The reason Bernie's dismissal of reparations matters.

[DanTex]

It's not because reparations are going to pass congress. Obviously they won't. Neither will single payer or free college for everyone.

It's a question of values. Bernie isn't running as a pragmatic candidate. He's running as a revolution candidate. He's saying look at the world as it should be, and make it that way. And whenever someone points out that politically his proposals are a pipe dream, they get accused of being "anti-hope". The argument is, when analyzing Bernie's agenda, we should more or less assume that he has universal fiat power. He will usher in a revolution, and backed by a massive wave of popular support, even Republicans will have to bow to his agenda or get voted out.

OK. So enter reparations. Politically, they are on the same ground as single payer: non-starters. Morally, they are also on the same ground at least, likely even stronger ground. Universal healthcare is a moral imperative, but single payer is only one possible way to achieve it. When it comes to reparations, it's difficult to make a moral argument that the descendants of those who suffered from slavery, the harms of which are quite obviously still ubiquitous, aren't due reparations.

So far, the only excuse I've seen for Bernie's dismissal of reparations is "Hillary doesn't want them either." Which, first of all, it's pretty odd for Bernie fans who dislike most everything about Hillary to be using Hillary of all people to justify Bernie's stance. But it also totally misses the point. Hillary isn't running on the assumption that she will have universal fiat. She is running a pragmatic platform. I happen to agree with her on this -- ignoring political reality, pretending there is no house, senate or supreme court, is not a wise thing to do.

But I get that people might disagree, call me cynical, etc. What I don't get is why people who insist that a candidate's proposals should reflect ideals as opposed to realism, are opposed to including reparations under those ideals. What's different between reparations and single payer?

[restorefreedom]

1. total bullshit, dan

they put out almost identical statements about community building and education.

the three candidates are basically identical in this regard.

now, how about hillary having an advisor who was a profit prison lobbyist.....kinda works against the whole reparations thing, dontcha think?

have a great day, dan!

[DanTex]

3. This is the level of response I expected. I wonder if anyone can come up with something rational?

[restorefreedom]

9. what response is that?

irritation at bullshit baiting?

oh, and for some light reading....

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-obama-doesn-back-reparations-don-blast-sanders-article-1.2506362

[DanTex]

11. Ad hominem, ignoring the question.

Bernie isn't Obama, he's a pure idealist. Obama didn't propose single payer or free college either.

[restorefreedom]

21. so which issue would you like to discuss?

on reparations, they are all basically the same

if you have an issue with tuition free state and community college or medicare for all, then those should be threads on their own so they can be debated.

but if you want to use the issue of reparations to impune bernies character, you are way off. he is fighting harder than anyone (om too) for economic justice, to decriminalize marijuana, and to get rid of the disgusting sourge of profit prisons. which are largely filled with poc.
he is fighting way harder than hillary to right the wrongs of institutionalized racism and economic, health, educational, and environmental bias.

THERE'S your reparations.....

what say you about hillary having an advisor who was a lobbyist for profit prisons? seems to be a teensy conflict of interest, i would say....

[DanTex]

24. Well, you can start by reading the OP.

I've already pointed out that their being the same is totally irrelevant. Hillary is a pragmatist, Bernie is an idealist. and given how much you dislike her, it's surprising that you would excuse Bernie's anti-reparations stance by pointing to Hillary as all people.

Single payer and reparations are extremely similar, in that they is a moral case for them, but politically they are non-starters. In fact, as I pointed out, there is a stronger moral case for reparations. It's a bit curious that Bernie dismisses reparations, but is so adamant about single payer.

And surely the reason isn't just that Hillary does it too. You don't really think Bernie takes his cues from Hillary, do you?

[pandr32]

30. This!

You are spot on.

[restorefreedom]

33. i did read the op and your basic premise is incorrcect

sure, there is a moral case for many things, some are doable and some not. but putting sp and reparations in the same "ground" to use your word, is ridiculous.

reparations has many logistical difficulties which we all know and others have iterated. sp, medicare for all IS doable and can happen. the only roadblock to it are the knuckledraggers in congress.

bernie wins white house. we pick up h and s seats, probsbly take the senate
2018..we have a steonghold of progressives in the senate and possibly retake the house, or at least get a very close match with r with many progressives having run.

the environment becomes much more favorable to m for a.

he did not say he would do it on day one. or even day 100. but he said he would do it.

comparing tht to the logistical hornets nest of reparations is a flawed premise, therefore anything derived from it is also incorrect.

[DanTex]

41. You seriously think that single payer doesn't have "many logistical difficulties"?

Are you kidding? Even pro-single-payer pundits like Krugman have concluded that Bernie's plan is unworkable. Single payer has already been tried and failed in Vermont.

It's really curious that Bernie would just give up on reparations so easily, while making something equally if not more unworkable the centerpiece of his campaign. Doubly so given that anyone who points out that single payer isn't happening is immediately branded a "no hoper."

Bizarre, really. Particularly in that progressive congressional take-over scenario you have described. As I said in the OP, Bernie's whole platform depends on the presumption that he has, in effect, universal fiat power.

Universal fiat, and no reparations. Curious.

[restorefreedom]

58. krugman has sold his soul to the devil of greed and capitalism.

his opinion is meaningless to me.

bernie was not in charge of vermont government at that time..he was the u.s. senator. and comparing a tiny state like vt to the economy of the u.s. is apples and kumquats.

like i said, reparations are built into his platform, unlike other candidates who just provide lip service. as to actual payments to individuals, when someone comes up with a way to figure out who gets payment, how much each should get, where the money should come from, how to verify ancestry and slave history, and calculate a fair distribution, lets present that to all the dem candidate and see what they say.

until then, its speculative. meanwhile, bernies platform does more to improve the lives of poc than hillary, who wants to keep marijuana illegal, min wage at 12, keep the insurance companies rich, and keep sending wealth upward.

[DanTex]

64. Obviously, under the bus goes Krugman.

Funny that when it comes to reparations, you think it's OK for Bernie to dismiss the issue until someone else comes up with a way to figure out how to implement it. Evidently he doesn't care very much about it, otherwise he could have some staffers do just that. Or, you know, get in touch with the people who are supporting it and see what they are proposing. It's not like this is a brand new concept.

Of course, I'm sure there are people who will say it's impossible, but presumably they'll be dismissed as selling their soul to the devil of greed and capitalism.

[restorefreedom]

68. hillary has a much bigger staff

hell she was sos! wheres her plan?

[Empowerer]

89. Exactly!

He hasn't even bothered to consider it - just said it's too hard and moved on.

There are very respected people working hard to study this - including Rep. John Conyers - and the blatant dismissal of this as an issue is an insult to the people who care about this.

[riversedge]

53. Good point.

[angrychair]

83. Funny

You said "Ad hominem" (in the wrong context) but that is what you are doing in your OP rant: "attacking the person, not the issue".

The argument is about reasoning for Sanders not supporting reparations. You then pepper your rant with ad hominem attacks on the character of Sanders.

Your argument as a whole is what is known as a syllogistic fallacy.
The two premises from your arguement are that:
1) Sanders is a pure idealist
2) doesn't understand how Congress/'real world'/people work

Therefore, the specific fallacy is the:

"Fallacy of exclusive premises"

Your argument is a fallacy because the first categorical argument "Sanders is an idealist and creating things that he knows (or doesn't realize) cannot become reality" is proven false on its premise because he has created actual detailed explanations, policy statements, on how it would be implemented and sustained. These plans have been accepted as possible by noted experts in their respective fields of experience. Second, he has advocated for and pushed legislation for single payer in Congress as a member of Congress.
It is an empirical truth that Sanders is not "pure idealist and creating things that he knows (or doesn't realize) cannot become reality" since he has created actual policy statements in connection to those items and experts in those fields have found them to be workable.

The second fallacy, "doesn't understand how Congress/'real world'/people work" is false because he is a sitting member of Congress, as been elected several times as a member of the House of Representatives and is currently a member of the Senate. He has run more than a dozen successful and unsuccessful election campaigns, has had more admendments passed in Congress than any other member of Congress.
All of these things are empirical proof that he understands how our government and/or people work.

Because you do not agree with the policies does not change anything. Disagreeing is fine. Your current argument is illogical and emotional, not fact based.
There is nothing wrong with that. A lot of political beliefs can be emotional. You should be willing to accept that and not convey it as something it is not: factual.

[DanTex]

84. Well that was fun. Rewriting the OP, because as written it was too difficult to respond to.

Well done.

[angrychair]

87. Not really

It specifically addresses the concepts in your OP. That it is emotional (I add there is nothing inherently wrong with that as long as that is made clear) and a logical fallacy, specifically the "fallacy of exclusive premises" and I give evidence to support my conjecture as to do otherwise is an ad hominem attack.

I'll give you that it's longer than I intended and I apologize for that.

[roguevalley]

88. no one running supports reparations so until EVERYONE gets the same slams and

scrutiny, this is more bullshit politics.

[Motown_Johnny]

2. Your desperation is palpable.

I honestly hope you get what you want. If this becomes an issue in the primary Hillary will look worse than Bernie.

What has the Clinton foundation done to help poor African American communities? What has either Clinton done with their time in office to help?

It is a matter of priorities, for all the candidates.


Double standards are very telling. They are only used when one knows that applying standards fairly hurts them.

[DanTex]

4. Meh, ad hominem. How about a coherent response to the question I raised?

I agree about double standards. Why the double standard when it comes to reparations versus single payer?

Hmm....

[Motown_Johnny]

6. Your question is stupid.

Reparations would be race based. It would also be a logistical impossibility to try and single out who is descended from a slave and who isn't. Some people would be missed simply because the records of births among newly freed slaves were not a priority for the government. There is no precedent for such a thing.

Single payer is in use all over the world. It would cover everyone, regardless of race, religion, gender, economic status etc. etc. etc..

There are plenty of working models to learn from and to apply to our version of it.


The fact that you actually asked such a stupid question is also very telling. Your desperation is palpable.



Now, how about an answer to the questions I asked?

[DanTex]

13. OK, so you are opposed to reparations in principle, not for political reasons.

Fair enough. A lot of people are in favor, but not everyone. Bernie is opposed not for policy reasons, but for political ones, and that's what I find strange.

[Motown_Johnny]

15. No, because it is a logistical impossibility.

I said that in my post.

"It would also be a logistical impossibility"


How can you even attempt to twist my words so terribly? It seems you are not serious about this subject, just attacking anyone and anything you can possibly attack.



Again, how about an answer to the questions I asked?

[DanTex]

17. Well, many, many people disagree with you about that. But fair enough.

It would certainly be complicated, I guess that's enough for some people to want to just give up.

Also, many, many people believe that transitioning to single payer is a logistical impossibility in the US as well. Particularly Bernie's plan, which even pro-single-payer pundits have described as unworkable.

As to your questions, I don't know, I'm sure you can google it. Not sure what the relevance is.

[Motown_Johnny]

26. You claim it is about priorities. Hillary's priorities are relevant,

unless you are applying a double standard. It is almost unbelievable that you can't understand the relevance of her priorities in this discussion. Are you being honest about that or are you just avoiding the question?


I am in favor of affirmative action. I believe the way to try to help the people who have been wronged by our society is to take that wrongdoing into account when considering them for jobs, schooling, housing etc..

This is a practical approach which has had some success so far. Unfortunately, there are still segments of our society which fight any attempt at fairness, even this one. Even the SCOTUS has ruled against it.

Reparations are impossible. Single payer isn't. Your comparing the two is disturbing.

[DanTex]

27. Hillary's priorities are getting things accomplished.

She's consistent. Bernie is the one that's inconsistent here.

He's proposing all kinds of things that are impossible in practice. But somehow reparations are off the list.

[Motown_Johnny]

51. You are backward.

Bernie has had the same message for 40 years. Hillary flips every time the polls change.

Bernie has not proposed things that are impossible. Single payer is possible. Hell, Teddy Roosevelt proposed health care as a right in 1912, I suppose he was proposing the impossible?


Please see my post #43 about why reparations can't be done.

[DanTex]

57. So Bernie's been against reparations for 40 years? I didn't know that.

I get that you have a very pessimistic "can't do" attitude when it comes to reparations, and I guess Bernie is the same way. Where did the rose-colored glasses he uses for single payer and free college go?

[Motown_Johnny]

75. I am not aware of him ever being asked that question before.

Bernie has been consistent about equality for 40 years. Economic, racial and gay. He has been on record since the early 70's on these things.




He does not have rose colored glasses for single payer and tuition free college. These things exist in other countries. They have been done and are being done right now. He believes we can do it too. That is realistic.


Hillary flips every time the wind blows. Marriage equality, the Bush Bankruptcy Bill, TPP, Keystone, etc.


I am still waiting for a response to the question I have now asked 5 times. I will rephrase it and try again.

You claim that priorities matter and that Hillary is about getting things done. You should then be able to produce a long list of things she has done to help poor African American communities. Unless of course those communities are not a priority for her.

What has Hillary done to help poor African American communities?

[DanTex]

76. That in itself is interesting: he's never even thought about it before.

[Motown_Johnny]

78. Will you please answer my question? I answered yours.

Or do you hold yourself to a lower standard than you expect from me?


Given that you are a Clinton supporter, it would not surprise me.



P.S. Your assumption that he has not thought of it before is baseless. I said that I am not aware if he had been asked about it before. Given that he has been active in fighting for racial equality for at least 52 years, it is very possible that he had given it quite a bit of thought and that his answer is a measured and reasoned one. Much like his answers that Clinton supporters misrepresent as being "rainbows and ponies".

[DanTex]

80. I already did. Clinton is not in favor of reparations, consistent with her overall pragmatism.

Not sure what this has to do with Bernie or the OP.

[Motown_Johnny]

82. That was not my question.

You said it is about priorities. I ask again, what has Hillary done to help poor African American communities? You said earlier that you could Google it.

Good luck with that.

[riversedge]

61. You complain that Hillary says single payer Can't get done-and Here YOU are saying the Same.

[Motown_Johnny]

77. No I am not. Single payer CAN be done.

It has been done, many times. I never said anything like what you claim I said. Bernie has proposed doing it, but it did not get passed. That does not mean that it can't be done. It can be.



http://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-by-date/

^snip^

Norway 1912 Single Payer
New Zealand 1938 Two Tier
Japan 1938 Single Payer
Germany 1941 Insurance Mandate
Belgium 1945 Insurance Mandate
United Kingdom 1948 Single Payer
Kuwait 1950 Single Payer
Sweden 1955 Single Payer
Bahrain 1957 Single Payer
Brunei 1958 Single Payer
Canada 1966 Single Payer
Netherlands 1966 Two-Tier
Austria 1967 Insurance Mandate
United Arab Emirates 1971 Single Payer
Finland 1972 Single Payer
Slovenia 1972 Single Payer
Denmark 1973 Two-Tier
Luxembourg 1973 Insurance Mandate
France 1974 Two-Tier
Australia 1975 Two Tier
Ireland 1977 Two-Tier
Italy 1978 Single Payer
Portugal 1979 Single Payer
Cyprus 1980 Single Payer
Greece 1983 Insurance Mandate
Spain 1986 Single Payer
South Korea 1988 Insurance Mandate
Iceland 1990 Single Payer
Hong Kong 1993 Two-Tier
Singapore 1993 Two-Tier
Switzerland 1994 Insurance Mandate
Israel 1995 Two-Tier

[Empowerer]

90. It's not a logistical impossibility but it is difficult and complicated

And the reason it is difficult and complicated is that, when it would have been was to do, reparations were blatantly denied and every subsequent effort to obtain them was ignored, laughed at and, as you are doing now, dismissed as much too complicated because "too much time has passed."

Well, yes, a hell of a lot of time has passed - WHICH WAS PART OF THE OPPRESSION. And now people are being punished further because the denial and delaying tactics have so far been successful.

It is really sad to hear so-called liberals tell African Americans "oh we'd love to help you, but because the country continued to keep its boot on your neck, it's now too much trouble for me to help you out. So you'll need to just get over it. And now, come on over here and support MY candidate who has some plans that benefit ME and if you get on board, there might be something in it for you, too. Maybe."

[Motown_Johnny]

93. Logistics is different than logical

I don't know if that is a typo or if you just don't understand what I said.


I think everyone who is a liberal is in favor of continuing affirmative action programs to try and help everyone who has been oppressed. The real problem is that there are plenty of people who are not descended from slaves who also need help.

I think that taking the approach of reparations is oversimplifying the problems.

If you can come up with some approach that might work, I would be happy to reconsider my opinion. Just claiming that it isn't impossible without anything to back that statement up isn't an argument, it is just contradiction.

[Empowerer]

98. It was a typo - I'll correct it.

[Empowerer]

99. Did you read my post beyond the heading?

I suggested something to read that offers some approaches. If you would like to read it and then discuss, I am open to further discussion.

And while you think that I am "claiming that it isn't impossible without anything to back it up," you are claiming that it IS impossible without anything to back it up.

[thomservo]

18. "opposed to reparations in principle"?

read the post again.

[joshcryer]

16. You don't know any of that.

Reparations haven't even been studied.

The whole point of John Conyers bill (and Coates articles on reparations) is simply about studying the issue, like they tried to pass a bill to study gun deaths.

An ACA-like reparation approach might give free education to slave descendants, free low interest mortgages, business loans, etc. It wouldn't necessarily be some kind of windfall of free money.

Some variants of single payer are non-viable. In the compromise process what would happen with single payer if they passed it without coverage for abortions or contraceptives? Or didn't have cost controls (without cost controls it'd spiral out of control very quickly).

Mind you, I support Sanders on single payer because it's a strong negotiation point, and he can use it to bring us the public option. I like starting with a strong hand.

But I'm not naive of the possibility of it passing. Just like reparations don't have a possibility of passing.

But I support studying the issue.

[Motown_Johnny]

43. How would you determine who is deserving of reparations?

Not every African American is descended from a slave. You would need to trace lineage and without birth records people deserving of them would be left out.

If you paid any attention to the problems with demanding ID to vote you would know that many people alive today don't have the proper birth records for an ID. There is no way you can believe that it is possible to trace lineage for persons descended from slaves back 150 years.

I do know that it can't be done.

Here are a few examples:

http://www.866ourvote.org/pages/think-getting-free-id-is-easy-think-again

^snip^

Wiola Lee

Wiola Lee, 59, was born in rural Georgia and moved to Philadelphia in her early youth to live with her grandmother. Ms. Lee worked for the Philadelphia Public Schools, including special needs children. She has voted for well over 30 years and has been civically active, volunteering as a poll worker in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. With the new voter ID laws, Ms. Lee is trying to access her birth certificate which she will need in order to obtain a photo ID, but the state of Georgia has no record of her birth. Without a photo ID, Ms. Lee will not be able to vote.

Dorothy Barksdale

Dorothy Barksdale was born at home by a midwife in rural Halifax County, Virginia in 1926. She and her niece have tried unsuccessfully for three years to obtain a birth certificate from the State of Virginia and was recently told that they have no record of her birth. Dorothy's niece called into 1-866-OUR-VOTE after learning about the new photo ID requirement in order to vote, looking for assistance on how to get an ID. Ms. Barkdale started working as a poll worker in Philadelphia shortly after the passage of the Voting Rights Act and now may not be able to vote in November.

Louise Furness

Louise who is 96 does not have a driver's license, which is an approved form of ID and no longer drives making it difficult for her to visit the DMV in order to get the photo ID. Like Ms. Decoursey she was born to a midwife in North Carolina and does not possess the birth certificate need to obtain an voter ID card. Many seniors like Ms. Furness now face the difficult task of finding the documents in order to get photo ID in order to vote.


Donna Suggs

Donna Suggs, born by midwife, does not have a birth certificate. Because her birth was never reported, Donna could not get the necessary birth certificate to apply for an ID to vote. Only after an attorney stepped in to help was Donna able to successfully get her free ID.

[joshcryer]

54. You study it?

DNA is one route lineage can be determined so I don't think you're taking this seriously at all. You're making it out to be an impossible task. Yet you have no academic studies to show that.

[Motown_Johnny]

81. DNA can't tell you when your ancestor came to America.

Pres. Obama's DNA would show that he has African lineage. He is not descended from a slave.


It is an impossible task. There is not even any theoretical way to accomplish it much less a practical one.

[mmonk]

5. Still hypocrisy unless you can explain a pragmatic candidate's

dismissal is acceptable to you. It does not matter what one's political description is called. What should ring true or false with one should not mean it changes with another. The question does not change if the answer is the same.

[JRLeft]

7. Dan could give a fuck about reparations or black people he's using reparations as bludgeoning

tool to go after Bernie.

[DanTex]

10. Another ad-hominem. I'm starting to think nobody has a cogent answer.

[JRLeft]

12. I'm black and I can tell when someone is using my people.

[restorefreedom]

23. game, set, match. nt

[JRLeft]

28. If he cared about reparations he would have explained why it's the moral thing to do

instead he went into a diatribe about why we cannot pass single payer.

[restorefreedom]

36. interesting, isn't it? nt

[restorefreedom]

47. but if we call bs, its ad hominem. alrighty. nt

[JRLeft]

72. Of course it is.

[DanTex]

29. That's quite an accusation. How about keeping the ad hominem out of this?

[JRLeft]

31. It's not ad hominem when it's true.

[DanTex]

32. Well, it's not true. But even if it were, it would still be ad hominem -- attacking me and not

the argument. Generally a sign of not being able to refute the argument itself, and resorting instead to smearing the person making it.

[JRLeft]

34. Do you support reparations?

[DanTex]

50. Yes. Of course, they'd be difficult in practice, but morally I don't see the argument against them.

Do you?

[JRLeft]

62. Why?

[JRLeft]

63. Oh I do, I also realize the only people who will help black people

are black people.

[DanTex]

65. I believe it is morally required to compensate victims of slavery and their descendants.

Morally, it's similar to reparations for, say, WWII internment camps, only obviously slavery is much worse.

Are you in favor?

[JRLeft]

67. Read the post above.

[DanTex]

71. OK. Fair enough.

[uponit7771]

94. +1, next they'll call you poopy head and that's when you know the meltdown is comin

[appalachiablue]

39. The dangerous one, scary man!

[Kentonio]

8. Aren't you just repeating what Coates said, basically?

[virtualobserver]

14. What you don't get is that Bernie IS pragmatic and never claimed to be otherwise

The attacks on Bernie are quite hilarious. Some of your cohorts claim that Bernie is all about unicorns and rainbows.

Your new attack is that there aren't enough unicorns and rainbows.

Only cynical Hillarians would possibly say that since lifting 300 lbs (single payer) is hard and unrealistic, why aren't you lifting 600 lbs (reparations).

Bernie says, if we all work together we can lift that 300 lbs but only if we all work together.

[DanTex]

20. Thank you. A plausible response.

Reparations are more difficult to pass than single payer, so it's worth going for single payer but not reparations. A bit cynical, but not as much as Hillary, I guess is the idea.

I don't agree -- neither of them has any chance -- and I don't know if Bernie can actually believe that either, but at least that's plausible.

[virtualobserver]

49. the only cynical element at work is Team Hillary with this kind of attack

Hillary is the low expectations candidate.

[uponit7771]

96. and that's ok given our situation in congress.. Sanders popularity is built off of these unicorns

... he loses the unicorns he loses the revolution

[ram2008]

19. One day Bernie is a right-winger [see guns] the next he's radical leftist

When are you Hillary supporters going to make up your minds on the line of attack? Camp weathervane is spinning in circles, lol.

[Bonobo]

22. I totally support reparations in principle.

What I find ridiculous beyond words is the claim that somehow Bernie Sanders needs to answer this question more than Clinton because he is supposedly a "revolution candidate".

For one thing, "revolutionary" does not mean that he has to support every position deemed to be revolutionary.

For another, it is your claim -amounting to a straw man - that he is not "pragmatic".

The whole thing is ridiculous, Dan. The argument you are making is really, really weak.

[HerbChestnut]

25. The reason his stance on reparations matters is...

...because Dan says so.

[Jarqui]

35. "When it comes to reparations, it's difficult to make a moral argument

that the descendants of those who suffered from slavery, the harms of which are quite obviously still ubiquitous, aren't due reparations. "

I wouldn't want to try to argue against that morally. I haven't given it tons of thought to consider all the angles so maybe I'm wrong.

I think Harper's did an estimate of $100 trillion for reparations for slavery. That's a staggering amount of money. The net worth of the United States is $269 trillion.

But my reaction is "where does this end?" Do we line up with the families of the six million jews and go after Germany? Do we go after the countries ISIS is in for compensation for the people they have slaughtered? And do countries get to go after the US for all the innocent citizens their bombs killed in wars?

Very quickly, the US and probably most countries wouldn't be worth a dime. Reparations would clean them out.

I remember looking into who started the conflict in Ireland. One side had their opinion. The other side had their opinion. Both were very different, blaming the other. So reparations in general could stir up old conflicts.

And like a family fighting over an estate where there is no will, think of all the conflict over the money as folks try to get their "rightful" piece of the reparation pie.

I don't think the world has the assets to sort out the reparations for all that has gone on in the past. Slavery is but one of many, many injustices. What about the North American Indians who were here before many of Euro descent showed up and took all their land and all but wiped them out? How much are their reparations?

You cannot just look at slavery. How much will all of this cost, where does it end and how many lives will be lost fighting over this? Are all questions without answers.

Single payer solves a specific set of problems. It's not pie in the sky as most industrialized nations do it. Most nations are not clamoring for reparations. I think they're very different. One has been proven again and again to be achievable in a country and the other goes down a road with no end in sight and nowhere close to the assets available to pay for all the wrong that has gone on in history.

[elias49]

37. Conflating reparations with single payer is disingenuous to start. OP fails.

Try something else.

[JRLeft]

42. Used reparations as a cover to go after Bernie.

[DanTex]

46. It's not conflation, it's drawing a contrast and point out a severe double standard.

[elias49]

52. Who's using a double-standard?

Please describe Clinton's 'reparations' plan.

Quit while you're ahead...ahem...I mean before the hole gets too big.

[DanTex]

73. Read the OP again. It's not about Clinton. Why is this so confusing?

[Bonobo]

69. IRONY AWARD!

Congratulations.

[DanTex]

74. All caps and substance free. The standard Bernie fan response.

[fredamae]

40. Perhaps this helps

put some perspective on this issue.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-obama-doesn-back-reparations-don-blast-sanders-article-1.2506362

[DanTex]

44. Since when do Bernie fans restrict them to policies that Obama wants? Is Bernie pro-TPP now?

[fredamae]

45. Huh? n/t

[DanTex]

48. Yes, that was my response. Maybe you replied to the wrong OP.

[fredamae]

59. lol, well..no

I have No idea how to connect your response to the issue.
It was Hillary herself that stated she was taking Obamas platform forward.
Has she come out against PBO's position and state she Supported reparations?
Again: "Huh?"

[ecstatic]

55. K&R. nt

[riversedge]

56. REC. Sanders dodged the question yesterday. Even silly Chuck Todd noted the dodge and asked

him again.

[berni_mccoy]

60. So, Clinton is ready to grant reparations then? I didn't know that.

[Thenewire]

66. Sanders was the best senator in my opinion

Until he entered this race as a democrat. I have lost all respect for him after seeing all the unrealistic proposals and mudslinging from him and his base that is very reminiscent of right wing extremism that heavily relies on the cult of personality and the idea of a moral authority.

[Sunlei]

70. rather then speaking about money payments, I wish he would mention actual land and homes 'stolen'

Plenty of black persons (after slavery ended) owned land and/or homes that were taken from them.

Entire counties in some states drove out black people, many who were land owners. deeds were changed.

To me 'reparations' would be a state/counties responsibility to examine land deeds changed and return the fair money value to any heirs. There are records, we're a country of records.

[Bread and Circus]

79. OP is bullshit. Shameful even.

[Fumesucker]

85. Because I can use it to try and discredit him..

I could read a pocket Bible through you.

[highprincipleswork]

86. Because single payer is for everyone and is uniting and reparations aren't and are divisive.

Bernie has come out stronger against institutional racism in the police departments of our country probably stronger than anyone else, and that kind of racism is a tragedy that must end.

Reparations - frankly it is hard for anyone to figure out how to make them work, and as a campaign issue they have a tendency to suck all the air out of the room.

[Empowerer]

91. So, unless EVERYONE benefits from it, is divisive?

Free college isn't for everyone. Is that divisive? $15/hour minimum wage isn't for everyone. Is that divisive?

Or is it that things that don't benefit certain groups of people (i.e., the one that YOU'RE in) are ALWAYS divisive.

For a campaign that keeps insisting that black voters would be crazy to support anyone other than Sanders, you all do spend a lot of time telling black people why things we're interested in aren't important to you because they are "divisive." Funny thing, though, the only time we ever hear "divisiveness" used as an excuse for not doing something is when it's something that makes certain white people uncomfortable or something that they believe won't directly benefit them.

[highprincipleswork]

105. I confess that I don't understand. Free college at certain colleges and $15./hr minimum wage...

Who is unable to take advantage of this?

I know that wealthier folks may not need or want these things, at least while they are wealthy, but seems to me Bernie plans on making these available to everybody.

Not all colleges, but public colleges. From their website, "The Sanders plan would make tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout the country."

Minimum wage, that is definitely there for everybody, if and when they need it.

[Empowerer]

108. Lots of people can't get into college for various reasons, including structural discrimination

Free college doesn't do much good for people who are barely making ends meet or who were trapped into segregated schools so inferior that they can't qualify for college or others who face other challenges beyond just not having enough money for tuition.

Many people can't get or keep jobs, even minimum wage jobs, for many reasons, including discrimination, so while an increase in the minimum wage is great, everyone cannot take advantage of it.

Don't assume that everyone will benefit from the things that some people benefit from. Our country continues to be plagued with numerous structural and, for some people, debilitating, discrimination that places barriers between them and opportunity and those barriers won't be removed just by raising the minimum wage or making some things free. Much of this discrimination has been institutionalized - i.e., it has been ingrained into our systems so integrally that it no longer requires individual bad behavior by "racists" to be perpetuated. An increase in the minimum wage and free college are great and I support them wholeheartedly. But they don't go far enough by themselves to help people who are caught in this web or to help them escape it.

This is a very complicated problem and will require very complex, multi-faceted solutions. It's not easy to even articulate the problem, much less deal with, which is why it does not lend itself to quick soundbites and simple policies.

[highprincipleswork]

121. Thank you so much for this. Wonderful answer.

Helps open me up and gets past some assumptions I wasn't aware were so unconscious.

Beautifully said.

[Empowerer]

122. Thank you for asking thoughtful questions

[Matariki]

92. Be honest, it only matters because it gives you something to latch onto

to try and criticize him with.

Do you honestly care about reparations? Because Clinton is certainly not a supporter of reparations.

Y'all are ridiculous.

[uponit7771]

95. A nerve has been hit, notice the amount of adhoms, red herrings and strawmen in response

... to this rational question.

[libdem4life]

97. Please define reparations. Please give the criteria for reparations. Please give the

potential recipients of reparations. Please give whether it's a one time payment, monthly, etc. Oh, and how much will this cost the TAXPAYERS?

You can't. Why? Because it is a Straw Person's issue. Why do you think PBO and HRC can't ... you think they'd be all in on this one, what with it being so essential to the campaign and to ONE candidate.

Please, do tell.

[Empowerer]

100. Those are all issues to be studied and discussed

Something that Sanders has made clear he is not interested in doing, because apparently, the issue is too unpopular with the people he's trying to keep happy.

In other words, he's a politician, just like the rest of those he criticizes for behaving too much like politicians.

[libdem4life]

102. Then I guess I'd ask the same question...especially PBO but HRC as well...why should

Sanders set up an official US taxpayer-funded program that no one has ever heard of? Sounds like a bit of a trap/subtle attack on POC credentials/illustration of "ineptness"...which is what comes across here.

Again, I ask. Why are people talking about something they know NOTHING about? Further, why is anyone baiting around it? Indeed.

Oh, and with which "people" is it popular with?

Answers, please, not rhetoric and slights.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

101. Which says something about our corrupt political system.

Is it unchangeable?

[mhatrw]

103. 1. Because Clinton supporters are desperate.

And that's all, folks.

[mhatrw]

104. Equity and fairness are important values, except to Clinton surrogates who

feel compelled out of sheer desperation to castigate Sanders for having the exact same views on reparations that their own candidate espouses.

[Fearless]

106. Please tell me a Hillary supporter isn't race baiting.

[jfern]

107. Such a desperate attack from a failing campaign

[Odin2005]

109. This is divisive identity politics BS.

[Vinca]

110. Why does your argument only apply to Bernie?

Is there someone running on a reparation platform and I just haven't noticed it? It seems Bernie's opposition is struggling to find something . . . anything . . . to turn into an issue because it's clear the coronation can't be arranged as quickly as they'd imagined.

[DanTex]

111. Did you read the OP?

[Vinca]

112. Yes.

??

[DanTex]

113. The whole thing?

So far, the only excuse I've seen for Bernie's dismissal of reparations is "Hillary doesn't want them either." Which, first of all, it's pretty odd for Bernie fans who dislike most everything about Hillary to be using Hillary of all people to justify Bernie's stance. But it also totally misses the point. Hillary isn't running on the assumption that she will have universal fiat. She is running a pragmatic platform. I happen to agree with her on this -- ignoring political reality, pretending there is no house, senate or supreme court, is not a wise thing to do.

But I get that people might disagree, call me cynical, etc. What I don't get is why people who insist that a candidate's proposals should reflect ideals as opposed to realism, are opposed to including reparations under those ideals. What's different between reparations and single payer?

[Vinca]

116. My point is that the manufactured brouhaha over Bernie and reparations is, rather obviously,

a ploy to keep African-American voters from voting for him. That's all. It's not about whether or not reparations are a good idea or a bad idea. The fact is, all the candidates feel essentially the same, but hay is being made over Bernie and there can only be one reason for that.

[DanTex]

117. Wow, so now Ta-Nehisi Coates is a Hillary apparatchik also. I wonder who gets smeared next?

[Vinca]

118. I believe he did acknowledge he was a Hillary supporter . . . so why wasn't she included?

[DanTex]

119. Smear away. I explained the difference between Hillary and Bernie. Most people outside the

Bernie bubble seem to understand it -- she's not proposing pie-in-the-sky ideas, but Bernie is, except he shuts the door on reparations. But the bubble prefers to smear rather than listen.

[Vinca]

120. The problem with the piece is that if, during an election season, you are going to address

an issue and your article only focuses on one candidate in a negative way, you should expect it will be considered a hit piece. The only smear here is the one against Bernie and if you peruse the Internet you'll find it to be the predominant conclusion on most sites that allow comment. It's a shame. It could have been an interesting article.

[Live and Learn]

114. Bernie never promised to right all the wrongs of the past.

That would be promising unicorns.

What he has promised, unlike Hillary, is a way to improve lives for the 99% in the future.

[Armstead]

115. Your basic premise is -- as usual -- wrong

Your "political reality" sounds like once again you are stretching to make an argument for your chosen candidate and against the one you don't like.

It's not because reparations are going to pass congress. Obviously they won't. Neither will single payer or free college for everyone. Bernie isn't running as a pragmatic candidate. He's running as a revolution candidate. He's saying look at the world as it should be, and make it that way. And whenever someone points out that politically his proposals are a pipe dream, they get accused of being "anti-hope".

You mistake positive goals with "pipe dreams." So therefore, you contend, Sanders and his supporters should embrace every "unicorn" in the universe because all of his proposals are unicorns. One unicorn is just as good as another.

Bullshit. While recognizing full well that single payer universal coverage would be an uphill slog to accomplish, it is within the realm of possibility. There are many factors that, with a slight change in the calculation over time, could either bring it about or prompt medium steps in that direction.

Reparations is not in the same category, in terms of the level of current or potential public acceptance and realistic possibility. And it is not generally accepted that reparations is the way to achieve the goal it represents, over other alternatives such as investment in inner cities and, yes, opening the door to college for everyone, including disadvantaged minorities.