Generally, the crux of the question is the same no matter how its asked.
Yes, a candidate should be nimble enough to base their answer in empathy, and answer the question appropriately.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
US PoliEra 2019 |OT9| I'm really glad I'm not on Twitter nearly enough to understand all the references
- Thread starter TheHunter
- Start date
- Status
Generally, the crux of the question is the same no matter how its asked.
Yes, a candidate should be nimble enough to base their answer in empathy, and answer the question appropriately.
The crux being 'how would you personally handle black issues with your black kids as a white person' is an incredibly broad and complex topic that I wouldn't expect any white person to have all the answers to. Come on now.
It was out of context, but yeah, it was still pretty bad.
Ivanka doesn't blast the press as the enemy of the people, like her father does. Rather, she sees the news media as her personal enrichment and image-enhancement tool—which was, for many years, very much the case when she was a socialite living on the Upper East Side, fawned over by the lifestyle and fashion press. One editor who has worked for three leading national publications told me that she thought that Ivanka is the hardest Washington beat to cover. "With Donald, it's all out there. By contrast, Ivanka is secretive, cryptic, controlled, and poised," the editor said speaking on the condition of anonymity.
She hasn't been able to maintain this iron media grip alone. Early in 2017, shortly after getting themselves installed in senior Trump administration roles, she and Jared brought on their own PR flack, Josh Raffel, to serve in the West Wing's communications operations. Raffel, who was a White House employee paid with taxpayer dollars, spent countless hours on the phone with reporters, including myself, defending the couple. The premise Raffel, who left the White House in 2018, pushed with some success into media zeitgeist: Ivanka has her narrow lanes—workforce development, human trafficking, global entrepreneurship—and therefore basically has a free pass on everything else.
It helps explain how Ivanka has managed to pull off the PR stunt of a lifetime: floating untouched above the reputational decline—she is, according to a June survey, polling better in swing states than her father—that has consumed the Trump administration's entire inner circle, save her.
Like many other people living inside the Beltway fishbowl, Ivanka has made herself useful to reporters and employed the age-old Washington media practice of getting her message out there through surrogates and background and off-the-record conversations with journalists.
---------------------
"Everyone, including Jared and Ivanka, leak to the press. I think in general it helps to leak if the person is under scrutiny," said Sam Nunberg, a former Trump adviser and Zelig of the political news media world.
But Ivanka can also go into full attack mode when the news cycle winds aren't favorable, specifically when she feels particularly embarrassed and belittled by the coverage. Take, for instance, the reaction of the White House press office after BBC reporter Parham Ghabodi tweeted a video taken by the French presidential palace showing Ivanka trying awkwardly to insert herself into a conversation with world leaders.
---------------------
"There are many White House reporters who are afraid to challenge her [Ivanka] and hold her accountable, because she and Jared are their entry into deeper relationships in the administration. I've talked to a least half a dozen reporters who have told me this," one prominent public affairs professional in Washington, D.C., told me, speaking on the condition of anonymity so as not to compromise the organization's relationship with the press.
More in the link.
This is absurd on its face because no one can possibly know what it's like to have experience with an identity that isn't theirs, but we can all learn from one another, pay attention to what people of other identities say they need from their society, and in general, be empathetic to others.
I don't know, if someone asked me how I would try to shepherd my gay child through life even though I am currently childless, I don't think it would be outside of my ability to answer that because I pay attention to what gay folks say, and I pay particular attention to what gay black folks say, so I think it's something that I could talk about while being cognizant of the fact that I personally will never have those concerns in my personal life.
If your viewpoint is that a white person can't even begin to understand black feelings, then what are we doing here? There's no hope for us or this country with us as a part of it. I believe that white people have access to empathy, though, and that some of them are interested in using that access to understand us.
For the most part, the issues with these answers from the candidates wasn't a lack of empathy though; clearly there is a basis of empathy (offering advice to help to protect/survive, offering expressions of understanding that it's not our fault, etc.) What I'm talking about is having answers that that are informed and offer good solutions, and that will be hard to come by if you're lacking perspective, or if good solutions are seldom available.
I think it's correct to say that the question is extremely challenging for a white politician to navigate correctly, and none of them did so perfectly. But that doesn't really mean it's a bad question. Arguably the opposite is true. I want them asked questions that are very difficult to answer! Let's see them hustle!
The entire point of electing a POTUS is that we want someone to lead who to the best of their abilities understands peoples problems and tries to fix them. It isn't absurd to ask someone regardless of their race a question like that because it is a problem for a large portion of the country whether the person leading them is black or not.
If your perception is too narrow or you can't give good advice to people who you didn't have similar life experiences too then you probably shouldn't run for an office where you'll be representing hundreds of millions of people. Bernie's answer was bad and needs to be better going forward it's just that simple
If your perception is too narrow or you can't give good advice to people who you didn't have similar life experiences too then you probably shouldn't run for an office where you'll be representing hundreds of millions of people. Bernie's answer was bad and needs to be better going forward it's just that simple
My problem with the question isn't that it was difficult to answer. My problem with the question is: look at the responses from several black people regarding all of their responses; they were inevitable due to the nature of the question and the people being asked the question.
your job as a presidential candidate is to anticipate and be prepared for questions like this, yes.
Exactly this. And Sanders is in a unique position relative to everyone else because HE RAN FOR OFFICE IN 2016 IN ONE OF THE LONGEST PRIMARY CAMPAIGNS IN HISTORY.
These questions aren't new- they were around in 2016 because we had the same problems in 2016. Yet Sanders consistently shits the bed on any question remotely to do with race because he either cannot understand the perspective or does not care to. A one off bad answer to a question can be forgiven, but this isn't the boat Sanders is in. His responses are ALWAYS horrendous.
That isn't what I said. 'Type of question' != 'question'.
Precisely. As a candidate, you should want good-faith questions that force you to think and even to reconsider your answer afterward.
No. My point is that the former doesn't necessarily prepare you for the latter.
Your point is a bad one. Everyone running for office at this point should be prepared to answer that question, or any question remotely in the same ballpark. African Americans being shot to death via law enforcement is a consistent problem. A President should have some idea of how to approach it or at the very least be able to address the issue with empathy.
Sanders was able to do neither, and this is inexcusable given it's the second time he's run for this job since 2016.
User warned: hostility
Have you met brainchild
Edit: Leaving the comment because I'm not trying to bury it, but apologies to Brainchild for the cheap snipe, as there are gentler ways to ward off a semantic argument.
Last edited:
User Banned (3 days): hostility over a series of posts
Apparently not, and I'm beginning to regret the interaction.
Don't be mean! So unnecessary!
That is what I meant by difficulty.
Sanders gave the answer I (and many, many black parents) tell our kids. The veracity of his answer wasn't the issue. The issue was that he was the one to say it.
And this is why I don't fuck with is this sub-forum like that.
Peace.
Let me be as clear as I possibly can.
Sanders' response was a bad one, because he's being asked *in the context of a politician able to do something about the issue* what he would tell a child in that situation.
"Be polite and respectful so they don't shoot you" is a horrible, terrible answer. it fails to acknowledge that no matter how polite or respectful you are- that will not stop racist cops from treating you like a threat. Philando Castile was as respectful as possible. Charles Kinsey was on the ground with his hands in the air and clearly not even the threat in question. Atiana Jefferson was shot in her own house. It's not a "be polite enough and you'll be ok" issue, and responding as if it is as sanders has done is irresponsible. The specific phrasing he used as well was ugly and lacks empathy. I was disgusted when I heard it and so were many others.
Politeness and respectfulness will not save you here.
Sanders fails as he always does to recognize this is a racism problem, this is a discrimination problem. I'm not a warren superfan, but her first point that "This is not your fault, this is discrimination" IS the correct way to lead off on that. You teach a kid that it's not THEIR behavior that is causing this. This is an issue white america has with black america, and we need to learn to navigate it as best as possible.
Sanders also fails to recognize this is a law enforcement problem. Law enforcement will lie to protect each other, re-hire officers with known red flags, and shout down minorities who complain with blue line bullshit. Being polite and respectful will not fix this, and in fact will only make the problem worse when police learn they can walk all over you. Know your rights, protect yourself, but don't do anything stupid. Law enforcement wants you to believe that "not having your hands clearly visible" or "making sudden moves" was why innocent people were shot down without cause- and it's horseshit. Lives are being lost because SOME white cops don't value black lives and the worst of them are looking for an excuse to demonstrate this.
This is an institutional problem that must be solved via legislation. Law enforcement needs far more oversight than it has. There is no reason that traffic cops need to be running around with live ammo. Obviously biased prosecutors need to be removed. For-Profit jails and prisons need to be shut down. Personal possession and use of marijuana and similar drugs needs to be decriminalized. Sanders is in a position to recognize this and advocate it, but failed to do so and always fails to do so, because he doesn't see race as a problem, he only sees class.
Last edited:
I don't usually call people out with snark and if I eat a ban, that's on me, but try and remember that you've taken several bans across two forums for spiraling down semantic rabbit holes. Honestly I think you're a good faith contributor but you have to have noticed that nobody else gets into protracted arguments about everyday words.
Okay, now I think I get it. Sounds like she's talking about crimes of desperation, here. "Nothing stops a bullet like a job" means someone is less likely to turn to crime and shoot someone if they have a job and can provide for themself/their families. So her idea is that an improved education system and job market leading to more opportunities for people leading to less crime. Easier said than done.
Right. Hair splitting over nonsense is not what I'm here for, and my patience for people who try that is very short.
It's taken him a while, but it looks like Bernie is finally coming around to Socialism.
Still not all the way there, but it gives me hope he'll move on from his current half-way-house positioning.
EDIT:
I thought this was the Socialism OT. My bad. I didn't mean to post here (and I have no intention to post here in the future).
I thought this was the Socialism OT. My bad. I didn't mean to post here (and I have no intention to post here in the future).
I just generally think anyone arguing any question 'snuck up' on a candidate or was a variation on a variable on a random allotment of assembled words of which no one could predict is just being overtly intellectually dishonest. Especially on behalf of a candidate on their second rodeo.
User warned: trolling
Maybe I should make SemanticRabbitholes4Bernie my Twitter handle or next band name.
exactly. kamala sucks but there's a reason the clip is like 5 seconds long
huh. I've been around for quite a while, but "poster loses argument so badly they ban themselves from the subforum" is definitely a new one for me.
Soon:
11:12 AM - Oct 27, 2019
For a laugh:
5:39 PM - Oct 27, 2019
ABC News @ABCNEW: House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff tells @MarthaRaddatz: "We will be doing public hearings, and I think we'll be doing them soon." https://abcn.ws/2K0BLjq
11:12 AM - Oct 27, 2019
For a laugh:
CBS News @CBSNewsGowdy says Trump's demand for Ukraine's cooperation in 2016 probe "can't be" impeachable https://cbsn.ws/367rN90
5:39 PM - Oct 27, 2019
Something happened to Bernie.
Then we worked our way backwards to justify whatever Bernie said or did.
The right attitude to have. Why this herb even at a YG show?
User Banned (3 Days): Inflammatory Community Generalizations
You know what, I wasn't going to post here again, but before I leave (and yes, I will be requesting a permanent self-ban) people should know why I'm actually leaving.
Anyone who knows me knows that I have absolutely no problem with long, extended arguments, but I do not tolerate ad hominems, and I could already see that this thread was headed down that path again after comments like yours. I've been through that too many times with poli-era, and just in general, interactions here have just not been very pleasant. This is more like the straw that broke the camel's back.
As for your argument about Sanders. It's hogwash. He literally brought up exactly what you talked about, but you couldn't be arsed to look at the full exchange to see that, very much in the same way that I didn't realize how out of context Kamala's quote was, ironically.
Yes, Sanders is flaky on race issues sometimes, but there are other times where he has the best responses on race issues, but that never gets acknowledged here. In fact, I don't think I've seen anyone here acknowledge just how far he's leading the pack on his criminal justice platform compared to everyone else in the field, but that's not surprising.
Anyway, I wish you all well. I really mean that, but I hope that maybe one day this community can realize the kind of toxic, unwelcoming atmosphere it has fostered, because I am personally tired of it.
Cheers. It's been fun.
So dramatic. JFC.
I hung around while Warren was absolutely eating dirt from this forum in August of 18'. Right or wrong, I don't see what the histrionics of threatening to leave will do.
All you had to post was
and move on.
I hung around while Warren was absolutely eating dirt from this forum in August of 18'. Right or wrong, I don't see what the histrionics of threatening to leave will do.
All you had to post was
and move on.
Eh, Idk how much salience it will have this round. Like, in a vacuum yeah. But, Donald Trump is helping slaughter the Kurds.
Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, the reason you end up in long(-winded) arguments around semantic pendantry for Bernie Sanders doing or saying something with multiple different people is of your own making...? Just a thought...
There are people who post in here in support of Sanders regularly who don't really have issue?
There are people who post in here in support of Sanders regularly who don't really have issue?
Kinda pointless. It's never been an issue that's mattered in the primaries up to now, so you'd be going negative with an attack that historically doesn't work. Since going negative also historically doesn't help you (only hurts your target, if the attack works), there's no advantage.
I mean it was a defining issue in '08 against Shillary. But that was a lifetime ago.
We are so far beyond that mattering to anyone anymore.
- Status