Official 2020 Democratic Primary Debate Thread

storyteller

Veteran
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
16,835
Reputation
5,302
Daps
64,248
Reppin
NYC
Was coretta Scott king a white supremacist?

Barbara Jordan?

Bernie Sanders?

How about Barack Obama?

All supported a path to citizenship for certain illegal immigrants. :umad:

All opposed the white supremacy and bad foreign policy that created crisis such as Cubans rafting over on Styrofoam boats. :umad:

you're Tariq/bb arguments have been debunked a million times.

No matter how hard you try and astroturf for your employer you will continue to receive :umad:s

Rep to @Pressure ...Don't try to use them as a shield for your trash views breh, you're hurting the party's chances by continuing to undermine it with arguments that probably sparked from John Tanton's funding. You care about the party, stop talking strategy and actually educate yourself so you can help others understand wtf candidates (including the ones YOU back) are talking about on the issue.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,811
Daps
203,983
Reppin
the ether
Hillary running a shyt campaign was only a talking point after she took the L. Prior to that it was supposedly a landslide victory for her.
No, everyone was talking about how Clinton was playing slow and hoping that Trump would sink himself. She got heavily criticized at the time for how she handled the pneumonia thing, she got heavily criticized for her deplorables comment, no one was hyping her speeches, her debate performances were mediocre at best, and failing to campaign in Wisconsin completely while she campaigned in freaking Arizona was obviously a horrible decision.

And only people who didn't know what they were saying were predicting a landslide. There were plenty of worries as the campaign came down to the wire.

Will Hillary Clinton lose the election because of the FBI email investigation?




I don't believe in that. I think there are more sexist in this country.

People who hate muslims, blacks, or immigrants aren't voting for a black man over a white man in a landslide. Twice. That's crazy mental gymnastics you're doing.
Where you from? In the USA that I know, there was this presidential candidate in very recent history who won the election on a primary strategy of attacking Muslims, Black folk, and immigrants.

More women vote than men, 30 different states have elected a female governor, there are 127 women in Congress right now, the Speaker of the House is a woman, 1/3 of the Supreme Court is women, the Republicans put up a women for VP in 2008 and the Democrats put one up for president in 2016 where she WON the popular vote despite being an enormously faulty candidate.

I mean come on now.
 

Copy Ninja

Superstar
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Messages
9,391
Reputation
721
Daps
33,509
No, everyone was talking about how Clinton was playing slow and hoping that Trump would sink himself. She got heavily criticized at the time for how she handled the pneumonia thing, she got heavily criticized for her deplorables comment, no one was hyping her speeches, her debate performances were mediocre at best, and failing to campaign in Wisconsin completely while she campaigned in freaking Arizona was obviously a horrible decision.

And only people who didn't know what they were saying were predicting a landslide. There were plenty of worries as the campaign came down to the wire.

Will Hillary Clinton lose the election because of the FBI email investigation?





Where you from? In the USA that I know, there was this presidential candidate in very recent history who won the election on a primary strategy of attacking Muslims, Black folk, and immigrants.

More women vote than men, 30 different states have elected a female governor, there are 127 women in Congress right now, the Speaker of the House is a woman, 1/3 of the Supreme Court is women, the Republicans put up a women for VP in 2008 and the Democrats put one up for president in 2016 where she WON the popular vote despite being an enormously faulty candidate.

I mean come on now.

Commander in Chief is a different office. Clearly there are a lot of people who have no issues with a woman president. And I've stated that it will happen sooner or later but not in these elections and these candidates imo.

Also note Trump won using hateful rhetoric, but a black man with a Mulsim name got more votes in his elections. And if he ran against Trump, he would have killed him.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
315,221
Reputation
-34,223
Daps
624,646
Reppin
The Deep State
Rep to @Pressure ...Don't try to use them as a shield for your trash views breh, you're hurting the party's chances by continuing to undermine it with arguments that probably sparked from John Tanton's funding. You care about the party, stop talking strategy and actually educate yourself so you can help others understand wtf candidates (including the ones YOU back) are talking about on the issue.
Lil homie don't play yourself

I've been talking about illegal immigration on this forum and its effects on black labor for 5+ years

You just got your learners permit

Don't front for these people on here.

You don't know the data

You dont have the facts

You dont have the research

You dont even know what NBER is.

You are completely and truly NOT equipped to discuss the RAMPANT assault on BLACK LABOR done by ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS in the last 40 years.

Don't argue with me, argue with CORETTA SCOTT KING you clown:



The Forgotten Letter of Coretta Scott King | HuffPost

huffingtonpost.com
The Forgotten Letter of Coretta Scott King
5-6 minutes
In any age of rapidly changing political and partisan perspectives, it is perhaps well to remember how the immigration debate was originally framed back in 1986 when the Reagan/Bush Amnesty plan, put forth to placate the demands of Corporate America for cheap labor, was first enacted. Ignored at the time were the protests which began as early as 1969, when Cesar Chavez and members of the United Farm Workers marched with the Reverend Ralph Abernathy and U.S. Senator Walter Mondale to the border with Mexico to demand the cessation of employers’ practice of importing illegal labor as a means of cutting wages and reducing thousands of their workers to the most grinding poverty.

The government’s response to such protests and demands for economic justice? In the 1980s at a time when African American teenage unemployment approached a disgraceful 80 percent, Big Business cynically petitioned the INS for more visas for cheap foreign labor on grounds that there was an “unskilled labor shortage”. They largely got what they demanded. While Democrats courageously resisted such blatant attempts to lower the wages of legal Hispanic and African Americans, Reagan Amnesty apologists claimed that Americans wouldn’t stoop to perform the “dirty work” that only illegal workers would perform, ignoring the obvious fact that unemployed legal workers gladly and gratefully collect garbage and work in the coal mines if decent wages were paid.

In fact the pleas for economic justice in America were made many years before by the great African American educator, Booker T. Washington, who made his famous “cast down your bucket where you are” speech at the Atlanta International Exposition in 1895. Having recognized the racist and notorious practice of Big Business of importing and hiring cheap immigrant labor in order to avoid hiring African Americans, Washington pleaded: (T)o those (of you) who look to the incoming of those of foreign birth, cast down your bucket where you are. (If you but do so) we shall stand by you with a devotion that no foreigner can approach, ready to interlace our industrial, commercial, civil and religious life with yours.”

It should be no surprise, therefore, that these demands for economic justice were taken up by the wife of Martin Luther King, who in 1991 joined with eight CEO’s of America’s leading African American organizations to oppose Republican Senator Orin Hatch’s bill to do away with sanctions against employers who persisted in hiring illegal aliens as a means of discriminating and reducing the wages of against African Americans.

“We are concerned, Senator Hatch” Coretta Scott King wrote in her now largely forgotten letter, “That your proposed remedy…will cause another problem—the revival of …discrimination against black and brown U.S. documented workers, in favor of cheap labor.”

Given the success of Big Business in lobbying the U.S. government to ignore these pleas for economic justice — on grounds of “humanitarianism” no less — it is perhaps the ultimate irony that this success has translated also in flipping the partisan narrative to the point where even legal immigrants have been tricked into adopting the Reagan/Bush agenda against their own economic interest under the ideological banner of the party that for decades opposed it.

But there may now be signs of enlightenment by those who have been most oppressed by the Reagan/Bush agenda. In 2014, by a strong majority of 53 percent, male Latinos voted for the Texas Republican Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, who had promised to stop the notorious practice of luring illegal immigrants—even little children— to their deaths in the desert with such promises as amnesty, and in-state-tuition.

And so, gradually the tide may be turning in Booker T. Washington’s and Coretta Scott King’s demand for economic justice. Even in Germany today, where Merkel basked in the “humanitarian” glow of luring hundreds of thousands un-vetted illegal immigrants with promises of cash rewards (but no jobs, of course), the spectacle of teeming throngs of desperate young males being herded into the most degrading “refugee” camps, or worse showered with useless “vouchers,” may be finally revealing to the world the immorality of luring people from their homes, families, and culture for little more than the political aggrandizement of the politicians who created it. The tragedy, of course, is that the billions spent on such self-defeating endeavors could have been instead been spent on providing safety and economic help in zones created for their protection in the home countries.

In America, no true reform can ever come until the most demagogic politicians cease their deliberate obfuscation of the difference between legal and illegal immigration, and begin streamlining the procedures for legal immigration, which is now so difficult that relatively few can navigate or afford it. When this is done, any wall built will always have doors.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
9,457
Reputation
-569
Daps
15,342
Reppin
WestMidWest
Hurt long term strategy by attacking a past President on a subject you shouldn't be advocating for because it doesn't benefit any citizens and about a policy you shouldn't be trying to repel but improve upon, so to get a seat at the next debate brehs:lolbron:
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,811
Daps
203,983
Reppin
the ether
Just heard Yang say MATH stands for

Make America Think Harder

:wow:

Warren Castro is still my ticket but Sanders Yang would be just as dope
No chance Sanders would pick Yang, it doesn't help him anywhere he needs help. At best he would give Yang a cabinet-level position.

Warren seems like the most obvious choice, but I can see him picking Castro now that he's acquitted himself pretty well in the debates.
 

storyteller

Veteran
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
16,835
Reputation
5,302
Daps
64,248
Reppin
NYC
Lil homie don't play yourself

I've been talking about illegal immigration on this forum and its effects on black labor for 5+ years

You just got your learners permit

Don't front for these people on here.

You don't know the data

You dont have the facts

You dont have the research

You dont even know what NBER is.

You are completely and truly NOT equipped to discuss the RAMPANT assault on BLACK LABOR done by ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS in the last 40 years.

Don't argue with me, argue with CORETTA SCOTT KING you clown:



The Forgotten Letter of Coretta Scott King | HuffPost

huffingtonpost.com
The Forgotten Letter of Coretta Scott King
5-6 minutes
In any age of rapidly changing political and partisan perspectives, it is perhaps well to remember how the immigration debate was originally framed back in 1986 when the Reagan/Bush Amnesty plan, put forth to placate the demands of Corporate America for cheap labor, was first enacted. Ignored at the time were the protests which began as early as 1969, when Cesar Chavez and members of the United Farm Workers marched with the Reverend Ralph Abernathy and U.S. Senator Walter Mondale to the border with Mexico to demand the cessation of employers’ practice of importing illegal labor as a means of cutting wages and reducing thousands of their workers to the most grinding poverty.

The government’s response to such protests and demands for economic justice? In the 1980s at a time when African American teenage unemployment approached a disgraceful 80 percent, Big Business cynically petitioned the INS for more visas for cheap foreign labor on grounds that there was an “unskilled labor shortage”. They largely got what they demanded. While Democrats courageously resisted such blatant attempts to lower the wages of legal Hispanic and African Americans, Reagan Amnesty apologists claimed that Americans wouldn’t stoop to perform the “dirty work” that only illegal workers would perform, ignoring the obvious fact that unemployed legal workers gladly and gratefully collect garbage and work in the coal mines if decent wages were paid.

In fact the pleas for economic justice in America were made many years before by the great African American educator, Booker T. Washington, who made his famous “cast down your bucket where you are” speech at the Atlanta International Exposition in 1895. Having recognized the racist and notorious practice of Big Business of importing and hiring cheap immigrant labor in order to avoid hiring African Americans, Washington pleaded: (T)o those (of you) who look to the incoming of those of foreign birth, cast down your bucket where you are. (If you but do so) we shall stand by you with a devotion that no foreigner can approach, ready to interlace our industrial, commercial, civil and religious life with yours.”

It should be no surprise, therefore, that these demands for economic justice were taken up by the wife of Martin Luther King, who in 1991 joined with eight CEO’s of America’s leading African American organizations to oppose Republican Senator Orin Hatch’s bill to do away with sanctions against employers who persisted in hiring illegal aliens as a means of discriminating and reducing the wages of against African Americans.

“We are concerned, Senator Hatch” Coretta Scott King wrote in her now largely forgotten letter, “That your proposed remedy…will cause another problem—the revival of …discrimination against black and brown U.S. documented workers, in favor of cheap labor.”

Given the success of Big Business in lobbying the U.S. government to ignore these pleas for economic justice — on grounds of “humanitarianism” no less — it is perhaps the ultimate irony that this success has translated also in flipping the partisan narrative to the point where even legal immigrants have been tricked into adopting the Reagan/Bush agenda against their own economic interest under the ideological banner of the party that for decades opposed it.

But there may now be signs of enlightenment by those who have been most oppressed by the Reagan/Bush agenda. In 2014, by a strong majority of 53 percent, male Latinos voted for the Texas Republican Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, who had promised to stop the notorious practice of luring illegal immigrants—even little children— to their deaths in the desert with such promises as amnesty, and in-state-tuition.

And so, gradually the tide may be turning in Booker T. Washington’s and Coretta Scott King’s demand for economic justice. Even in Germany today, where Merkel basked in the “humanitarian” glow of luring hundreds of thousands un-vetted illegal immigrants with promises of cash rewards (but no jobs, of course), the spectacle of teeming throngs of desperate young males being herded into the most degrading “refugee” camps, or worse showered with useless “vouchers,” may be finally revealing to the world the immorality of luring people from their homes, families, and culture for little more than the political aggrandizement of the politicians who created it. The tragedy, of course, is that the billions spent on such self-defeating endeavors could have been instead been spent on providing safety and economic help in zones created for their protection in the home countries.

In America, no true reform can ever come until the most demagogic politicians cease their deliberate obfuscation of the difference between legal and illegal immigration, and begin streamlining the procedures for legal immigration, which is now so difficult that relatively few can navigate or afford it. When this is done, any wall built will always have doors.


This is why you're such a useful idiot. No one denies that illegal immigrants have been used to aid in the exploitation of PoC and their wages. The argument is that you don't address that by siding with White Supremacists who are exploiting both the immigrants and PoC. You address the ones exploiting both parties. This has been explained to you by people you tag in all of your trash posts repeatedly and you ignore it. Hence why I will continue to point out that you're an incredibly useful idiot.
 

storyteller

Veteran
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
16,835
Reputation
5,302
Daps
64,248
Reppin
NYC
No chance Sanders would pick Yang, it doesn't help him anywhere he needs help. At best he would give Yang a cabinet-level position.

Warren seems like the most obvious choice, but I can see him picking Castro now that he's acquitted himself pretty well in the debates.

Curious for your take on this. Does the fact that there seems to be a fair amount of difference between Warren and Sanders supporters when we look at demos in the polls make them more likely to pair up as Pres/VP or do you think they'd need a more moderate partner to address holes in their support? I feel like I could make a case for the former but that it may just be wishful thinking.
 

StatUS

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
29,027
Reputation
1,894
Daps
63,926
Reppin
Everywhere
Curious for your take on this. Does the fact that there seems to be a fair amount of difference between Warren and Sanders supporters when we look at demos in the polls make them more likely to pair up as Pres/VP or do you think they'd need a more moderate partner to address holes in their support? I feel like I could make a case for the former but that it may just be wishful thinking.
Bernie's gonna pick a progressive woman of color. He's almost said as much. Warren probably gonna go with a male of color. Castro or Booker seems like a safe pick there.
 

Bobhoward

Baseball Ready
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
681
Reputation
75
Daps
1,488
people forget that Hillary basically WAS the best candidate because...she fukking was.

She dominated the party by doing what every politician should do and thats by gaining and leveraging power and influence.

The problem now is the lack of democrat leaders. Its NOT a good thing to have all these cats running around the kitchen.

Man.. I know you think you're smart and you act like you're better and smarter than everyone on here. But if you truly believe she was the best candidate then you need to ease up off that DCCC Kool Aid.

Have you ever been to the Midwest? People have serious disdain for her.. It's often illogical but they hate that woman.. Often passionately.

You can't be the "best candidate" if 40% of the electorate dislikes you by default and like half of those 40 hate you passionately. Maybe she was the most qualified and would have made the best president but you and your coworkers at whatever DNC consultant firm you work for have to stop with this "I know better than you" attitude. Go outside and talk to people.
 
Top