Andrew Yang secured enough unique donors to enter debate stage

[DarthMetalliCube]

HylianSwordsman said:

DarthMetalliCube said:

Wow no no no, absolutely not lol.. I have close familiy that is Jewish. But even if I didn't, I have less than zero against Jewish people.. That would be absurd and unfair for me to argue that baked in traits means you're pushing identity politics. What I mean is his statements like "white people don't know what it's like to be poor", talking about the "wage gap", which has long since been debunked that it has to do with sexism. He's also talked about "racial equity" with his policies. No, not "equality", which I of course support, but EQUITY, whcih means litterally giving people of certain races advantages over others, to "tip the scales" in their favor I guess or help even things out in some way, which basically means enacting racist policies.

He sold out by basically bowing out of the race and supporting the very pro Wall Street, pro free trade Clinton, despite being very much against both himself. Considering he got very clearly screwed over by the DNC with the collusion and super delagate fiasco, I wish he would just just made more of a stink about it I guess. Though I suppose you could say his hands were tied somewhat. 

Bernie thrives far more when he focuses on the economy, Wall Street, foreign policy, etc. which I haven't seen as much lately. I've seen more just typical anti Trump hysteria and identity politic jargon which I find repellent. Like, yes, yes I get it. "Orange man bad" and all. That's great.. Tell me specifically how YOU would make a better president. That's what I want. Tulsi and Yang seem like they're doing that far more. Focusing on solutions far more than negativity and what NOT to do.

Regardless, I just don't find him as appealing as I once did. 

He backed Clinton because he considered Trump a threat to democracy. He was afraid, and still is, that Trump would/will undermine the democratic mechanisms of the US so that he would effectively have a dictatorship. For someone who calls himself a classical liberal and cultural libertarian, you'd have to be a fool to support Trump. Bernie is right, Trump is a threat to liberal democracy (wherein liberal is the classical sense like you believe in). And it took incredible humility to support Clinton after she cheated him like that. He didn't make a stink because he knew what was at risk, and made a very principled sacrifice, and here you shit on him for "selling out". He made it very clear in the primaries what the difference between him and Clinton was and why he didn't like her, but swallowed his pride and supported the side that wasn't a threat to liberal democracy worldwide. To be able to do that, he had to have more humility in his left pinky toe than the entire Clinton family put together has. And he has said all sorts of things about how he would make a better President, including dealing with automation, showing that he's thinking ahead just like Yang is.

I don't support Trump. But I did (and still do) think he's the lesser of evils between him and warmongering neolib/neocon Clinton, if only slightly.

Bernie was just as unlike Hillary Clinton as he was unlike Trump, maybe more. They actually both had the overlap (at least initially) of being anti war, anti free trade, bringing manufacturing jobs back to America, etc.

There are many things about Trump I dislike, but I disagree with the laughable notion that he's a "threat to democracy". This is largely just media hype and sensationalism by Dem politicians and the media, who's interests quite obviously conflicted with an outsider like Trump. 

I still believe Bernie would have beaten Trump because he had the Rust Belt/Mid West of the US (trust me, as a Midwesterner I know - our jobs have been hit the hardest). Clinton did not have these regions - many of which were the swing states. Hence why she lost. If anything, it was Clinton that should have backed down, not Bernie.