Is This Bernie Sanders Campaign Ad Problematic?

[Whispering 18,865]

2 hours ago, zebulonpyke said:

As opposed to Hillary, who helped contribute to mass incarceration, 

Bernie helped contribute to mass incarceration, if Hillary did...and he actually voted for the 1994 Crime Bill. 

 

[Ladle Ghoulash 53,176]

1 hour ago, Whispering said:

Bernie helped contribute to mass incarceration, if Hillary did...and he actually voted for the 1994 Crime Bill. 

 

While I agree that this was not one of Bernie's finer votes, Bernie voted after the addition of the Violence Against Women Act and vocally opposed many sections of the bill on the House floor, saying that much of the bill would lead to misery. Hillary, on the other hand, used racially coded language like 'super predators' and actually received money from the private prison industry. On top of that, Hillary also contributed to Bill's welfare reform that, because of the adverse effect it had on many impoverished areas, lost her her allegiance with the Children's Defense Fund. 

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

12 minutes ago, zebulonpyke said:

While I agree that this was not one of Bernie's finer votes, Bernie voted after the addition of the Violence Against Women Act and vocally opposed many sections of the bill on the House floor, saying that much of the bill would lead to misery. Hillary, on the other hand, used racially coded language like 'super predators' and actually received money from the private prison industry. On top of that, Hillary also contributed to Bill's welfare reform that, because of the adverse effect it had on many impoverished areas, lost her her allegiance with the Children's Defense Fund. 

You mean he fufilled a campaign promise with his welfare reform. You know what a campaign promise is? It's not talking out your ass promising free college knowing full well that it would be an impossible campaign promise to keep. Also after that act our unemployment rates reduced dramatically. 

[Ladle Ghoulash 53,176]

On April 19, 2016 at 3:22 AM, En_Sabah_Nur said:

Some of you have expressed bewilderment as to why someone like Bernie Sanders would put a biblical quote in this political ad for?!  Well as a black person, let me tell you why...  Everyone knows the African-American community is notoriously religious & he is obviously playing to this notion.  Hence the bible reference, even tho he himself is a non-religious person.  So like it has been mentioned before on here, it is very much so pandering...  

 

God forbid someone should find something biblical or religious inspiring even if they don't identify with that faith. This ad also features REVEREND Martin Luther King, Jr., so that might also provide some insight. Not to mention that Bernie was also just recently invited to speak at the Vatican, so it's possible that moral good, no matter who's words or what faith they're attributed to, transcends your actual religious affiliation.

I'd rather see Bernie 'pander' (although I don't think it's pandering) in this way than 'whipping' and 'nay-nay'-ing one day and being condescending as **** to black protesters the next. 

[Ladle Ghoulash 53,176]

11 minutes ago, just4fun said:

You mean he fufilled a campaign promise with his welfare reform. You know what a campaign promise is? It's not talking out your ass promising free college knowing full well that it would be an impossible campaign promise to keep. Also after that act our unemployment rates reduced dramatically. 

Yeah, I know what a campaign promise is and I know that was one of his. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it just because Clinton promised it. Not to mention that Clinton was part of the New Democrat movement, which sought to find middle ground between the now, essentially, racist Republicans (post-Civil Rights Movement) and the, then, floundering Democrats. The 'ending welfare as we know it' promise was a desperate and half-baked attempt to appeal to voters who had fever dreams about mythological 'welfare queens'. Not saying that I think that people should be dependent on welfare, but pulling the rug out from someone is not exactly comprehensive welfare reform. This piece of welfare legislation completely ended assistance to families with children who were federally eligible for the program, throwing families and their children into devastating poverty. The decision was deemed so destructive to impoverished children and their families that the Children's Defense discontinued their relationship with the Clintons, saying they betrayed children in poverty. 

[TRILL MONSTER 1,113]

As a black man .....bernie can pander me all he wants 

[Whispering 18,865]

26 minutes ago, zebulonpyke said:

While I agree that this was not one of Bernie's finer votes, Bernie voted after the addition of the Violence Against Women Act and vocally opposed many sections of the bill on the House floor, saying that much of the bill would lead to misery. Hillary, on the other hand, used racially coded language like 'super predators' and actually received money from the private prison industry. On top of that, Hillary also contributed to Bill's welfare reform that, because of the adverse effect it had on many impoverished areas, lost her her allegiance with the Children's Defense Fund. 

She used that term once when referring to the gang lords and drug dealers that were preying on young kids...and has since apologized for using that term on several occasions now. 

Bernie stated that "it is my firm belief that clearly there are people in our society who are horribly violent, who are deeply sick and sociopathic and clearly these people must be put behind bars in order to protect society from them" right before he signed the Crime Bill. 

Hillary called these "horribly violent people" superpreditors and Bernie called them deeply sick and sociopaths. Has he apologized for calling these same criminals sociopaths? 

Bernie voted for the Crime Bill and Hillary did not, but I imagine she would have since the large majority of Democrats voted for the bill. The majority of citizens (especially those in areas of high crime) and the majority of AA leaders were asking for something to be done about the crime in their communities. Crime was at an all time historic high and incarceration rates had been on a steady rise along with the crime rates for more than a decade before the Crime Bill was passed. 

[Ladle Ghoulash 53,176]

16 minutes ago, Whispering said:

She used that term once when referring to the gang lords and drug dealers that were preying on young kids...and has since apologized for using that term on several occasions now. 

Bernie stated that "it is my firm belief that clearly there are people in our society who are horribly violent, who are deeply sick and sociopathic and clearly these people must be put behind bars in order to protect society from them" right before he signed the Crime Bill. 

Hillary called these "horribly violent people" superpreditors and Bernie called them deeply sick and sociopaths. Has he apologized for calling these same criminals sociopaths? 

Bernie voted for the Crime Bill and Hillary did not, but I imagine she would have since the large majority of Democrats voted for the bill. The majority of citizens (especially those in areas of high crime) and the majority of AA leaders were asking for something to be done about the crime in their communities. Crime was at an all time historic high and incarceration rates had been on a steady rise along with the crime rates for more than a decade before the Crime Bill was passed. 

Bernie Sanders also said this (see above) while Hillary Clinton has actually received money from the Correctional Corporation of America and the Geo Group (two major private prison companies). Clinton has only recently (as of February of 2016) cut ties with the private prison industry (most-likely due to public pressure). Bernie wanted to look at the systemic causes of increased crime (income inequality) when Hillary clearly thought that was something that could be put in the backseat ('we can look at how they got this way, but first we must bring them to heel'). Hillary also called them 'incapable of empathy' (aka sociopathic), for the record. While Hillary has apologized, I think that her behavior toward people of color, specifically protesters, speaks louder than any half-hearted apology she has given. Ejecting a protester from her event without letting them talk, allowing the donors at the even try and silence her and refusing to acknowledge the protester's grievance is no way to show solidarity with the black community. Talking down to black protestors is no way to show you stand with the black community. Bernie may not be perfect, but I'd believe the sincerity of his efforts any day over Hillary's. If you're not looking to fix the distribution of wealth and get corporate money out of politics (which she's a direct beneficiary of), you're a part of the problem for Americans of all races. You can say you want to help low-income communities all you want, but when you're in bed with the people who exploit them, there's no trusting you. 

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

4 hours ago, zebulonpyke said:

Yeah, I know what a campaign promise is and I know that was one of his. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it just because Clinton promised it. Not to mention that Clinton was part of the New Democrat movement, which sought to find middle ground between the now, essentially, racist Republicans (post-Civil Rights Movement) and the, then, floundering Democrats. The 'ending welfare as we know it' promise was a desperate and half-baked attempt to appeal to voters who had fever dreams about mythological 'welfare queens'. Not saying that I think that people should be dependent on welfare, but pulling the rug out from someone is not exactly comprehensive welfare reform. This piece of welfare legislation completely ended assistance to families with children who were federally eligible for the program, throwing families and their children into devastating poverty. The decision was deemed so destructive to impoverished children and their families that the Children's Defense discontinued their relationship with the Clintons, saying they betrayed children in poverty. 

You keep saying "throwing families into poverty" but poverty decreased in the years after welfare reform. Also since when is it wrong to unify parties. That's what great leaders do. It might not be the, I'm right and everyone else is wrong Trump - Bernie way of thinking, but it's how a country is supposed to work. 

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

7 hours ago, just4fun said:

You keep saying "throwing families into poverty" but poverty decreased in the years after welfare reform. Also since when is it wrong to unify parties. That's what great leaders do. It might not be the, I'm right and everyone else is wrong Trump - Bernie way of thinking, but it's how a country is supposed to work. 

Well you know we live in extreme times now, and the middle is almost nonexistent anymore...  Smh   Compromise is a dirty word now, and the political virtues of today are...  My way or the highway, demonizing your own if they do not pass your own, very stringent, litmus test & unfettered idealism!!!    

[BadMetalRomance 62]

On 4/17/2016 at 7:45 PM, Morphine Prince said:

Are you seriously blaming him for using this? This is a campaign. 

Maybe if I use some Hillary ads you will see: 

Rainbow "Hillary" H. Pandering to gays? Or showing she supports LGBT people? You decide. Did she fight for LGBT rights since a long time ago? (I actually don't know), I only know she didn't support same sex marriage a few decades back.

Pandering to Hispanics? Hispanics on social media ridiculed this last year. 

The slogan #ImWithHer

Pandering to women? Or just a great slogan? You're with HER, not him. Clearly showcasing she's a woman, the only woman, and will be the FIRST woman to be president.

It's a campaign. The ads are designed to get votes and bring people in to become interested in a candidate. 

 

 

 

The only one out of those that's pandering is the abuela one... The other two are literally nothing. The rainbow H is not pandering, it's not like she is just suddenly going out to the LGBTQ community with lots of things about her campaign, it's just a sign up for a sticker that wouldn't draw in any other voters. (And since 1996 hillary has shown signs of supporting the LGBTQ, not as early as I would've liked, but hey its something.)  And I'm with her is in no way pandering, it's literally just a slogan for her supporters to use, of course they are going to use her for it what do you expect ? 

[Ladle Ghoulash 53,176]

On April 21, 2016 at 8:01 AM, just4fun said:

You keep saying "throwing families into poverty" but poverty decreased in the years after welfare reform. Also since when is it wrong to unify parties. That's what great leaders do. It might not be the, I'm right and everyone else is wrong Trump - Bernie way of thinking, but it's how a country is supposed to work. 

Except that the number of families living on less than $2 a day in cash has DOUBLED from 640,000 in 1996 to 1.6 million in 2011 alone. I also think there's a difference between making overblown, half-baked campaign promises that are meant to appeal to a racist constituency at the expense of those living in extreme poverty is different unifying a party. I would argue that trying to create a comprehensive welfare reform would be a unifying issue; trying to create a welfare reform quickly and not considering the consequences does the opposite. I'd go as far as to say it's delusional to think that Clinton's politics unify people. Clinton is just as much a beneficiary of divisive politics as Cruz is. How about the racist attack ads she ran against Obama (both the "who would you want watching your kids?" ad and releasing the picture of Obama in a turban, preying on Islamaphobia)? How many times has she called legitimate critiques of her policy "right wing conspiracies"? Clinton uses political division to justify her positions constantly ("I won't release my Wall Street transcripts until everybody does!"). Considering that she is also only just behind Trump in polls surrounding likability and trustworthiness, I think that says a lot about whether or not she is a unifying leader.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

 

1 hour ago, zebulonpyke said:

Except that the number of families living on less than $2 a day in cash has DOUBLED from 640,000 in 1996 to 1.6 million in 2011 alone. 

Out of context and ignores many variables.

1 hour ago, zebulonpyke said:

 I also think there's a difference between making overblown, half-baked campaign promises that are meant to appeal to a racist constituency at the expense of those living in extreme poverty is different unifying a party. I would argue that trying to create a comprehensive welfare reform would be a unifying issue;

Implying poverty is related to race. I suppose a Sanders supporter would use the same idiotic rhetoric that white people don't know what poverty is.

1 hour ago, zebulonpyke said:

Clinton is just as much a beneficiary of divisive politics as Cruz is. 

lol k ... Ignoring the fact that Cruz is essentially calling for a theocracy and comparing her to that. How funny.

Also Hillary is a centrist moderate Democrat. She compromises for all people. Compare that to Bernie who is so far to the extreme of the left that he's alienating anyone who isn't a poor "oppressed" millenial. (See I can do hyperbole too)

1 hour ago, zebulonpyke said:

How about the racist attack ads she ran against Obama (both the "who would you want watching your kids?" ad and releasing the picture of Obama in a turban, preying on Islamaphobia)? 

What are you trying to imply here

You're forgetting that both sides got dirty. Why are you implicating her and not Obama?  

Even then, Hillary has not employed any such overt negativity this campaign. Why are you bringing it up?  

Despite how dirty the elections got back there, she still ended up supporting Obama as soon as she GRACEFULLY conceded as soon as she figured she wouldn't win. This is a stark contrast from Bernie who wants to, and I quote, "fight to the very end to send a message" and would very likely turn his back on the Democratic party as soon as he loses. 

1 hour ago, zebulonpyke said:

How many times has she called legitimate critiques of her policy "right wing conspiracies"? Clinton uses political division to justify her positions constantly ("I won't release my Wall Street transcripts until everybody does!"). 

.... LOL because she has been under attack by the GOP for the majority of her career. Just look at Benghazi and how DESPERATE the GOP-dominated panel was trying to figure out a way to implicate her when they couldn't. Still, her reputation took a hit despite the fact that it wasn't even her fault.

Why the hell should she release her transcripts when nobody else will? Why should she release her transcripts which she did at PRIVATE events as a PRIVATE citizen. How ridiculous. She's receiving excessive scrutiny for everything she does while everyone else doesn't. It doesn't matter if Sanders didn't do a speech. He has no right to imply that she should release them either. "She has nothing to hide" is not a valid excuse either. 

You going to start demanding they release their phone calls too? 

1 hour ago, zebulonpyke said:

Considering that she is also only just behind Trump in polls surrounding likability and trustworthiness, I think that says a lot about whether or not she is a unifying leader.

Falling for statistics

That's because most Trump supporters are delusional enough to believe he is trustworthy despite his overwhelming lie to statement ratio. He's also a celebrity that appeals to their bigoted senses. 

Meanwhile Hillary is under attack by the entirety of the GOP and the Bernie bots such as yourself who have fallen for those easy smears.

Hillary isn't perfect by any means but the way you talk about her makes her look like some evil witch out to get you. My God  

it's always fascinating to see people try so hard to justify their irrational animus, failing to even give people credit for anything via hyperbolic emphasis of one or two flaws as if anyone is perfect. 

Whatever. She remains unbothered.

 

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

4 hours ago, zebulonpyke said:

Except that the number of families living on less than $2 a day in cash has DOUBLED from 640,000 in 1996 to 1.6 million in 2011 alone. I also think there's a difference between making overblown, half-baked campaign promises that are meant to appeal to a racist constituency at the expense of those living in extreme poverty is different unifying a party. I would argue that trying to create a comprehensive welfare reform would be a unifying issue; trying to create a welfare reform quickly and not considering the consequences does the opposite. I'd go as far as to say it's delusional to think that Clinton's politics unify people. Clinton is just as much a beneficiary of divisive politics as Cruz is. How about the racist attack ads she ran against Obama (both the "who would you want watching your kids?" ad and releasing the picture of Obama in a turban, preying on Islamaphobia)? How many times has she called legitimate critiques of her policy "right wing conspiracies"? Clinton uses political division to justify her positions constantly ("I won't release my Wall Street transcripts until everybody does!"). Considering that she is also only just behind Trump in polls surrounding likability and trustworthiness, I think that says a lot about whether or not she is a unifying leader.

First of all what do you mean $2 a day. How many family members? Is it per family or per person in the family and where are you getting your info? Even a 16 year old with a part time at 5 hrs per week making $7 and hour is making. $1,820 a year. $2 dollars a day is only $730 a year. A whole family on $730 a year is ridiculous. 

This is how poverty actually behaved during the Clinton Presidency. Guess when it went up again?

Unemployment rate in the United States from January 1993 to January 2001. The orange line indicates the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. 

Data from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

The fact that you are not mentioning that poverty actually went up during the Bush admin and not the Clinton administration is doing a disservice to your arguement, the Democratic Party and the Bernie campaign for possibly embellishing the truth to fit its narrative.

Here is another graph just drive the point home. If more Americans are living on $2 a day it happened after Clintons presidency. The C.P. actually saw poverty decline in the US. The greatest times of poverty have been during Republican Presidencies. 

http://www.statista.com/statistics/200463/us-poverty-rate-since-1990/

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

14 minutes ago, just4fun said:

First of all what do you mean $2 a day. How many family members? Is it per family or per person in the family and where are you getting your info? Even a 16 year old with a part time at 5 hrs per week making $7 and hour is making. $1,820 a year. $2 dollars a day is only $730 a year. A whole family on $730 a year is ridiculous. 

This is how poverty actually behaved during the Clinton Presidency. Guess when it went up again?

Unemployment rate in the United States from January 1993 to January 2001. The orange line indicates the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. 

Data from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

The fact that you are not mentioning that poverty actually went up during the Bush admin and not the Clinton administration is doing a disservice to your arguement, the Democrtic part and the Bernie campaign for possibly embellishing the truth to fit its narrative.

Here is another graph just drive the point home. If more Americans are living on $2 a day it happened after Clintons presidency. The C.P. actually saw poverty decline in the US. The greatest time of poverty have been during Republican Presidencies. 

http://www.statista.com/statistics/200463/us-poverty-rate-since-1990/