 per family of four.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States

That is the cost for everyone.


deec7c No.13024

File: 1458212998276.jpg (601.5 KB, 2500x1667, 2500:1667, ferguson.jpg)

This is where it gets even more fun.

There are 37,685,848 non-Hispanic blacks in the United States.

How much would each of them receive in benefits from $14,000,000,000,000 in reparations?

$371,492.24

That is what every single non-Hispanic black would be getting, presumably in some type of benefits or payment stretched out over multiple years.


2ed0a6 No.13026

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

thread theme


42fd86 No.13038

really pisses me off due to the fact that blacks and hispanics will benefit greatly from bernies policies, and hillary's a lying fucking whore.


e75588 No.13044

>>13038

so who will you vote for? Trump or Hillary? or boycott?




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]