Latino organizers refuse to let Sanders speak at event

[Moot]

I read that part Moot, and that's why I said what I said in the OP about it. It isn't unheard of for a political campaign to spin an event to make them not look bad. Why would the event staff be telling a lie? I can see a political staffer saying "We weren't stopped from talking, it was too late to talk by the time we worked it all out" which is basically what the campaign said. I'm not saying they lied, it just looks like they spun it is all.

As for accusing me of racism and lying, you can apologize at any time, Moot. Prove to me where I've said anything racist... EVER? Show me where I lied? You can't, but go ahead and try.

Apologize, or at least retract.

What should I apologize for....you singled out Blacks, Hispanics and the democrat party in your OP to blame for something they didn't do. Maybe you should think about you say in public so people don't get the wrong idea about you.

 

[Beaudreaux]

What should I apologize for....you singled out Blacks, Hispanics and the democrat party in your OP to blame for something they didn't do. Maybe you should think about you say in public so people don't get the wrong idea about you.

No. I didn't. I asked a simple question based on empirical evidence that has also been reported in every media report about the primary campaign.

Apologize or retract your unfounded attack on me.

 

[Beaudreaux]

That is not what he said, at all. Sanders has never, until he decided to run for president, tried to appeal to any one other than his normal supporters. That he does not appeal to blacks or Hispanics is not the fault of those people, but his own, for not making the effort till too late.

True, that would explain some of the lack of support, but it doesn't explain the almost monolithic lack of support from either of those groups when it comes to Sanders. Groups, even closely aligned political groups, are less cohesive in their beliefs the larger the group becomes. When we're talking about ethnic groups, the vastness of any one group makes it almost statistically impossible to get such a polarized response as we have been seeing regarding Black and Hispanic support for Clinton, and polarized disdain for Sanders, especially given that both are running for the Democratic nomination. Now, as far as a polarized, monolithic hatred for the opposite party? Sure, that can be easily explained with any number of factors, but not by saying that Bernie didn't court them long enough. IMHO. But, as we've all seen before, I could be wrong.

 

[Moot]

No. I didn't. I asked a simple question based on empirical evidence that has also been reported in every media report about the primary campaign.

Apologize or retract your unfounded attack on me.

Sorry.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Sorry.

Thank you. Accepted, and appreciated.

 

[TheGoverness]

That is not what he said, at all. Sanders has never, until he decided to run for president, tried to appeal to any one other than his normal supporters. That he does not appeal to blacks or Hispanics is not the fault of those people, but his own, for not making the effort till too late.

OK, I understand now.

I'll admit I missed the central point of his post.

 

[Moot]

OK, I understand now.

I'll admit I missed the central point of his post.

Me, too. :3oops:

 

[TheGoverness]

Thank you. Accepted, and appreciated.

Isn't life better when we can all get along? [emoji12]

 

[Redress]

Isn't life better when we can all get along? [emoji12]

Does that mean I can't use the yo mama joke I had ready?

 

[TheGoverness]

Does that mean I can't use the yo mama joke I had ready?

View attachment 67202311

Lolz. I wish all my SAT questions were like that.

 

[Gaztopian]

Why would they need any rationale beyond it is their event that they organized and paid for, and they did not want some one assuming he should benefit from their work?

Strictly speaking, it was their event; as such, they had every right to deny him speaking time. But when high-profile political figures are involved, it's never that simple. No one would deny a president speaking time at his private event unless he harbors antipathy towards him. And this is the thesis of this topic: the antipathy of the Latino organizers towards Sanders that made them deny him that speaking time.

 

[Redress]

Strictly speaking, it was their event; as such, they had every right to deny him speaking time. But when high-profile political figures are involved, it's never that simple. No one would deny a president speaking time at his private event unless he harbors antipathy towards him. And this is the thesis of this topic: the antipathy of the Latino organizers towards Sanders that made them deny him that speaking time.

Assuming antipathy is stupid. It could be scheduling, it could be sponsors, it could be dozens of things not antipathy. And what exactly does the ethnicity of the organizers have to do with anything?

 

[Gaztopian]

What is it with the Black and Latino leadership in the Democratic Party as well as their overall voting blocks not supporting Bernie at all? I don't get it? Anyone want to try to explain this?

I very much would like to know the rationale behind this, too.

From where I'm sitting, it makes no sense.

Same here. I don't get it either.

I believe it has to do with the U.S's racial reality and the role the democratic party plays in it. Racial minorities in the U.S are well-aware of the country's terrible history with racism and the precarity of their existence in light of the omnipresent threat of its recrudescence. Since the democratic party has long adopted a quasi-populist platform that championed minorities' rights, and since the GOP's response was the southern strategy of appealing to racists and fattening the beast, Latinos, blacks, and their democratic leaderships are paternally loyal to the democratic party as their guardian. It is that loyalty - part visceral and part self-interested - that's driving the blacks' and Latinos' opposition to Bernie, a party outsider who openly antagonizes the democratic party and threatens what they perceive to be a delicate status quo.

 

[Gaztopian]

Assuming antipathy is stupid. It could be scheduling, it could be sponsors, it could be dozens of things not antipathy. And what exactly does the ethnicity of the organizers have to do with anything?

Come on now. As I already reasoned, no one will deny a high-profile political figure speaking time at his event unless he has something against him. Many things could've not made it readily possible, yes, but you'd only pass on the opportunity of having such a figure bolster your event if you or an associate of yours took exception to him.

 

[Redress]

Come on now. As I already reasoned, no one will deny a high-profile political figure speaking time at his event unless he has something against him. Many things could've not made it readily possible, yes, but you'd only pass on the opportunity of having such a figure bolster your event if you or an associate of yours took exception to him.

There are literally hundreds of reasons that have nothing to do with antipathy to deny a high profile political figure speaking time at your event. Say, for example, your event is not political. And again I ask, what does their ethnicity have to do with anything?

 

[notquiteright]

You're seeing something that I'm not - namely that Sanders is at fault here (i.e.: acting like an ass). I guess I'm just missing it, but...

I voted for Bernie so allow me-

This wasn't a political rally, it wasn't a debate stage, the event didn't invite him (even the debates are by invite only) The local group was funding the event, not any political party. Bernie wanted to crash the party... tacky at best, he isn't a rock star or celebrity. Perhaps the organizers saw this as a desperate attempt for attention from a sinking political ship.

This isn't a freedom of speech issue but more a right to ownership of an event. I'm surprised Bernie's people didn't attempt to coordinate his attending- yanno show a little respect for those who worked very hard, paid a bit of cash and put the event on.

It is like your older brother taking over your birthday party and posing for the family pics blowing out your candles... eace

 

[Chomsky]

I believe it has to do with the U.S's racial reality and the role the democratic party plays in it. Racial minorities in the U.S are well-aware of the country's terrible history with racism and the precarity of their existence in light of the omnipresent threat of its recrudescence. Since the democratic party has long adopted a quasi-populist platform that championed minorities' rights, and since the GOP's response was the southern strategy of appealing to racists and fattening the beast, Latinos, blacks, and their democratic leaderships are paternally loyal to the democratic party as their guardian. It is that loyalty - part visceral and part self-interested - that's driving the blacks' and Latinos' opposition to Bernie, a party outsider who openly antagonizes the democratic party and threatens what they perceive to be a delicate status quo.

Yes, that's a good expanded analysis of what I thought might be a reason:

Mrs. Clinton is the establishment Dem candidate, and has had decades to solidify her minority support. Bernie is running against her and ostensibly the Dem Party.

It still is a bit puzzling to me as to why those same minorities don't analyze Bernie as 'new and better', but I suppose old habits die hard.

The platform specific issue for Bernie that easily comes to mind might be his relatively strong gun position, however I personally see his moderate but supportive position there as an attribute reasonably in concert with my thoughts on the matter.

I really wish he was the nominee - I believe he would dust Trump.

 

[Redress]

You know, maybe if people talked about minorities as something more than a commodity, that might appeal to them...

 

[Aberration]

Latinos as a minority were created specifically to be a political commodity.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Chomsky]

Sorry.

Thank you. Accepted, and appreciated.

OK, I understand now.

I'll admit I missed the central point of his post.

Me, too. :3oops:

Wow!

As someone who likes just about everyone in this thread, and has 'friend-ed' most of the active participants here, I'm a bit blown away (happily) by the quick, humble, and magnanimous resolution that just occurred!

I think this thread should be held as an example of sensible mature conflict resolution - this doesn't happen often enough on the interwebs!

Next time we're having one of those 'family discussions' at my house, I'm inviting you guys over! :thumbs:

 

[Wiggen]

I would hope it's more deep than that and based on ideology rather than, well, nothing.

Sanders has never had to deliver any kind of message to anybody other than white folks in an overwhelmingly white state. He has no idea how to appeal to a racially diverse population. Much like Trump in that regard.

 

[Fletch]

Sanders has never had to deliver any kind of message to anybody other than white folks in an overwhelmingly white state. He has no idea how to appeal to a racially diverse population. Much like Trump in that regard.

Short of the type of pandering Hillary does, what is it Sanders could have done to 'appeal to a racially diverse population?'

 

[Gaztopian]

And again I ask, what does their ethnicity have to do with anything?

I don't know, and I didn't claim to. It was a Spanish-speaking festival and the organizers were Latinos; it may or may not have to do with their ethnicity, and I was only addressing TC's thesis.

 

[Gaztopian]

It still is a bit puzzling to me as to why those same minorities don't analyze Bernie as 'new and better', but I suppose old habits die hard.

Bernie's unpopularity among minorities that are historically aligned with the democratic party can still be explained logically through Bernie's platform and his political ideology.

In response to the disappearance of the middle class and the proliferation and exacerbation of income inequalities, Bernie adopted an egalitarian platform that sought to redress the economic plight of the country. But minorities have different priorities. The vested interest of Bernie's detractors to shroud the prevalence of whites in his base in a cloak of racism attempts to conceal the simple and benign reality that whites can afford making distribution justice their number one priority, as they're unburdened by a precarious existence. This is why a Clinton will always trump a Bernie among minorities.

I'm the first to rebuke the arrogant twaddle that is American exceptionalism, but this is one of the few cases where I'm inclined to uphold it. Bernie deliberately disregarded the uniqueness of the American polity as a part of his repudiation of the status quo and his attempt to reconstitute the sociopolitical identity of the country. He'd naturally loss sight of such axioms of the old world as race relations and minorities' rights. And he doesn't apologize for it, for he sees it as a virtue, an expression of his revolutionism.

 

[notquiteright]

Latinos as a minority were created specifically to be a political commodity.

Ummm no they weren't. Hispanics as a minority are just that... back in my youth the saying was black get back, brown hang around and white is right when it came to jobs. Hispanics as a minority were treated as less than white but better than black by whites long before any political tag line.

The more you know... eace