2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDemocratic mayor of Atlanta calls out Bernie Sanders for his race relations claim
Bernie Sanders is building bridges!
-----------
(CNN) The Democratic mayor of Atlanta criticized Bernie Sanders on Friday for claiming at a recent Democratic debate that race relations would be better if he is president than they are under President Barack Obama.
Kasim Reed, a Hillary Clinton supporter, told CNN's Erin Burnett that the claim was "dismissive and disrespectful" of the nation's first African-American president and that Sanders' rhetoric on Thursday reminded him of a county commissioner. Reed went on to challenge Sanders' record, saying, "Show me in the Senate where he led some broad coalition to get something significant accomplished ... He is running to be the standard-bearer of the Democratic Party, although he just became a Democrat within the last year."
Reed also criticized Sanders for claiming he would be a better president for women than Clinton.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/12/politics/kasim-reed-bernie-sanders-atlanta/
BlueMTexpat
(15,366 posts)UTB! How dare he?
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)It's hard to keep track.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)Let's have a look at contributors.
snip
The most recent round of fundraising show 240 separate donations from a who's-who of Atlanta business and politics. Frank Blake, chief executive of Home Depot, gave $1,000. Carol Tomé, the company's chief financial officer, gave the same amount, with the company's political action committee chipping in $2,500.
John Brock, chairman and CEO of soft drinks bottler Coca-Cola Enterprises, gave $2,500. Keisha Lance Bottoms, a member of Atlanta's City Council, gave $1,000.
snip
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/atlanta-mayor-kasim-reeds-campaign-raises-280000-h/nQQmg/
Here's the list.
http://media.ethics.ga.gov/search/Campaign/Campaign_ByContributions_RFR.aspx?NameID=4982&FilerID=C2008000654&CDRID=53241&Name=Reed,%20Mohammed%20Kasim&Year=2011&Report=December%2031st%20-%20Non-Election%20Year
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Anyone who criticizes He Who Is Never To Be Questioned MUST be immediately slimed as being bought and paid for.
Got it ..
Wilms
(26,795 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Of all of the pieces of "information" you could have shared about Mayor Reed, you chose that one.
Got it ...
Wilms
(26,795 posts)You can go to his wiki page. There's a lot there to enjoy for progressives and liberals alike.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)And that's the context you chose to present.
Got it ...
Wilms
(26,795 posts)I stand with Hillary.
Hillary will:
Overturn Citizens United.
End secret, unaccountable money in politics.
Establish a small-donor matching system to amplify the voices of everyday Americans.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campaign-finance-reform/
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Is there a way to ensure that he, personally, is aware of it?
APRIL 18, 2014
Is America an Oligarchy?
BY JOHN CASSIDY
From the Dept. of Academics Confirming Something You Already Suspected comes a new study concluding that rich people and organizations representing business interests have a powerful grip on U.S. government policy. After examining differences in public opinion across income groups on a wide variety of issues, the political scientists Martin Gilens, of Princeton, and Benjamin Page, of Northwestern, found that the preferences of rich people had a much bigger impact on subsequent policy decisions than the views of middle-income and poor Americans. Indeed, the opinions of lower-income groups, and the interest groups that represent them, appear to have little or no independent impact on policy....
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy
The original study:
From the Sept 2014 journal "Perspectives on Politics"
Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
ABSTRACT
A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
The last paragraph of their findings:
"...Americas claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."
Wilms
(26,795 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)jehop61
(1,735 posts)Not realize that all politics is fueled by campaign donations? All candidates receive money from somewhere. It's not a test of democratic purity to receive funds to run a campaign. Thats our system. Thank the Roberts Court. They exacerbated am already problematic tactic.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)That's not the argument. We're talking about what results from that.
It's not OK when the Koch's do it, but OK when Wall Street, et. al., does?
Meanwhile, Bernie says no to that kind of funding. You know how he gets away with that? He caters to the us, not them.
So far, it's working.
Oh, and he won't be seeking Kissinger's advice.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)"There are some areas where our own life experiences really prepare us to be more receptive. I do think there is something in the governing or organizing approach," she said.
"I just think women in general are better listeners, are more collegial, more open to new ideas and how to make things work in a way that looks for win-win outcomes."
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/265037-clinton-female-politicians-govern-differently-than-men
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)This is the problem. Sanders pushes for more, and it's viewed as some kind of slam against Obama. It's ridiculous.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...the question Sanders was asked was if race relations would improve under his presidency. That's not a bad thing and it's being portrayed as it is.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)You're being fed misinformation.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...Sanders answer to that question is not bad. As he's running to be president after Obama, the goal of improving race relations should only move in the direction of "better" compared to Obama's terms. If not, that's an issue. For him to say otherwise or be expected to say otherwise, is ridiculous.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Is that what you think I'm saying?
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)But if you've been paying attention the last few years, you've noticed that our current President's hue is a yuuuge problem for lots of people. Returning to a white president will calm some if those folks down enough for some of the ugly to get buried again. Not go away. Just get buried for awhile.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...as depressing as it is. It really doesn't have much to do with my post either, though.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)here is what was asked
Debate moderator Judy Woodruff asked Sanders to clarify whether he thought race relations would be better under a Sanders presidency "than they've been." (Previously, she'd asked Hillary Clinton why she thought race relations would be better if she were President).
"Absolutely," Sanders responded.
"Because what we will do is say, instead of giving tax breaks to billionaires, we are going to create millions of jobs for low-income kids so they're not hanging out on street corners," he explained. "We're going to make sure that those kids stay in school or are able to get a college education. And I think when you give low-income kids, African-American, white, Latino kids the opportunities to get their lives together, they are not going to end up in jail. They're going to end up in the productive economy, which is where we want them."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sanders-improve-race-relations-obama
Billsmile
(404 posts)LexVegas
(6,059 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)To say that things could be better is not to imply that they're bad now and getting worse. It's just that there's room for more improvement. Obama deserves credit for getting things to the point they're at now. But does that mean we should stop here?
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...what should he have said? No?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)1965: After passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965, King became even more vocal about economic rights: What good is having the right to sit at a lunch counter if you cant afford to buy a hamburger?
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/02/11/reality-check-democrats-would-martin-luther-king-be-supporting-bernie