...the highlighted second paragraph is the rationale for Sanders to oppose reparations. If so, it totally dismisses the horror of enslaved people and the centuries of oppression and loss of capital the system has done to enslaved Black people and all their descendants.

cites how African Americans won't benefit from the racial justice aspect from the proposed policy of giving some form of monetary value.

Furthermore the author contends that it will divide the nation even more so long racial lines and that minorities would be hurt from increased division.

Whereas Bernie's holistic approach for every American regardless of race would still disproportionately benefit blacks without causing all the division because other races would benefit as well, be they poor whites, Latinos, Native Americans, etc etc. and it would stand a much greater chance of passing into law.

Of course Bernie isn't just focused on economic justice, he's calling for racial, social and environmental justice as well.

....has happened in those three years. Who knows if the opinions of the author have changed in those three years?

of his article are the same today as they were then.

to woo some of the black vote, would this still be your "right on" rationale for opposing them?

Btw, I notice your tag line. Elizabeth Warren never did and could not support Sanders for president. She works the way Frances Perkins did so magnificently back in the 1930s -- from within the establishment, harnessing its power with her and her colleagues' commitment to advancement.

She used her establishment insider position to create the New Deal, including the Social Security retirement fund, unemployment insurance, labor laws, minimum wage, and much else.

Just imagine if Ms. Perkins had instead joined those who considered themselves The Only True Progressives in that era and wasted her potential battling the "evil" establishment.

I'm hoping Warren (and perhaps even with Hillary Clinton's involvement, who knows) will be able to create similarly great advances in this era by focusing on making them happen. SMART power.

shared by establishment Democrats and radical dissidents alike for ideology.

Last edited Mon Mar 11, 2019, 12:15 AM - Edit history (1)

He still believes Economic Justice is #1 over Social Justice.

Bernie is about bringing all the American People together regardless of race, gender, religion or not, sexual orientation and his is a holistic approach not just treating the symptoms but treating the whole body so that it may heal itself.

Alone? No.

As I posted several times that is not social justice and will not solve anything. You must not have read my posts if you are asking again.

"He still believes Economic Justice is #1 over Economic Justice."

I assume you meant economic justice over social or racial justice?

My contention is that Bernie is every bit as concerned about racial justice as economic justice.

I also believe that Bernie believes that our nation's dysfunctional economic system; dominated by monopolies and oligarchs works to fuel racial injustice by dividing the American People along every conceivable social/racial fault line.

These economic powers; want the American People divided, all the easier to control them.

I really am shocked at those who don’t get it. Or maybe they do.

.....have in 2019?

with Trump having radicalized and divided the nation more so than any President in modern history, I believe the case is stronger than when this piece was written.

I can't even begin to count the number of times that opinion pieces much older than this one have been posted here at D.U.

Is that all you have?

...which apparently you're reluctant to explain.

To quote you, "Is that all you have?"

and bolded paragraphs from the article that I deem to still be relevant and given my own opinion on this thread as well.

You have yet to rebut any of the author's arguments or points except to say it was written three years ago.

You have to have a UBI that comes from the profits of a carbon tax that distributes dividends to all Americans. Then from there you could have a bump in the amounts going to households to those who have been systematically oppressed in this country either from slavery or attempted genocide in the Native American community.

I would think that a 10% increase to those in those situations would be appropriate and then have a sliding scale approach based on those who have some ancestry or have extremely high incomes from the year before. If you were defending this position to those who have not been through these tough circumstances and are still poor you could still say they are receiving something and the amounts are being reduced for the upper incomes as well. With all that said, I don't see this happening anytime soon and is more theoretical until you see a huge sea change in the US Senate.

even more difficult.

If anything he has been adept at dividing the nation more so than any President in my lifetime and I was born while Elvis was still in the Army.

It's hard to even imagine how this country could become a peaceful loving nation capable of creating and keeping such a law. I would like to think that a majority of people are becoming more politically aware of the realities of why staying engaged matters. I really think that if we don't then I would be scared of what a further right-wing reactionary to 45 could be. Would such a figure be literally marching at the front of a tiki torch parade?

I agree with portions of this. It’s just worded to not sound as horrific as it actually is.

Who was the power behind the institution of Jim Crow?

Who was the power behind only rich white men having the right to vote at the beginning of our nation?

Bernie's policies in today's political climate have the greatest chance of actually not only passing into law and thus disproportionately (rightfully so) actually paying back the victims of systemic oppression but also as defeating Trump being the national emergency level, preeminent political goal; running in the G.E. on a reparations policy proposal would give too much advantage to the orange shit-gibbon.

You couldn’t have made my point any better. Reminds me of what some Sanders supporters chanted after Marissa Johnson took the stage. Not all of those economically disadvantaged are on the same footing. This form of policy is inherently racist as it ignores the disparity.

It almost appears as if the Green Mountain state is a place where insulated self-interest trumps all else. Gun rights, low taxes, lobbying for the expansion of the military industrial complex in order to bring in revenue, and policies of shipping "problems" like the incarcerated and toxic waste out of state seem to take priority over gun, criminal justice, prison, and environmental reform, a workable single payer plan, a living minimum wage, and a paid family leave program.

The incumbent Republican governor, who had vetoed both the creation of a paid family leave program and an increase in the minimum wage and who had also contracted with a for-profit prison to house Vermont's incarcerated in a Mississippi hell hole, won re-election in November.

It should have been "all hands on deck" in getting Democrat Christine Hallquist elected in November once she won the primary in August. An endorsement in September and a set of multi-candidate appearances at GOTV events the first weekend in November weren't enough.

Hallquist had been especially outspoken on Vermont's housing of out of state prisoners in a for-profit prison in Mississippi.

I was aware that Vermont has a disgracefully disproportional rate of incarcerated people of color, but I wasn't fully aware of the extent of the need for criminal justice and prison reform in the Green Mountain State. Like all Americans, the people of Vermont deserve better.

https://www.vpr.org/post/why-are-there-so-many-african-americans-incarcerated-vermont#stream/0

https://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2018/09/19/vermont-inmates-moving-to-corecivic-prison-in-mississippi

one would have thought that the Outreach Chair would have done some outreach in his home state in addition to his outreach in Iowa, California, and South Carolina.

on solving these problems. And he would have been able to point to a concrete accomplishment in the promotion of racial justice. Talk is cheap. Action is everything.

Or just Sanders?

It's the state senator's fault.

OK thanks for the info!

should certainly expect to be asked why he or she couldn't stay home and help out their own constituents and fellow candidates in their own state.

Any politician responsible for implementing programs that export toxic waste to far-away marginalized communities or who lobby to further bloat the coffers of the military industrial complex for bragging rights on a wasteful program that constituents are against should expect to be called upon to explain himself or herself to the press and to the people.

State laws are enacted by state government. Governor, state senators/legislators. Sanders has no ability to introduce or vote on any state bill.

Separately, states elect people to represent them in the federal government. That's Sanders' and Leahy's role for Vermont. That's a full time job by itself. You can't also make these people responsible for state policies they have no control over.

....talking about the shortcomings of the various places he visited?

Many Senators work in their own states to advocate for local and state legislation, and they spend their out of session time IN THEIR OWN STATE holding town halls, visiting organizations, and getting a feel for what THEIR constituents care about.

Then they work with their party and state politicians to get things accomplished. THAT is how Senators can get things done within their own states.

And while you think Sanders is not doing enough for the citizens of Vermont, the citizens of Vermont seem to think otherwise, as they overwhelmingly support him. He won re-election in 2018 with over 67% of the vote. The Republican got only about 27%, despite a Republican governor winning with 55%.

...not Leahy.

Since Sanders won by so much surely he has a lot of political clout within the state, wouldn't you say.

...in terms of what they "should" do for VT, and whether they were doing it.

As for which politicians have more clout in what locations on what issues based on what criteria... I'd have nothing to offer there except speculation.

He cannot overrule the governor/state legislature.

But the absurdity of suggesting so is duly noted.

Vermont is one of the places where he might actually have had influence.

He had no problem traveling to other states to get involved in their politics all last summer and fall. He could have done more in Vermont to elect Christine Hallquist.

There are only 24 hours in a day, you can't tilt at every windmill.

... that way, just about all of the out of state candidates he campaigned for lost, too.

I'm just saying that odds of success is presumably one factor, when time is not unlimited. I'm sure there are other factors as well.

One other variable... in the 2018 VT election, Sanders himself was on the ballot as well. He might not have wanted to risk dragging down his own electoral success by hitching his star too tightly to someone on the same ballot who was almost certainly going to get whacked.

I'm curious, though... did Leahy campaign more strongly for Hallquist than Sanders did?

Did you really say that he "tilts at windmills"?

As you quoted, usage includes "wild-goose chase; to persistently engage in a futile activity...To waste time...trying to resolve issues that are...impossible to overcome" (despite the "imaginary" aspect of the original source).

As for lots of undecideds, just looking at polling numbers on wikipedia, it seems she was never much of a threat... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Vermont_gubernatorial_election#Democratic_primary


.

spent his time doing as "tilting at windmills", who am I to argue?

42% of Vermont voters (115,000+ voters) were undecided in October. If some think it wasn't worth the Outreach Chair's efforts to try to win those votes, that's on them.

Not having bothered to make the effort is another matter altogether.

I was saying that he was trying to avoid tilting at windmills. (Though perhaps at other times, he does "tilt", in service to some other goal.)

Anyway, polls vary... the ones on wikipedia do not support your figures, but I will take your word that there are others that do.

Does the Outreach Committee's mission include campaigning for the 50 governorships? I don't think so...

Did Leahy do a lot more for Hallquist than Sanders did?

BS could have and should have found time in his home state. Vermont has a shameful record concerning racial disparities in criminal justice. This should have been a moral priority.

https://justiceforallvt.org/2017/02/06/788/

Well, given reality doesn't work that way and never has, he must be some sort of a superman or something!

Every time I see "BS", well, I don't read Bernie Sanders.....

VT has serious problems which its senator does not appear to be aware of or interested in finding solutions for.

He has the power to influence policies and to vote for or write legislation at the national level which would support local initiatives. Our Senators met with people st home to check on what legislation would help us. Now they don't always act in accordance with my preferences, but I'll be damned if I'd be letting them off with the excuse that they are permitted to be disconnected from state and local concerns except when looking for donors. Heck, I work to get these two unseated.

For example, as mentioned, VT has a problem in using private prisons. He speaks out about that on a national level, and if he and his colleagues are successful on that issue federally, it will help with the problem in Vermont. But he has no ability to specifically address the issue of Vermont's own laws. That's up to local government, and the Vermont citizens who elect that government.

....in a state with African American population of only 1.2% of the state's population. There are only about 7,000 African Americans in Vermont, that's not even as many in one small neighborhood in Brooklyn.

And now Vermont is shipping their African American inmates to Mississippi?

Just an academic talking about a complex problem. But he did make a sound point, wipe out discrimination in society and reparation won't be needed. Even with structural racism, Blacks have historically closed the gap on Whites in terms of education and net worth, though those gaps are still large due to historical systemic racism.

All it takes in a company are some firings with explicit reasons why the people were fired. Won't take low to get people to leave their racist stuff home. I deplore racism as a devout capitalist, I think that racism and toleration of it costs the economy billions per year, maybe even hundreds of billions.

btw ... is he right about not releasing his tax returns? Where are they?

Politicians stop running their campaign when their opponent wins.

Despite demands that they campaign in perpetuity by their detractors.

Hmm?

Very odd.

So now he's had three years to prepare for this, and he's stalling again.

Curious.

...I was able to locate 15 of my last 18 tax returns in about three or four minutes.

My parents have both passed and I still have years of theirs in a box.

serious question. When is he going to release the rest of his tax returns?

Let me guess...."soon"?

I posted the part that I agreed with. Which is exactly how I quantified and qualified my selection.

1. I do also understand why Conor Friedersdorf's colleague is dissatisfied with the candidates statements. I'm also dissatisfied. With this statement, and a good many others.

2. I disagree with Conor Friedersdorf's assessment that it's something all the other candidates engage in. I tend to avoid repeating gross, unproven generalizations. Even if it WAS true, I refuse to support "what-about-ism's". Conor may be okay with his future potential president answering questions "vaguely, evasively, and perhaps even disingenuously". I'm not.

3. I strongly disagree with his disagreement with regards to the second portion you chose to embolden.