So the 'agreement' stuff comes from the wikileaks release of the Podesta emails: link. And it's really hard to know make of it, but the agreement would seem to be that the 2016 Sanders campaign go easy on certain issues in regards to Clinton, and that perhaps they had some leverage on him. But it's hard to know what to make of that.
As far as 'speaking truth to power': that's a tough question I'm not too prepared to answer without knowing more about the extent that he has spoken truth to power. And I don't want to be unfair or get things wrong. So that's merely my impression although I think 5 South raises a good point: that since he gained a massive platform he hasn't done much.

A radical Bernie would have run as a democratic socialist in the general. You get one shot at the king; Bernie whiffed both times.

Hmm. I'm not sure what this means, but that's at least partially because the question is pretty open-ended. Does this mean he has no point at all, as in you didn't agree with any of the points he raised, or is it more along the lines of it brings nothing new to the conversation, or something else? I ask because I thought he made a lot of good points, and I'm a little surprised to see a response that may be suggesting he made none.

Is it the video where he starts off by talking about Lincoln? The link seemed broken. And meh...it's like the angsty stuff I thought when I was 20.

Link works fine, and I don't remember a single word about Lincoln.

It wasn't ground-breaking stuff, but plenty I would expect many people agree with.

The same way AOC and the squad have leveraged their power to force an M4A vote.

We have one party and it doesn't represent us. And if you're not white it represents you even less.

Radical ?

A Bernie with the self respect of a normal man would have went full out crazy once he learned how the DNC openly plotted against him in favor if Hillary. At that point you know you have nothing to lose and may as well burn bridges to get your agenda through.

The fact that he cucked out is either a testimony to his lack of testicular fortitude or an indication of is real goals.

Biggest disappointment in my life time. He could have made some positive changes if he really wanted to. Maybe 20 years ago he would have, but the system grinds them all down eventually.

He relies upon a definition of racism that many people reject (one that focuses on "power" rather than racial discrimination, and he focuses on a singular rebuttal to his video which I'm almost certain isn't actually the most common question/comment he got.

There were extensive number of comments, but he focused on low hanging fruit, then assumes things about it in order to make the point he is making in this video.

Finally, if he got that question, that means he didn't answer the question he proposed himself in the title of the video he is referenced at the start.



The guy is a tool. He uses incongruent rhetorical tricks.

Exactly. I've barely heard of that Manchin dude before this year but he can get Chuck on his knees at a snap of a finger now.

Ahh. Must be because instagram logged me out months ago and I had to try to use a web browser to view it. I never remember my passwords so need to reset it.

LOL

He's talking about racism in the context of systemic racism.

Your inability to understand and respond to what he's saying in an intelligent manner isn't a rhetorical trick on his part.

Are you familiar with the Justice Democrats and their rise in power? Bernie's sort of the grandfather of that wing in the Democratic party. AOC/The Squad, the most diverse Congress we've ever had to date, etc etc

The center left Dems are getting the OK boomer retort, or even being called Republicans. Seems their days are numbered and people are growing tired of what seems like more of an interest in their own wealth and preservation of power rather than restructuring capitalism in a way that's more morally cognizant of its own negative aspects...

Bernie's 2016 run seems like the catalyst for all that imo

Policy wise I don't know. But that's also why I asked the question, because his power is not dissimilar to Obama's power in the sense that I wonder what exactly can be expected of him in terms of getting laws passed? ACA was practically jammed down our throats and still came out watered down, to the relative satisfaction of the insurance industry, and was undermined at every turn, ad infinitum...What could have been expected of Sanders? Were there compromises he missed out on where it would have led to progress, however unsatisfactory to his agenda in the long term?

What exactly are "incongruent rhetorical tricks?"

I have a hard to time thinking he's a tool, even if you disagree with him. He says he's a 13 year military vet w tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, speaks multiple foreign languages, and has 3 degrees

I didn't necessarily say I agreed with everything he said, and I was left with a couple questions, but he doesn't seem like a "tool" or sound like he was just straight up bloviating...

The concept of equity vs equality is relatively new to me, as is CRT and its actual influence in Americana. I can see exactly why people are supportive and why others are alarmed. And even those who are supportive, but alarmed that that which they support is not going entirely in the right direction, misguided if you will

Are you sure you're not just going through mental gymnastics to discredit him, rather than simply acknowledging that at least some of what he says has validity?

That's of course also a complaint you here from progressives about AOC etc.





I don't think there is too much to read into that criticism. "Radicals" probably aren't going to be happy with the sausage making coalition building elected officials have to engage in. Whether it's Biden appeasing Manchin or AOC defending Biden. It likely limits progressive influence on politicians by reducing the progressive vote, as Grimm suggests.

To continue the derail. Yes, the "radical" left is not happy with Bernie nor the squad. We want them to be a pain in the ass like the tea party is to the repubs. They like to talk a lot on their Twitter but don't see them holding up votes against the establishment Dems very much.

I don't know if the tweet is true but this is the kind of **** we want to stop and not seeing much of a fight in Wash about it...

There is a key asymmetry though. The tea party is legit fine with the government doing nothing so they can always say "if you don't add XYZ we won't pass anything and that's fine with us". Progressives can't believably threaten to vote against stuff like Obamacare or Covid relief packages they want to be bigger imo. If they block stuff like that they'll just get voted out for a more moderate dem who'll pass it. And people will have worse healthcare and less assistance in the interim.

I think their constituents would understand if they're voting based on what they ran on. In the meantime they should be looking for the really bad establishment Dems and start primary'ing tf out of them. That threat has seemed to totally disappear.

For me the term 'radical' denotes someone who wants to overturn the system, like a revolutionary Marxist or Democratic Socialist. Those who want to improve things without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, like Social Democrats, I don't consider radicals. I think Bernie's core is more aligned with the latter than the former and Bernie is basically aligned with them. So while I get what people mean when they say he's a traitor to the cause but whose cause? Marx was anti-egalitarian to the core. His interest in equity was an equal stake in what the government owned, which means a whole lot less than it sounds without profits or gains to reap. And while most of the focus on him concerns economics his ideas on the size and scope of government wasn't far off of Ayn Rand's. Of course people who claimed they were Marxists went on to do just the opposite and they called themselves the real socialists too.

I don't disagree with your take on Bernie. I just think there are many steps from real Bernie to imaginary 'radical' Bernie and the idea that there ever could be such a Bernie is laughable. He's obviously a guy who figured out a long time ago that he could repeat popular ideas over and over and make an easy living. He has no interest in effecting change, radically or traditionally.

I don't know what Marx's ideas of the scope of government would be. Rand argued that if everyone looked out for their own interests and the government stayed out of the way things would work out just fine. Marx may have been naive but he seemed to account for actual human nature to a much greater degree than Rand, who was just mad that her family lost their petty bourgeoisie status after the revolution. I get why she'd be against the movement that did that to her but all those people were doing what she advocated.....looking out for their own interests. She was, in the end, a silly woman.

He is a bad person to be an advocate for this stuff. I'm on vacation and don't have my keyboard/computer to effectively answer your question.

In a nutshell, the video is essentially a refutation of the premise of the question people asked him "can a black person be racist to a white person"?. His response is basically that it's a red herring. However, if you view the first video that illicited the question, it's essentially the same as the title of the video, however, it was important enough question to address that he made the first video, then claims that question is irrelevant and misses the point.

Also, he assumes the intent of the people asking the question, and he whiffs.

It's obviously a rhetorical question that's meant to point out racism isn't isolated to one race, at least to the person asking it, which is where the real disagreement about his first video exist, as he believes it does. He really doesn't contend with that disagreement, and makes what amounts to a strawman argument.

People like him like to be viewed as an expert/authority. He is the epitome of a virtual signaler, but he fails because his logic is terrible, and it's obvious.

I strongly disagree. The squad already did not over-perform Biden in their districts, if you add in "you would have gotten a 2k check if it wasn't for AOC/Omar/Talib voting against it" I think they would legitimately have a shot of losing. There is again an asymmetry here as Joe Manchin actually does block dem legislation like that. Of course he gets around 50% of the vote in a state Biden didn't break 30. And it's not like he can't lose next time either, though he'll lose to a republican not another Dem.

These radicals are low propensity voters and you have to be pretty plugged in to even know when midterm primaries even are. If people aren't fully happy with the few big primary wins they've got it's great news for the establishment Dems

Marx figured if we got rid of capitalism the state would wither away also because he thought the bourgeois erected and sanctioned the state to protect their property/class interests. His view of how society ought to be was basically how society was prior to political structures, capitalism, etc. entering the scene, with people being fully capable of working differences out and working together to achieve common or universal goals without needing much in terms of coercive political or government apparatuses. More along the lines of anarcho-anticapitalism than the totalitarian, freedom-deprived micro-managed-to-death hell holes he's more famous for.

Ok. Thanks. I honestly don't know as much about Marx as I should. I mean, I know the basics but I critique capitalism as a participant, not as an ideologue. Any system will always need tweaking. Overthrowing an entire system is messy and usually not necessary. I probably have that in common with Bernie but I'd make a few actual changes at this point. Call me Karl.

(incoming IHIV hand waving. Nothing to see here)



Hard to fathom this difference and how it could be justified, when they all should be using the same comp and other data?

My first inclination is it could have been a cold market swinging into a hot one... but nope. Hot market at all points.

And the disparity from $110,000 - $259,000 is just too huge to ignore.

This is how generational wealth is denied to some systemically. How many just accept this, and not fight and thus never realize any equity.



Black homeowner had a white friend stand in for third appraisal. Her home value doubled.

Carlette Duffy felt both vindicated and excited. Both relieved and angry.

For months, she suspected she had been low-balled on two home appraisals because she's Black. She decided to put that suspicion to the test and asked a white family friend to stand in for her during an appraisal.

Her home's value suddenly shot up. A lot.

During the early months of the coronavirus pandemic last year, the first two appraisers who visited her home in the historic Flanner House Homes neighborhood, just west of downtown, valued it at $125,000 and $110,000, respectively.

But that third appraisal went differently.

To get that one, Duffy, who is African American, communicated with the appraiser strictly via email, stripped her home of all signs of her racial and cultural identity and had the white husband of a friend stand in for her during the appraiser's visit.

The home's new value: $259,000.

"I had to go through all of that just to say that I was right and that this is what's happening," she said. "This is real."

Now she wants justice. Along with the Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana, Duffy has filed fair housing complaints against the mortgage lenders and appraisers she accuses of undervaluing her home because of her race.

Housing experts and historians say residential real estate has been historically marred by discrimination. Across the nation, homes owned by Black Americans are significantly undervalued next to homes in comparable white neighborhoods, according to a study by Brookings.

...

The complaints
Duffy and the Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana filed the complaints with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. She's asking for the federal agency to investigate the appraisals.

Respondents in the complaints include Indianapolis-based appraiser Tim Boston, appraiser Jeffrey Pierce, CityWide Home Loans and employee Craig Hodges, lender Freedom Mortgage and two of the company's employees.

The complaints alleges they violated fair housing laws by allowing race and color to impact their appraisals of her home and their lending practices. The appraisers, the complaints said, purposely pulled comps that were unfair and racially motivated.

Appraiser Tim Boston denied the allegations.

"My appraisal reports are data-driven. I could care less about culture or sexual orientation," he said. "It's all about bricks and sticks and dirt."

The remaining respondents could not be reached by IndyStar.

...

Despite the public safety orders and businesses closures caused by the pandemic, the real estate market in Central Indiana was red hot. The Federal Reserve was keeping interest rates low. ...

So Duffy began the process of refinancing her home mortgage, which she purchased for $100,000 in 2017.

But, the process didn't go as she expected, according to the HUD complaint. Duffy worked with CityWide and Jeffrey Pierce of Pierce Appraisal in March and April 2020. They valued her home at $125,000.

...

She was assigned Indianapolis-based appraiser Tim Boston of the Appraisal Network, according to the complaint. Boston and Freedom Mortgage appraised her home at $110,000 — just $10,000 more than its purchase price and $15,000 lower than the first appraisal.

The second appraised value, assigned less than two months after the first appraisal, confused her. "How did I lose $15,000 in my home value?" she asked.
...

"My appraisals are always supported by data because my license is at risk if I don't do it correctly," he said. "From the appraisal management company to the bank, those appraisals go through statistical packages, a logarithm type software to test my value. If it's not within a certain range of those software programs, it'll kick back."

...

Something else is happening...

It wasn't just the appraisals that sounded the alarm for Duffy. During the process, Duffy said she had also been quoted interest rates of 4%, 3.75% and 5%.

Buying a home:3 things to look for when choosing a real estate agent for Indianapolis' crazy market

By comparison, Duffy said the interest rate on her current mortgage loan was 3.9%

At the time, rates on the 30-year and 15-year mortgage had fallen below 3.5% that April and continued declining throughout the spring and summer, according to Freddie Mac data.

Duffy said she had worked to improve her credit from the time she purchased her home so she could go from a Federal Housing Administration-insured loan to a conventional loan. She said pulling her credit scores numerous times had an adverse effect on her credit score.

"When I finally did try again towards the end of the year, I couldn't do a conventional. I could only do an FHA," she said. "Even with that, when I didn't declare race and gender in the application process, I got an APR of 2.9%."

...

Duffy started the refinancing process for a third time in October and November, reaching out to unidentified company. That time, the complaint notes, she did not declare her race or gender as part of the application process as she did with previous lenders.

When an appraiser was assigned, Duffy said she kept the interaction to email with no phone interaction. And unlike the first two times, she took down the photos of herself and her family, and removed her African American art and books that might identify her race.

"I staged my home to look as ethnically neutral as possible," she said. "I was just numb to it, and I think it was more so numb just because of the fact that it was me just going through the process like I'm not crazy. I'm not crazy. I'm not crazy."

t

Minus the missing artwork and identifying items, before-and-after photos shared with IndyStar show a home with identical living rooms and kitchens.

Duffy said she would be out of town and that her brother —who was really a friend's white husband posing as her relative — would meet with the new appraiser. On the day of the appraiser's visit, Nov. 4, Duffy gave her friend the Wifi password so he could get work done and left the home.

He texted her when it was time for her to return, noting that nothing about the visit was extraordinary. Two days later, Duffy received a copy of her new appraisal with the higher $259,000 value.

...
"I'm excited, vindicated, relieved, angry, extremely peeved since I can't say the other expletives that were running through me at that point in time — destroyed that I had to go through all of that," she said. "This is real ... just being able to prove it is the hard part."


Ramifications
Nelson of the Fair Housing Center said Duffy's experience represents a decades-long problem.

"The market was already appreciating at the time she was getting the first two appraisals done. Why weren't those appraisals showing that? They didn't."

She said Duffy's story raises questions about how the appraisal industry works. The industry is part of the reason why Flanner House Homes neighborhoods had to be built as a "sweat equity project" and the industry supported the redlining process, Nelson said.

"I think there is a lot of science there, but the appraisal industry has been able to give this perception of it being an art and science that then results in them to be able to run almost unchecked or unable to be verified as to whether or not they're following recommended guidelines," she said.

Andre Perry, of Brookings, has conducted research on how racial bias distorts the housing market. He compared home prices in neighborhoods where the share of the Black population is greater than 50% to homes in areas where the share of the Black population is less than 50%.

They controlled for crime, walkability and other factors that could affect home prices. After those factors were controlled for, homes in Black neighborhoods were underpriced by 23% or about $48,000 per home. Cumulatively, there was a loss of $160 billion in lost equity.

Perry's research preceded the crafting of the Real Estate Valuation Fairness and Improvement Act of 2021, which was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in April. The bill addresses racial disparities in residential and commercial real estate appraisals.

Discrimination in appraisals can be both systemic and individualistic.

"Systemic is the price comparison model," he said. "When you only compare homes to like peers in neighborhoods that have been discriminated against, you essentially just recycled discrimination over and over again ... You have individual acts of racism and you have more systemic reasons why. Both are robbing people of individual and community wealth."

She bought the house in 2017 and it rose 150% in value?
I've heard of similar stories like this and I think some of them have been posted in this thread, but really next time just quote the good parts. We can all click on a link to read a story.
It definitely does sound pretty messed up though and I would think there should be some better standards and clearly the appraisal industry needs an examination.

@cupee

The most egregious stuff seems to happen to people who think about race alot. I'm always skeptical to stories that can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Especially when she is pulling her credit report constantly...any credit card allows you to view your score, and/or you can buy credit monitoring for less than paying to pull the report repeatedly.

In other words, this is based on the be actions of the individual. She set out to prove it was because of racism.

But okay, racism exist. That doesn't have anything to do with criticism of CRT.