Current Affairs Joe Biden POTUS #46

Status
Not open for further replies.
His support for segregation was 40 years ago, he came out and apologized. Normally this would just be pandering but he went on to become the right hand man to the first black president. He never rocked the boat and did exactly what was asked of him.
In America, the symbolism of this was huge. It's why Biden has such huge favorability numbers among African Americans.
His devotion to Obama gave him South Carolina and then super Tuesday. No one would consider him a racist.

I'm really not sure an apology, or the fact it was 40 years ago should really just mean he gets the slate wiped clean. Look I'm not saying don't vote for the guy, but a simple apology for helping to enshrine the system of oppression that was segregation is really not acceptable.

It also gives a little indication into why he might be closer political to a racist politician like Trump, over a committed anti-racist politian like Sanders. Out of those two, which do you think would have wanted to end segregation and which would have supported it? Then factor in what position Biden took. Then work out privately, where he might sit.

As for the 2nd point, where is this apology for supporting segregation? Is there a link for it? I have seen him comment on it, and for the most part I'd describe his attitude as fairly condescending and unapologetic.
 
To build party unity. Maybe the other candidates wouldn't have been so quick to jump on the Biden band wagon before super Tuesday if they saw Sanders as a team player.

Well maybe he doesn't want to have unity with people who supported segregation?

I mean I am sympathetic to the view that if you want to run for an organisation, you should probably join it.
 
Unity doesn’t extend to people on the left though, as we saw. Signing up to a system that’s rigged against you, and will actively go after you if you don’t go along with it, is daft.
Look, I'll be the first to admit that the 2 party system is broken. I'm actively working to help change that.
But it's up to the progressives to change the system but also work within it as it exists.
Why are Ayanna Presley and AOC party members? Because they know how the system works.
Take a look at what Tip O'Niell managed.
 
I'm really sorry, but we all understand what this means, and this comes across as needless apologism for Biden.

Very few supporters of racism, or segregation deal with the core issue at hand. They find bits around the edges that are more palatable to chip away at. You see it with the anti-abortion lot here too. They know they can't win the debate on abortion, so they chip away at term limits, bit by bit. They have the same intention (to end abortion) but there's a dishonesty to their objective as it's cloaked.

Brown V Board of Education was a key moment in US history, and a key moment in the dismantling of segregationism. Schooling was of course a very important and significant element of that (as much as water fountains, or toilets etc). If you side with the segregationists on the matter, essentially by finding a convenient loophole and giving political cover to their arguments, you are every bit as responsible for it as they are. In many ways you are more respnsible, as there is a dishonesty to your conduct.

Lets not whitewash people's behaviour here. There is a BLM campaign, that is rightly pointing out how deep racism runs, and ultimately how structural it is. Pretending that certain white men who played important roles in upholding the system should be absconded from this, on the basis of them either not really liking it, or not really understanding it is an insult to the black people who suffered under that system.

As he said himself, he had to work with the racist segregationists to get things done. Thats fine. But he has to own his decision and the understandable flak that comes with it now that he helped to soften and legitimise with cover about busing being unfair. It's nonsense.
Ah, so I'm the segregationist now. I admit I didn't see that coming.

I can understand opposing a particular integrationist scheme in its practical application while maintaining a pro-integrationist general view. Not everything works over the long term, and not everything that works in the long term works at first. And I suppose we should be explicit: People can't read the future. I'd argue that most of the framers (heh) of the 1994 crime bill neither intended nor expected a major result to be a skyrocketing trend in race-based incarceration in the quarter-century since its passage. Let's not assume historical outcomes are the mirror of original intentions. That's not an apologia for Biden, it's a statement of reality.
 
Can you link to those polls?

It's NOT indisputable though is it. Saying "well Hillary lost so it's indisputable" is post hoc thinking.

Lots of the left warned at the time running Clinton would be a disaster. Their concerns were dismissed. That is on the democratic establishment, who have to at least own their mistake. Clinton was so confident she actively wanted Trump to run, as he was so bad there was no way anyone could lose to him. They completely messed it up.
 
Fair enough, I didn't drill down to regional polls. No national polls, in fairness it looks pretty close. Bidens peak lead appears to be 10, Sanders 9. At certain moment each of them had a slightly bigger lead over Trump, and I probably looked at a time when Sanders was ahead,

Either way, not allowing Sanders to run, was an ideological not a practical decision, which is sort of the core point here.
But he did get to run!

He had the largest fundraising haul of any of the Democratic candidates, great name recognition, an enthusiastic group of supporters and only one competitor in his “wing” in the race in Warren with the more centrist votes split between a bunch of others.

And Sanders still barely scraped a win in Iowa against a neophyte in Buttigieg, his expected younger supporters/independents didn’t turn out to vote as predicted and once the field had narrowed down to him and Biden it was a bit of a rout.

And this was a portion of the electorate that was generally favorable to his policies.
 
Look, I'll be the first to admit that the 2 party system is broken. I'm actively working to help change that.
But it's up to the progressives to change the system but also work within it as it exists.
Why are Ayanna Presley and AOC party members? Because they know how the system works.
Take a look at what Tip O'Niell managed.

the system that just tried to get rid of them, spending large sums to do so?
 
Lots of the left warned at the time running Clinton would be a disaster. Their concerns were dismissed. That is on the democratic establishment, who have to at least own their mistake. Clinton was so confident she actively wanted Trump to run, as he was so bad there was no way anyone could lose to him. They completely messed it up.
Literally everyone - anywhere on the left side of the spectrum - wanted Trump to win the GOP Primary. Understandably so too.

And let's not forget by the way, for all Clinton's weaknesses as a candidate (and she had plenty) if and ONE of a number of factors (some in her control eg Wisconsin, some not, eg Comey and god knows how many others) she would have beaten Trump, and we'd never be having this conversation.
 
I'm really not sure an apology, or the fact it was 40 years ago should really just mean he gets the slate wiped clean. Look I'm not saying don't vote for the guy, but a simple apology for helping to enshrine the system of oppression that was segregation is really not acceptable.

It also gives a little indication into why he might be closer political to a racist politician like Trump, over a committed anti-racist politian like Sanders. Out of those two, which do you think would have wanted to end segregation and which would have supported it? Then factor in what position Biden took. Then work out privately, where he might sit.

As for the 2nd point, where is this apology for supporting segregation? Is there a link for it? I have seen him comment on it, and for the most part I'd describe his attitude as fairly condescending and unapologetic.
do you think Sanders is a sexist because of letters he wrote 40 years ago?
 
Lots of the left warned at the time running Clinton would be a disaster. Their concerns were dismissed. That is on the democratic establishment, who have to at least own their mistake. Clinton was so confident she actively wanted Trump to run, as he was so bad there was no way anyone could lose to him. They completely messed it up.
But that doesn't mean Sanders would've won had he been the nominee. Perhaps, as a Britisher who makes regular reference to a Labour Party as a longtime mainstay of national politics, you're overestimating the size and organized power of the American left.
 
But he did get to run!

He had the largest fundraising haul of any of the Democratic candidates, great name recognition, an enthusiastic group of supporters and only one competitor in his “wing” in the race in Warren with the more centrist votes split between a bunch of others.

And Sanders still barely scraped a win in Iowa against a neophyte in Buttigieg, his expected younger supporters/independents didn’t turn out to vote as predicted and once the field had narrowed down to him and Biden it was a bit of a rout.

And this was a portion of the electorate that was generally favorable to his policies.
This, basically.
 
Like I said, the system is broken, but it's easier to fix from within.

Usually it is, but what happens when the people who used to control things find themselves out on their ear?

Do they work diligently to get back public trust or try and do a dirty protest until the party is so damaged that they get back in charge?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top