French economist (Piketty) predicts end of 2 party system

[VivaRevolution]

Which is what I said - they speak to worker issues but for some white voters whenever they, the Dems, include minorities in that conversation it leads the white voter to distance themselves from the policy.

The Dems continue to pander to workers, they haven't stopped. It's not the 1%'s fault that the low income, low education voter can't stop themselves from viewing their own economic issues through a racial lens. It's silly for those people to expect the Democrats to ignore minority voters.

It isn't ignoring minority voters to pander to the worker.

Minorities are workers.

Believe it or not, pandering to a individual minority group is exclusive.

So is pandering to workers, but I make no apology for excluding economic elites, and very few have issue with this.

 

[panamaican]

It isn't ignoring minority voters to pander to the worker.

Minorities are workers.

Believe it or not, pandering to a individual minority group is exclusive.

Correct. And talking to minority workers isn't pandering. It's just talking to workers who also happen to be minorities. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with?

 

[VivaRevolution]

Correct. And talking to minority workers isn't pandering. It's just talking to workers who also happen to be minorities. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with?

See, when i read your post, what I read is that because politics has been exclusive to minorities in the past, that the only way to address this is to now be exclusive to the majority. This is one of my many problems with the left these days. Vengeance is not justice. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

 

[panamaican]

See, when i read your post, what I read is that because politics has been exclusive to minorities in the past, that the only way to address this is to now be exclusive to the majority. This is one of my many problems with the left these days. Vengeance is not justice. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

But that's not what the left is doing. The left is being inclusive to all and some voters get upset because they're not continuing to be exclusive so they vote against the inclusivity. Which is why those voters continue to screw themselves over.

 

[VivaRevolution]

But that's not what the left is doing. The left is being inclusive to all and some voters get upset because they're not continuing to be exclusive so they vote against the inclusivity. Which is why those voters continue to screw themselves over.

You honestly think the social progressive wing of the left is inclusive to all?

I think they are the definition of low info, and reactionary. Which is why I am entertained when I get called reactionary, by the very people who defend the social progressives.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

But SW policies aren't pandered to non-whites. This is where the disconnect is occurring.

Example: The poor white voter sees 2 pictures related to a policy. If the picture is exclusively white people then okay. But if the picture is a white person and a black person and Hispanic person then the poor white voter is conditioned to believe that the policy is being pandered to minorities.

But that's crazy because the picture with just white people isn't representative of the real world and the picture with the black and the Hispanic is representative of the real world. But the poor white voter has been convinced that any time anyone other than white people are mentioned in the policy discussion, it's pandering to non-whites.

Those people are living in a world that no longer exists when minorities were never part of the conversation. And in their skewed world where they expect policy discussions to exist solely in the context of white people, policy that isn't exclusively about white people is exclusively about non-white people.

Until that changes, they will never vote in their best interest because they don't understand that the white voting bloc isn't the same as it was 50 years ago. We don't write policy with intended disparate impact anymore and they seem to struggle with that realization.

Pan this is a very good post.
At the end of the day though doesn’t this all sort of boil down to racist and bigoted beliefs. That festering belief tucked so deep in their brains that it impacts decision making (as you eloquently stated above) throughout their life.

 

[Krallang]

Ha this thread is hilarious.

Two of sherdogs 1% elite trolling everybody.

1 from each side of the aisle.

One a silver spooned lawyer who grew up in one the richest counties in the country.

and the other, well that man needs no introduction.

Sorry Pan and jack I'll be gentle when me and 98 of my closest friends come to get whats ours.

....

Oh hey its a thread about how the majority of both parties actually have more in common then those at the top and fringes, what are the chances i can post before someone derails the thread into a race issue.

Yea not long at all.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The problem wasn't Clinton making a comment on hot sauce. That would be silly unless it was part of her stump speech or platform.

The problem was what the Clinton media tried to do with that comment.

It was the way her media mouth pieces so ham handedly tried to use that comment. That is why it got viciously mocked, and rightly so.

This is completely false. The interview wasn't brought up and slipped through the radar until right-wingers found it and started with the false claim that she only said she carried hot sauce around because she was talking to a black audience.

 

[Rod1]

Would be hard with the electoral college in place, that system has protected the two party system for 150 years.

 

[VivaRevolution]

This is completely false. The interview wasn't brought up and slipped through the radar until right-wingers found it and started with the false claim that she only said she carried hot sauce around because she was talking to a black audience.

Right wingers like Time magazine.

In a radio interview Monday morning, Hillary Clinton was asked to name something she carries with her everywhere she goes. “Hot sauce,” she answered. “Yeah"

The Clinton campaign has confirmed to TIME the type and brand of hot sauce now toted by the Democratic front runner for the presidential nomination: Ninja Squirrel, a Sriracha from the in-house brand of Texas-based Whole Foods Market. “And we continue to carry chili flakes and jalapeños around,” says Clinton campaign spokesperson Nick Merrill.

There is nothing new about Clinton’s devotion to chilies, though the comment lit up Twitter as an apparent reference to Beyoncé’s hit single “Formation” and its catchy condiment line, “I got hot sauce in my bag, swag.” Clinton was speaking to one of New York’s largest hip-hop and R&B stations, 105.1 FM’s the Breakfast Club, a morning radio show hosted by DJ Envy, Angela Yee and Charlamagne Tha God. (You can hear the interview here — the hot-sauce comment comes at about 25:00.

http://time.com/4297996/hillary-clinton-hot-sauce/

 

[Jack V Savage]

Right wingers like Time magazine.

In a radio interview Monday morning, Hillary Clinton was asked to name something she carries with her everywhere she goes. “Hot sauce,” she answered. “Yeah"

The Clinton campaign has confirmed to TIME the type and brand of hot sauce now toted by the Democratic front runner for the presidential nomination: Ninja Squirrel, a Sriracha from the in-house brand of Texas-based Whole Foods Market. “And we continue to carry chili flakes and jalapeños around,” says Clinton campaign spokesperson Nick Merrill.

There is nothing new about Clinton’s devotion to chilies, though the comment lit up Twitter as an apparent reference to Beyoncé’s hit single “Formation” and its catchy condiment line, “I got hot sauce in my bag, swag.” Clinton was speaking to one of New York’s largest hip-hop and R&B stations, 105.1 FM’s the Breakfast Club, a morning radio show hosted by DJ Envy, Angela Yee and Charlamagne Tha God. (You can hear the interview here — the hot-sauce comment comes at about 25:00.

http://time.com/4297996/hillary-clinton-hot-sauce/

Did you even read that? They're talking about the "controversy" that erupted over the comments, which is what I was referring to. The claim I was responding to that you made was false, while my comment was correct.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Did you even read that? They're talking about the "controversy" that erupted over the comments, which is what I was referring to. The claim I was responding to that you made was false, while my comment was correct.

I like how a radio interview and Twitter erupting makes you right.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I like how a radio interview and Twitter erupting makes you right.

Your assertion was that something called the "Clinton media" (???) tried to "ham handedly" use the comment for some nefarious purpose. I pointed out that, no, for Clinton, it was just a local interview, but that right-wingers found it and blew it up as if it were some pandering statement. At that point, of course, people looked into it and found that, no, it's something she's been saying for decades. The example you provided illustrated my point, which I think you'd acknowledge if you were being honest.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Your assertion was that something called the "Clinton media" (???) tried to "ham handedly" use the comment for some nefarious purpose. I pointed out that, no, for Clinton, it was just a local interview, but that right-wingers found it and blew it up as if it were some pandering statement. At that point, of course, people looked into it and found that, no, it's something she's been saying for decades.

Yeah, I'm sure Clinton listens to alot of beyonce, and it was her idea to make that reference.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah, I'm sure Clinton listens to alot of beyonce, and it was her idea to make that reference.

You're "sure" of that even though she's been giving the same answer to the same question to different audiences for 20-plus years. Maybe she mind-controlled Beyonce to make that song? How crazy do you want to get?

BTW, here's me from the original thread on it:

So watch what happens here. The initial claim is refuted in an absolutely definitive way. No honest person can still accuse her of pandering there (and if you watch the video, her and the host are obviously joking with each other). And yet, three months from now, people are going to forget the facts and remember the claim or the impression formed by the false claim. That's how good people get their reps smeared even when the attacks are based on disproven lies.

 

[Fawlty]

You're "sure" of that even though she's been giving the same answer to the same question to different audiences for 20-plus years. Maybe she mind-controlled Beyonce to make that song? How crazy do you want to get?

I don't think any of this matters- truth and facts and stuff. This is revealing itself as a class-race thing, though I didn't want to believe it at the time.

Even though it's true that she is all about hot sauce and literally carries it in her bag, it's a racial and class sin to reveal that in an interview to black people. In fact, it's a racial sin to make any sort of gesture that could be interpreted as making inroads based on commonality. There is a vile, pungent, bubbling racism on class lines among people who are ostensibly free of bias, but who prefer pandering to white middle class over pandering to the black lower class. Bernie knows, Bernie cashed it in like a champ. Just my take, hope I'm wrong.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't think any of this matters- truth and facts and stuff. This is revealing itself as a class-race thing, though I didn't want to believe it at the time.

Even though it's true that she is all about hot sauce and literally carries it in her bag, it's a racial and class sin to reveal that in an interview to black people. In fact, it's a racial sin to make any sort of gesture that could be interpreted as making inroads based on commonality. There is a vile, pungent, bubbling racism on class lines among people who are ostensibly free of bias, but who prefer pandering to white middle class over pandering to the black lower class. Bernie knows, Bernie cashed it in like a champ. Just my take, hope I'm wrong.

Yeah, that's what @panamaican was saying. To even try to relate to non-whites is a disgusting breach of expectations. While to pander to whites is just expected, normal political behavior. Though in this case, it was just a straightforward, honest answer to a question.

BTW, hilarious exchange with Cmart in that thread. The host jokingly accused her of pandering when she gave the answer, and she hit back with another joke, "is it working?" And he took that exchange as being completely serious (serious accusation and serious confession).

What does her phrase "is it working" refer to in your version of this?

Pandering. It was a joke, though. You can tell by the fact that it was a silly thing to say (funny, IMO, but YMMV), her body language when she said it, the fact that everyone there laughed, and the fact that her next words were, "no, seriously." Most human beings would be able to pick it up from one of those cues.

 

[VivaRevolution]

You're "sure" of that even though she's been giving the same answer to the same question to different audiences for 20-plus years. Maybe she mind-controlled Beyonce to make that song? How crazy do you want to get?

BTW, here's me from the original thread on it:

Jack, take that shit up with Time magazine. They are the one's who inferred the reference to the Beyonce song.

Like usual, you want to blame people for media being shit.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Jack, take that shit up with Time magazine. They are the one's who inferred the reference to the Beyonce song.

Like usual, you want to blame people for media being shit.

Huh? First, it would be nice if you admitted that your original claim was false and that my correction was correct. That would be the decent thing to do. Second, the Time story was about the stupid controversy about the comments, which was likely driven by people stupidly thinking it was an allusion to the song.

And what would make you think that I'm blaming anyone for "media being shit." What are you even talking about?

 

[VivaRevolution]

Huh? First, it would be nice if you admitted that your original claim was false and that my correction was correct. That would be the decent thing to do. Second, the Time story was about the stupid controversy about the comments, which was likely driven by people stupidly thinking it was an allusion to the song.

And what would make you think that I'm blaming anyone for "media being shit." What are you even talking about?

Which time magazine didn't correct, nor I'm sure many other publications.

Show me a source saying she has given that answer for 20 years and I will admit I was wrong.