JOE MANCHIN 2020!

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

He is our best bet, tbh. If we ain't getting Bernie, then he is second best. His losses among Bernie or bust peeps will be massively overshadowed by his amazing performance among blue collar workers and I could easily see him getting 350+EV's.


P.S-Please dont post in this thread, ProgressiveCanadian.

Bernie bros actually would vote for him. He's a white guy from a rural state.

I don't know if Manchin is the Dems best bet, but he's a serious candidate.

And, yes, white male voters ought to see a Democratic Party not look at them as if they're the root of all evil in America. 

That's not what we think. However, it is what they think because of their massive victim complex.

I don't know who the "we" is you mention.  I only know the tone and rhetoric of the identity politics that has seemingly taken the Democratic Party by storm.  

I would like to know who this "we" is that you refer to, and what the attitude toward America that "we" holds and projects.  I've been on Atlas long enough to know that not everyone who posts here actually loves America and wishes it well.  

Identity politics is an America tradition. The notion that only Democrats participate in it is ludicrous. There's a reason a guy like Ben Sasse has pictures of him taken in cornfields and on a farm

Republicans, however, have always been the party that did more to speak to Americans as Americans and not as port of special groups.  Democrats have always been the party of group appeals.  This is nothing new; it's a longstanding pattern.

What we have now, however, is a Democratic Party taking identity politics to a new level, in its attempts to cobble together a majority-minority coalition to sweep to victory.  This can only be done by appeals to group special interests, but these group special interests are often diametrically opposed to the interests of America as a whole.

There are appeals to Hispanics to allow for more immigration.  But is more immigration in the interest of the whole of America, of which Hispanics here are already a part?  There are appeals to blacks to enviscerate police over police brutality, but is that consistent with the well being of Americans who face varying degrees of violent crime and need police with the will to enforce laws and a citizenry that obeys the lawful directives of law enforcement officers on duty.  Loyalty to ethnic group or political alliance is encouraged by today's Democratic Party over loyalty to country.  A nation awash in identity politics is a nation whose leaders obtain power by accumulating more political debts than they can pay.

Let me try to respond this with a more detailed response than "I'm not racist, but minorities are not American."

Yeah, Cora was being very blunt with his response, to put it lightly. But think about it; your response does imply that the interests of minorities are in direct opposition in the interest of America. Was that what you meant? If that was what you meant, is that really so?

Let's take an example you cite: Is reducing police brutality also in the best interest of America? To me, the answer is an unequivocal YES, and furthermore it does not conflict with having strong and effective police departments. If anything, excessive police brutality hurts the police and helps the criminals, since it destroys the police-community bonds that are needed for effective crime-fighting. Furthermore, while police brutality has been framed as a black issue, for legitimate reasons, we must not forget that other races - white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, etc. - are also victims of police brutality.

That's just one example. There are a myriad of other issues that uniquely affect X group, whether it's employment discrimination, educational injustice, housing segregation, or environmental racism. Is fighting against them somehow "un-American," or against the interests of America? Of course not. It is the issues themselves that are against the interests of America, for they weaken it and make lie of the principles of equality and justice for all.

And likewise, fighting these issues has a long and storied history in America. You surely heard of Federick Douglass and Harriet Tubman, who risked their lives to escape and later end slavery. You heard of the Radical Republicans who came into power wanting a more just America. You heard of MLK and Rosa Parks, maybe not of the many other leaders who defined the Civil Rights Movement. You've heard of Selma and Stonewall. Today's activists are simply heirs to that great American tradition of finding justice and shaping our society for the better.

You clearly know of the oppression many Americans have faced over the course of our history. But imagine having to experience that kind of oppression. Our schools and culture have taught us from childhood that we live in a colorblind society that has transcended our tribal instincts. This is a laudable future, but this is not our present reality, and when children come home and see the oppression they and their families face, they know that they have been taught a lie. So they distrust the system, and they get angry.

You've said that some of these people should have a "change of mind" in your other post. But maybe take a few minutes to understand the point of view of other people; it goes both ways, after all. Talk to people; understand their motivations, and if you find them to be a bit too "angry" for you, give them reasons to have hope, not more anger. If you can't do that for whatever reason, just meditate on what I said for a few minutes, hours, or days. You have love in your heart; search it, and maybe you'll find something new.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

As for the actual topic: please not.

Like Manchin is awesome in the Senate, but let's not have TWO pro-fossil fuel presidential candidates please!

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

As for the actual topic: please not.

Like Manchin is awesome in the Senate, but let's not have TWO pro-fossil fuel presidential candidates please!

Agreed. Manchin is the opposite sort of moderate Democrats need. We can't out-Trump Trump, by targeting those who: "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." We don't need a fiscally liberal, socially conservative nationalist. We need a fiscally moderate, socially liberal globalist, who can win AZ and FL and the Philadelphia suburbs. Manchin is not that canidate.

How does social liberalism appeal to Floridians? It's a southern state that's reliant on Dems turning out black voters.

I think the better question to ask is how would fiscal moderation turn out the Democratic base there (or anywhere)?

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

There are several things I'd point out here.

One is that I'm not opposed to sanctioning improper use of force by law enforcement.  There are civil and criminal sanctions for doing so, and the job is such that some folks do cross lines and use improper force on criminal suspects.  I get that.  What I oppose is the narrative that young black males in America are dying because of the actions of police.  Young black males in America are dying primarily at the hands of violent criminals, mostly young and black, often members of criminal gangs or drug rings.  There are many relevant issues in criminal injustice that deserve the attention of serious people (disparity in sentencing, using enforcement of misdemeanors and local ordinances as revenue enhancement, the corrupt privatization of prisons and the impact this industry has on lawmaking), but the "Cops are killing young black males!" narrative is just not true.  Young, mostly black, criminals are killing young black males, and this is in no small measure because young black males, in disproportionate numbers, are engaging in drug crimes and violent crimes.  That blacks commit violent crimes at rates significantly higher than their percentage of the population is a difficult topic, and one that should make everyone on all sides of the issue uncomfortable.  But it is also a fact, statistically, and there seems to be no serious discussion of why this is so, let along what can be done about this.

The real oppressors of the black community these days are these criminal oppressors.  They are the ones that inject fear into the lives of folks in many predominantly black communities with their violent  criminal actions and with their coercive behaviors, coercing silence and non-cooperation with law enforcement.  And, yes, people in these communities have reason to be afraid; they often either know who perpetrated a crime, have knowledge of what others are saying about a crime, or have been inadvertantly made a witness to a crime, and all of that brings criminal coercion down on them.

The 1960s was about black folks demanding that their Civil Rights, the ones that they already had in theory, actually be protected and enforced.  The fear they experienced, to paraphrase Mike Royko, came from the actions of the worst elements of Southern beer-belly manhood that were allowed to provide the response to those reasonable demands being made.  Bull Connor, Jim Clark, Willis McCall; these were law enforcement officers that law abiding blacks needed to fear.  But that's not who's responsible for the carnage (and, no, that's not overly dramatic) that's occurring in Chicago now.  (74 murders in Chicago in July, 2017; is that not carnage?)  And that's not the police doing it.

Compassion, I have.  But the false narrative isn't compassionate at all.  I'm asking you to do what the Democrats demand the GOP do; confront your party's base on this issue.   And to get this on topic, Joe Manchin may be the only Democrat willing to do so.

First, you do make a point in that statistically speaking, the vast majority of young blacks won't die from fatal interactions with the police. But to say to a black guy "your fears of being shot by police are largely unfounded because statistically speaking you're more likely to die of a heart attack or even shot by another black criminal" is like saying "your fears of dying from a terrorist attack are unfounded because you're more likely to die from falling out of bed." That doesn't eliminate the root problem of police brutality, nor does it assuage the psychological effects that police brutality had on the black community for years.

You say that coercion by criminal elements lead to the non-reporting of crime, which may be true. But have you considered how mistrust of police also leads to the non-reporting of crime? Even if the actual risk of dying from police is overhyped, the psychological effects of police brutality are pretty huge. And it will take more to address that issue than just saying "reconsider what you're afraid of."

Also, have you ever thought of why black on black crime is a big problem in and of itself? It's (also) because of racism. Specifically, historical and current patterns of residential segregation have led to the creation of large, poor communities of Blacks that make really good breeding grounds for crime. In such an environment, of course you have these largely-black gangs popping up, black people killing other black people, because who else is there to kill? While the black criminal in that situation may be the proximate oppressor, racism in the form of residential segregation, income inequality, and other systemic factors are the ultimate oppressor.

That's not to put black-on-black crime off the hook; rather, it's to say that there are many complex factors that lead to that problem. And these problems need to be addressed holistically - yes, we need to ensure that violent black people (and violent white people, violent Hispanic people, violent Asians, etc.) are taken care of, but we also need to chip away at the racism and inequality that spawns said violent people. That involves improving communities economically, ensuring equity in housing, and yes, addressing police brutality and mistrust of police. I'm sure you agree we need to fix these issues mentioned, regardless of whatever narrative is swirling around in our society.

As for how this connects to the thread topic, I definitely don't think Manchin is the best for addressing these issues. Even if he studies them intensely and adopts more progressive stances (and I am of the school that modern progressivism and social justice are intimately intertwined), there will always be optics to consider. How can a West Virginia Senator connect with black Baltimoreans, for example? Also, climate change disproportionately impacts poor and minority communities (especially in the South and Southwest), so having a pro-fossil-fuel Democrat as President would be pretty daft with respect to this.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Manchin will never win the nomination but if he does, it is the biggest chance for a 3rd party in many decades. Not only is he conservative & has not supported gay marriage (Don't Ask Don't tell vote opposition), spoke out for defunding Planned Parenthood once, but he is also a climate change denier.

Also, when a Democratic President is a climate changer denier, there is no hope left. The fate of the world is at stake here & there is no bigger issue than Climate Change. You can think of compromises in other areas but not on Climate Change.

What kind of terrible human being are you if you believe in Climate Change & would support Manchin in a primary over other Democrats?

https://www.manchin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/manchin-responds-to-pope-francis-on-climate-change

He believes climate change is real.

Every Climate Change Denier including Pruitt say they believe Climate Change is real. It is new "In thing". This is the same guy cheered withdrawal from Paris Agreement. Anyways, people are free to support who they want, but what does it say of the values of the party if Manchin is the nominee.

Not supporting Paris doesn't mean not believing climate change is real. It means that they aren't supporting something necessary to stop it imo, but that doesn't mean they think climate change is fake.

There's a difference between believing something is real and not doing something to support that.

Honestly, not doing anything about climate change with the knowledge that is happening is even worse.