Why would any religious person vote for bernie sanders??

sequoia

Tue, Apr 19 2016, 2:29 pm

I spend a lot of time on Russian-speaking segment of the internet, and I can assure you that most people are not just ignorant about the US but aggressively so. If the information doesn't fit their pre-conceived notions, they start yelling at you and accusing you of making things up.

leah233

Tue, Apr 19 2016, 2:35 pm

marina wrote:

My question actually is exactly on point because many schools afford points to students from low socio economic backgrounds and this happens to overlap a lot with race because poor people tend to be minorities.

Affirmative action is a complicated issue with many interesting facets. If you just want to boil it down to insisting it is unethical discrimination, I'm not sure what there is to talk about.

I'm only discussing it's current actual form of application. Not hypothetical scenarios

marina

Tue, Apr 19 2016, 2:40 pm

leah233 wrote:

I'm only discussing it's current actual form of application. Not hypothetical scenarios

Again, what I said is what actually happens. Students coming from poverty are given admission points. Because of socio economic reality, it ends up favoring more minorities. That's what my question was addressing.

As an aside, any good discussion where both parties understand their other side usually involves hypotheticals. Hypotheticals test the parameters of your position and clarify your priorities.

But hey, if you're not interested discussing the merits of your position, that's fine- I just misunderstood.

leah233

Tue, Apr 19 2016, 2:44 pm

marina wrote:

I don't don't want to discuss hypotheticals because they are obscuring the issue making the conversation pointless. Just answer this one question: Why is discriminating against someone because they were born a white male morally correct?

marina

Tue, Apr 19 2016, 3:12 pm

leah233 wrote:

This is not an episode of "Hillel and shammai and the ger." I'm not answering complex ethical and social issues on one foot.

There are many reasons why it may be ethical to choose a non white male over a white male. Even if it's a very basic "hey- this is my school and I established it and I want some diversity in my classes." But this is all pointless because you're not interested in discussing or learning anything really.

leah233

Tue, Apr 19 2016, 3:23 pm

marina wrote:

When you don't give answers and don't address the issue directly but just ask about more and more hypothetical laws you are ignoring the actual law and issues as they stand.I have nothing to learn from or discuss in such a endless line of questioning.

There are many reasons why it may be ethical to choose a non white male over a white male. Even if it's a very basic "hey- this is my school and I established it and I want some diversity in my classes.

What about "hey- this is my school and I established it and I DON'T want any diversity in my classes?

This is my last comment on this thread.

marina

Tue, Apr 19 2016, 3:48 pm

leah233 wrote:

Then society and its laws get to weigh the relative benefits and drawbacks of allowing you to deliberately exclude minorities for the goal of having an all white classroom. Chances are that society will decide this is not a worthy goal, at least not as worthy as the goal of having a diverse classroom.

This is probably not my last post in this thread:)

And FYI, you have directly ignored the socio economic diversity argument I've brought to your attention at least twice.

Also lol I am not ignoring the actual law. That's because there is no actual law. No federal law requires companies or universities or groups to hire or accept minorities over white males. Hope that makes you feel better.

Exceptions include some government contractors with over 50k who do have to have affirmative action programs for disabled pple, veterans, and some other minorities. But if you don't want to contract with the government on that scale, you don't have to have any affirmative action program at all.

Imogen

Tue, Apr 19 2016, 5:35 pm

If I was an American I would indeed be tempted to vote for Bernie Sanders, but his erroneous comments on the number of innocents killed in Gaza freaked me out. " 10 000 innocents" was a distortion beyond belief, if he was unsure he should have avoided specifying figures. I believe in social justice and the need for greater control of the banking corporate world. Bernie does seem to stand for the underdog. But to me Israel's welfare and the special relationship with the USA make it essential that a candidate is pro, and I do not feel he is. But if you are parev about Israel and some are, concerned with their own country of citizenship and domicile, ok why not Sanders.

Please however do not call concern for Israel "treason", on American Public Radio a respected journalist accused Bernie of having Israeli citizenship, he does not, but he is a Jew and our enemies are always happy to play the card of Jews being untrustworthy due to our loyalties to the Jewish state before our loyalties to countries of residence. Our relationship with Israel is very special, for me Israel's wellbeing is paramount as a Jew and I do not think Israel's security is threatening to the US, if anything, it compliments US ethos and founding principles.

Imogen

Tue, Apr 19 2016, 5:44 pm

http://www.politifact.com/pund.....ande/

Worrying and antisemitic so called " mistake|", it is natural for Jews to seek Israel's safety, to accuse them of disloyalty is unfair and dangerous.

Marina I very much enjoy all your posts and observations, freedom of speech is something precious, so I am beholden to respect your right to assert your view re US elections and Israel, but it is to me a slippery slope towards disregarding the special relationship and sustenance needed to keep Israel safe and secure in a very hard environment. Israeli voters contend with issues we in the West do not have to face on a daily basis, US voters do not need their concern regarding survival and support, but Israeli voters need US goodwill.

PinkFridge

Tue, Apr 19 2016, 8:57 pm

marina wrote:

I don't think I'm exactly agreeing with you on this thread but my head can't process all this. But I do LOVE the bolded.

As for the Cousin Bernie* and the underdog, I heard that the reason the sheep - SHEEP! Meek and helpless, not soaring and majestic like the American Bald Eagle - were the god of Egypt was because they worshipped the underdog. It's a noble sentiment but when you support an underdog just because he/she/it is an underdog and not because he/she/it is a worthy underdog, you are not exactly noble yourself.
Not saying anyone is, but it's an interesting thought.

* there's enough Polish in my family tree that I wouldn't be surprised if we were fifth or sixth cousins once removed

gold21

Tue, Apr 19 2016, 10:35 pm

I, for one, am not feeling the Bern.

Israel is definitely a sensitive topic for me- perhaps because I'm jewish, and perhaps because I dont appreciate when liberals, in their attempt to be supportive of the underdog, misrepresent who the underdogs actually are, on Israel-related and non-Israel-related issues alike.

Hilary seems more moderate to me, so between the two, definitely Hilary.

happybeingamom

Wed, Apr 20 2016, 2:06 pm

Many of Bernie Sanders policies are socialist. I am anti that. His taxing the rich to give to the poor I am against that and what always happens is the middle class get taxed more and the rich find loopholes.

In addition his views on the State of Israel have now firmly turned me against his candidacy.

I used to be anti affirmative action but I have changed my mind over the last few years and I support it. My change of opinion was seeing the actual discrimination and the long term effects that it causes so I feel there is a need to actively get qualified, competent minorities into every part of the economy.

marina

Wed, Apr 20 2016, 2:52 pm

happybeingamom wrote:

Can you tell me more about your last paragraph? I had a similar change of heart after working in some low socio economic schools. I came away with a feeling that the kids who made it through school and life over so many unbelievable obstacles are such resilient individuals with such critical skills that I wanted them in every college classroom. Well, an exaggeration, but that was my perspective.

happybeingamom

Wed, Apr 20 2016, 3:48 pm

marina wrote:

A supervisor I know was showing his minority employee their new office now there was last minute maintenance that needed to be done at the office. An individual there went over to the minority employee and asked him to please fix the door knob. It was just assumed that the minority employee was a maintenance person because of the color of the skin. The supervisor told me (this person is a slight bigot so no liberal point of view here) can you imagine what it must feel like to be automatically assumed the maintenance worker just because the color of your skin, it must be an awful feeling.

This incident really got me thinking of how people are automatically classed at first glance. That automatic view of looking less at a minority will stop them from advancing. In order for this perspective to change people need to get used to seeing qualified minorities in professions.

Affirmative action gives opportunity for minorities to get a foot in the door and a constant presence will change the mindset from generations of bigotry that they won't be looked on as less qualified at first glance.

This is my opinion.

ora_43

Tue, Jun 14 2016, 6:04 am

marina wrote:

I think the general idea is that your loyalty is to your country first. So if your political decisions are based on what is best for a different country, that would be disloyal in a way that other one-issue voting is not.

With apologies for bringing up an old thread,
I was talking about voting based on what's best for the world in general, or at least for several countries/ a region.

I don't think it's disloyal at all. Part of what makes a country great, or the opposite, is how it interacts with the rest of the world.

I do think there's such a thing as disloyal voting, if someone's primary loyalty is to a second country and they vote accordingly. But if someone is living in the country they're voting in and views that country as home, there's nothing at all wrong with making "how my country treats the rest of the world" their top concern.