Oh my. The rush by you and some other Sanders supporters to accuse people critical of Sanders & his camp of anything from sexism to racism to antisemitism is truly bonkers.
Thank you.
Last edited:
2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT2 | Warren's college tuition plan includes cancelling college debt
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
You'd be surprised. People post pictures of other people and friends/family on the internet all the time without asking if it's ok. People willingly upload their contacts to Google/Facebook without even a second's thought.
We're not about to sit here and equate "with these hands" to Jihadists groups. It is creepy and does remind me of religious groups, but it is not a religion.
The religiosity is not directed towards Bernie Sanders, it's directed towards the movement (you know, 'Not me. Us'). It's still off-putting, but there's a bunch of religious shit in American politics that's off-putting to me.
The lunch between Sharpton and Pete was arranged with Sharpton's condition that mics would be off, but one outlet apparently didn't get the memo and livestreamed it with their mics on lol. They start out talking about the police tapes and gentrification criticisms in South Bend and Pete's black agenda before moving into other topics like homophobia in faith communities and his outreach and campaign strategy.
And I find it funny that everyone is so appalled by Nina's religious antics but didn't have a word to say about Pete's "religious left" rhetoric.
Twitter's kind of irritating right now. Subset of Bernie people pretending Beto's plan isn't good enough because it doesn't hit the mark TGND doesn't make. They think TGND said net zero by 2030, which was never said.
Also, no disgust for the billions of other methods politicians use to rhetorically manipulate people? No? Just the charismatic speeches and crowd participation. Got it.
Those are "normal".
People raising their hands in unison, not normal.
To be fair, and I don't have a problem with Turner, those are two vastly different things.
Yes, the latter is actually promoting religion in politics...literally.
It is not. It is describing how his own personal morals have been influenced by religion. Just like President Obama's was. That is far different from promoting religion in politics.
Wanting to see "the emergence of the religious left" is not just talking about what shaped his moral compass.
That's a huge turnoff as well. I cant stand preachy language in politics.
I think you're, possibly intentionally, misrepresenting him here. The whole argument is that Democratic values are ones that religious people should hold, not that religious values are ones that Democrats should hold.
These people were never going to be satisfied. I'm seeing alot of groups trying to stop climate change coming out and saying it's a great plan though, so I'll take them more seriously
He's talking about a political movement to hard-counter evangelicals to help take away the "PARTY OF FAMILY VALUES" nonsense much in the same way Dems have worked to present themselves as not "soft" on other areas.
They're talking about this comment:
His new plan indeed pushes it back to 2050 so it counts as a renege I guess.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-29/beto-orourke-climate-change-plan
(I think the GND doesn't go far enough but "political realities" and whatnot.)
https://thinkprogress.org/beto-climate-change-warning-12-years-824c281bed31/
His new plan indeed pushes it back to 2050 so it counts as a renege I guess.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-29/beto-orourke-climate-change-plan
(I think the GND doesn't go far enough but "political realities" and whatnot.)
No, Pete quite literally said that he wants to replicate a lot of what the right claims to have a monopoly on, like religion and philosophical value statements. He's making a partisan issue out of it. If he wanted to divorce it from politics completely, he'd come against them politicizing it, but he has said many times that he wants to replicate what the right does on the left.
I like that California gets a bigger role in the primary than it used to. It's a helluva lot of people, and it's good their voices are heard before the bell has rung.
It's attempting to make inroads with a constituency that conservatives have locked down for generations. There are a lot of very religious people in the country, and they vote. He's stressed repeatedly that it's important to him to be a president for people of any faith as well as no faith, he's just making a moral argument that if you truly believe in what's taught in the Bible, your views should align more closely with progressive values than conservative ones. I don't think this is bringing religion into politics so much as it's recognizing that there's a large religious voting bloc that already has significant political power and trying to bring them into our coalition rather than the one that's antithetical to what they supposedly believe in.
The appropriate reaction isn't a political counter movement, but rhetoric that pushes the idea that religion transcends party lines. In other words he should say "it's not a matter of left and right" not say "the left is religious too!"
I understand the strategy but he's still making religion a partisan issue even if his point is not that superficial.
Yes, without the contradictory rhetoric.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/reli...YJZUKDog&noredirect=on&utm_term=.07167a751468
Fuck this 'religious tradition' shit being tied to the Democratic Party. All of it. Keep that shit with your personal morals.
There are things worth pulling from various religious traditions, though not the American tradition which has always been tied to racial capitalism.
There is nothing contradictory about that statement. Nor is there anything contradictory about his statement, his plan, and TGND, except 100% energy reliance on renewable.
They're taking issue with a time he said net zero emissions by 2030 at some Iowan thing. Which may be possible in the US, but not even TGND aims for net zero emissions in the US by 2030. What's more, they're conflating that statement with TGND. There's no real thesis for their issue.
Last edited:
Trump wasn't president then. She was trying to prevent something that hadnt happened yet but now its all different.
Besides, Hillary was a terrible presidential candidate so that didnt help much either.
Do you like Tulsi Gabbard, as well?
It is a partisan issue, America has a large religious community on the left and the right.
He's appealing to religious voters, who are a large segment of the population. Any candidate who wants the nomination must make a coalition with the largest numbers possible. Those who don't will fail.
Last edited:
Is the argument that a goal for net-zero emissions by 2050 is not mutually exclusive from a goal of net-zero emissions by 2030?
They're criticizing him for walking back his own words in Iowa. Reminds me a lot of the Harris private insurance walkback except Beto seems better about climate change than Harris is about private health insurance.
Nope, not buying it. Not that worshipping a movement is any better, mind you.
This isn't a sign of people worshipping a movement, they're worshipping a man.
The article you gave me was about "drastic change" by 2030. Unless there's more to the quote, then no, that's not a contradiction. Because that's exactly what his plan is enacting.
To answer your question though, it's not, depending on the stage where the net zero emissions are "coming from." There's wiggle room. Net zero in the US, or aiming for net zero in the US is possible albeit extremely unlikely. But the 2050 net zero seems to be a WW statement.
They're literally kids. Subtlety and complex planning is not in their wheelhouse lol
Remind me why this person isn't in prison yet?
But Hilary was also hated with a passion by Republicans, even many democrats, Biden doesn't have that heat
- Status