This message was self-deleted by its author

[guillaumeb]

This message was self-deleted by its author (guillaumeb) on Thu Mar 9, 2017, 06:20 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[BillZBubb]

1. I REALLY want to alert on this OP. It is TOTAL BULLSHIT.

I won't because I don't like censorship.

Black lives have mattered to the Democrats since the party saw the light in the '30s. And the Democrats have paid a large political price for backing that up with action. To suggest otherwise is either dishonest and foolish.

[guillaumeb]

2. This is an opinion piece.

What specifically do you disagree with in the body of the article?

[XRubicon]

50. Killing people during what should be a routine police action is not

The same as being tough on crime.

The article doesn't make sense.

The issue in black lives matter is not sending criminals to jail, it is killing people in the street before a trial. It's police knowing they can get away with it.

[guillaumeb]

52. Also from the article:

A look at President Bill Clinton's record on issues that impact Black America reveals just how little the Democrats have done in exchange for the overwhelming support they get from African Americans at every election. In fact, Clinton--hailed as the "first Black president" by novelist Toni Morrison--made everyday life for Blacks significantly worse.

Provisions in the two Clinton-era crime bills....put more cops on the street and enforced tougher mandatory sentencing for nonviolent offenses like drug possession, among other things. This kicked the era of mass incarceration, as author Michelle Alexander calls it, into high gear. Larger and larger numbers of poor and working-class people, disproportionately Black and Brown, found themselves under the control of the criminal justice system.

"Democrats began competing with Republicans to prove that they could be even tougher on the dark-skinned pariahs," Alexander wrote in 2010. "In President Bill Clinton's boastful words, 'I can be nicked a lot, but no one can say I'm soft on crime.' The facts bear him out. Clinton's 'tough on crime' policies resulted in the largest increase in federal and state prison inmates of any president in American history."

THE CLINTON administration capitalized on racialized hysteria about crime to push the crime bills, but it also exploited stereotypes to rationalize gutting government spending on social services, like welfare. Using rhetoric about "personal responsibility," Clinton got legislation passed that imposed strict time limits and work rules on welfare recipients--and threw untold numbers of poor people off the rolls.

Similarly, when the right wing went on the attack against affirmative action programs intended to level the playing field for minorities and women in hiring and college admissions, Clinton "defended" affirmative action with the slogan "mend it, don't end it"--and claimed that programs which produced "reverse discrimination" had to be ended.

In fact, the problem wasn't that affirmative action had gone too far, as the Clinton administration claimed, but it hadn't gone far enough. Predictably, affirmative action programs were decimated during the Clinton years, and Black college enrollment plummeted at universities where the programs were banned.

This didn't stop Clinton from posing as a "racial healer" in his second term--though, once again, the reality proved that talk is cheap. His Presidential Initiative on Race initiated little in the form of concrete proposals. As Philip Klinkner put it in an essay for the book Without Justice for All, it "provided an ineffective but benign way for Clinton to play the role of therapist in chief."

Rather than putting forward policies to deal with racial discrimination, Klinkner wrote:

the initiative allowed Clinton a low-cost way to create the impression of concern and action. Yet the costs may not be so low. At worst, the president's race initiative offered a distraction from the fact that he, the Democratic Party and the nation in general have sounded an end to the modern era of civil rights reform.

Clinton repeated in speech after speech that the answer to racial discrimination was in our "hearts," not in government intervention--effectively placing the blame on individuals and their views, not the systemic racism running through U.S. institutions, from the police to the courts to schools and housing.

The policies of the Clinton administration and the "New Democrats" were widely viewed as an attempt to shift the party away from traditional bases of support--or, in conservative-speak, "special interests"--such as African Americans, women, immigrants and union members.

In the process, Democratic politicians helped shred many of the programs and policies that, over the previous century, had won mass Black support for the one-time party of slavery. From proudly championing the New Deal reforms of the 1930s and civil rights legislation of the 1960s, Democratic leaders now talked about putting welfare recipients to work and a "post-racial" America.

But the Democrats never lost Black support in any significant way, since the Republicans alternative always looked much worse.

My comment: Add in welfare reform that was not specifically targeted at black families, but that played well as a follow up to Reagan's comments about "welfare queens", again, no specific stated racial component, and we have Democrats attacking the same people that Reagan did. Clinton played the race card as well as Reagan did, he just did it in an understated way.

[XRubicon]

54. I missed the part where Clinton made it legal to shoot unarmed

people during traffic stops or in the back if the run or choke someone to death while they beg for air.

You don't know what black lives matter means do you?

[guillaumeb]

56. The article discusses Democratic support for black lives.

If you wish to talk specifically about police terrorism that is directed against black people I am fine with that topic, but it is NOT the topic of this particular article.

On that topic, there is no law that makes it legal to shoot black people for not having a front license plate, nor is ther a law allowing the police choke people to death for selling loose cigarettes.

There is no law allowing racial discrimination in housing, or in hiring, or firing, for that matter. But the lack of legal sanction has not stopped discrimination, and the simple fact that any particular politician identifies as Democratic does not insure that that politician really cares about minority interests.

[XRubicon]

58. You should edit the title of your post

and get the author to do that too.

Good luck and bye bye now.

[Jim Beard]

76. Do you remember REPUBLICAN Newt Gingrich?

Obviously not.

[guillaumeb]

79. Newt and the Contract on America?

The same Newt Gingrich who was the Speaker of the House and presided over the first government shutdown?

No, I cannot say that I remember him.

And what does Newt have to do with Ricky Ray Rector, or Sister Souljah?

Did the GOP force Clinton to behave as he did?

Did the GOP force Clinton to sign NAFTA?

[Maedhros]

32. If it is "total bullshit," they you should easily be able to post a number of counter-points

supporting your assertion.

That would be a hundred times more valuable than simply censoring it because it says something that you don't like.

[beam me up scottie]

3. Jury results:

On Sat Aug 1, 2015, 05:41 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Did Black lives ever matter to the Democrats?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027034440

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is hateful. To imply that Democrats hate Black, brown or any people for that matter is false. Generalizing and stereotyping HATE

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Aug 1, 2015, 05:49 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I do not agree with this post but it presents one view of Democrats that will not hurt us to consider.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The OP is an article. Posted here, on a DISCUSSION board, to be discussed. If you disagree with the points the author is making, the appropriate action would be to voice that disagreement in a reply, and DISCUSS. Terrible alert.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't generally agree with the OP, but after reading it through I don't see anything violating policies here. I think the alerter is overly sensitive. I don't think the alerter sincerely believes the OP is intended to attack the Democratic Party or any Democrat specifically. Lame alert.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If you disagree alerter then argue the point. I won't vote to censor something because I disagree with it.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Carry on.

[guillaumeb]

6. Thanks for the information BMUS.

The piece is an opinion piece, and as I mentioned to another poster I feel the title is somewhat heavy handed and could have been more properly titled "Do black lives STILL matter to the Democratic Party", but I did not write the piece.

But the Democratic Party was the party that supported slavery prior to the US civil war, and Lincoln WAS a Republican.

Of course after the second world war the segregationist politicians on the south did change parties and become Republicans, a process that was accelerated by the Civil Rights Act.

[beam me up scottie]

8. You can edit the title in GD, LBN is the only group where you have to post it verbatim.

You've been honest about your reservations and imo this could lead to a productive discussion - but only if those who respond do so in good faith.

[guillaumeb]

11. I was not aware of that, but even with the knowledge I would leave it

and present it as the author's opinion.

I also hope that people read the part about "labor" being another group that is taken for granted. As well as women. There is no doubt that the Democratic Party is far superior to the GOP in every area, but that in itself does not reflect absolutely on the Democratic Party, but rather on the sheer awfulness of the GOP.

[TheKentuckian]

90. Better the the Republicans is a piss poor standard candle.

It is soooooo easy that if you take the insane clown posse of today as the measuring stick then such folks as Nixon, Reagan, and even Junior Bush arguably the worst President in US history could all easily pass.

It is getting to the point of cheering a 56% on a test because somebody lost the plot after they put their name on the exam.

[guillaumeb]

92. True. But marriage equality and opening relations with Cuba, and the Iran deal are

accomplishments that the GOP of 2015 would never achieve.

[TheKentuckian]

94. The kid that could barely manage to get his name on the exam can never expect a 56%

They are a worthless point of comparison in general and particularly so in an internal debate in our party about policy, I flush better than the TeaPubliKlan every morning.

[snooper2]

70. The socialist web forum is through the orange door on the far left of the room

[guillaumeb]

72. If orange is the new black,

what does that mean for the future of the Democratic Party?

[yardwork]

4. There were Democratic presidents before Clinton. Maybe the writer doesn't know that.

John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson demonstrably improved the lives of black people. For example.

[guillaumeb]

5. Agreed. The piece is somewhat simplistic, but the points made apply to other groups as well.

The author talks about unions as another group that is generally supportive of the Democratic Party with little to show for it.

This is not to say that Democrats such as FDR, or Johnson, or Kennedy did not have a big impact. Perhaps the piece should have been titled
Do black lives STILL matter in the Democratic Party".

[cwydro]

46. Curious that no one mentions Obama.

He IS the first black president.

Has he done anything to prove matters in this regard?

[yardwork]

49. The entire OP is absurd imo

[HFRN]

7. ...

[guillaumeb]

9. Are you sitting in a comfortable chair?

Sometimes people forget things that conflict with the (idealized) image that they prefer to believe.

[HFRN]

10. if you said something,

i missed it

[madville]

12. I wish there was more diversity in our primary field

If there were a black candidate and a Hispanic candidate all the white candidates would have to pay much more attention to issues important to those demographics.

[guillaumeb]

14. I hope so. But in the age of the Roberts SCOTUS

the most important demographic is the 1%. And ALL of the GOP candidates well represent their most important demographic.

[oberliner]

36. There is a black candidate

His name is Willie Wilson.

[Art_from_Ark]

65. There's also Ben Carson

[oberliner]

67. He's a Republican

[Art_from_Ark]

68. I know

I used him as an example to try to subtly explain why ideas, rather than race, matter in a presidential candidate.

[Shankapotomus]

44. Link:

http://www.williewilson2016.com/

[onecaliberal]

13. What a load...

[sadoldgirl]

15. As far as I am concerned there is a huge

difference between the people and any political party,
platform or not. The parties only listen to the people
when they are forced to do so, in our case right now
when their candidates need the votes. It took a lot of
deaths to allow for unions to exist, the same is true
for the civil rights struggle.

The only reason we hear more about the injustices
committed is the advent of the cell phone and the
internet. Even then we are getting a large propaganda
machine telling us to keep calm and to see any and
every event as an exception from the norm.

Movements have always come from the people, almost
never from the political leaders,jmo.

[guillaumeb]

17. Agreed 100% on all points.

They listen when they need our votes.

The rest on the time we are generally invisible, except when needed as background for a photo-op.

This is a common complaint among union activists also. While there is no doubt that Democrats in general are BETTER than their GOP counterparts, better is not enough.

Democrats also bemoan the low turnout during non-Presidential elections, complaining about apathetic young people and people of color, but generally unsaid is that many of these young people and minorities know that they ARE in fact only given lip service by many in the Democratic Party.

[UTUSN]

16. I take it the Socialist Worker will be working hard for the Repuke victory. n/t

[guillaumeb]

19. I cannot speak for the magazine.

I have worked with my union electorally since the 1980 Presidential election. Many union members know how important it is to vote intelligently, but many union members also know that many Democratic politicians know how to talk the talk, but they do not walk the walk when it comes to actual support for workers' issues.

Does that opinion make the holder a traitor to the Democratic Party, or a realist?

[UTUSN]

22. What specifically? - the title slamming Dems. Don't worry, I have a right to instant opinions.

You might not speak for the magazine, although you put it out there and now are defending the opinion.

Here's a clue: I have zero interest in pursuing a brawl here, so buh-bye.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. The organization is officially anti-Democrat

The Democratic Party, much like the Republicans, acts in the interests of Corporate America and the privileged few at the top. Therefore, we do not support their candidates.

http://www.internationalsocialist.org/what_we_stand_for.html

So, this is not about "the Democrats could be better"; it's "never vote for Democrats". Not a 'traitor', though - not a Democrat.

[guillaumeb]

63. "Never vote for Democrats" is an oversimplification.

I have read numerous articles at the site regarding voting for Democratic candidates.

[muriel_volestrangler]

66. And their official position is "never vote for Democrats". No surprise, since they're Trotskyists

whose position is way to the left of anything the Democrats have ever been. They may publish something that says a particular Democrat is better than nothing, but let's not pretend they think Bernie Sanders fits that bill, for instance:

But in running for the Democratic presidential nomination as the liberal outsider with almost no chance of winning, Sanders isn't very "bold"--no more so than the fizzled campaigns of Dennis Kucinich in past presidential election years. And by steering liberal and left supporters into a Democratic Party whose policies and politics he claims to disagree with, Sanders--no matter how critical he might be of Hillary Clinton--is acting as the opposite of an "alternative."
...
At the same time, the left shouldn't abandon the electoral arena to the two capitalist parties. If we do, we create a vacuum that the Democrats will fill, co-opting movement activists, demobilizing unions and social movements, and redirecting their precious time, money and energy into electing candidates who then betray workers and the oppressed.

We need to win the new left born out of Occupy, public-sector union struggles and the Black Lives Matter movement to breaking with the Democratic Party and building an electoral alternative as a complement to struggle from below. Bernie Sanders' campaign inside the Democratic Party is an obstacle to that project.

http://socialistworker.org/2015/05/05/problem-bernie-sanders

They are third party advocates (the writer of that piece was an admirer of Nader's presidential runs, whatever his politics). You ought to be honest: it's not that the headline of the OP article is 'provocative', it's that the entire article is anti-Democrat. The only reason to post it without comment would be to put forward its point of view, which is that the Democrats have never card about black people.

[guillaumeb]

69. You have discussed the polititcs and positioning of the magazine.

What of the specifics, particularly the issues raised about President Clinton?

[muriel_volestrangler]

71. The specifics of the article are that it's a complete load of crap

But I thought you'd got that message by now.

Of course black lives matter to the Democratic party. Many Democrats are black, unlike Schulte. You can look at the black support for the Democrats, and for Schulte's International Socialist Organization, and see which they prefer. Schulte is whitesplaining what is in the best interests of black people.

[guillaumeb]

73. A non-specific reply to a specific question does NOT really serve

as a rebuttal.

Many Democrats are union members, but union members receive little real support from many Democratic politicians. They appreciate our donations, and our time, but apart from that they do little on a state or national level.

William Clinton was a disaster for many, if not most Americans. That he was a Democrat does not make him better.

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. " That he was a Democrat does not make him better" - not in the eyes of anti-Democrats, no

Thanks for the honesty. Next time you post something anti-Democrat, I'll alert on it. You don't get the benefit of the doubt from now on.

My reply to you was just as specific as your post.

[guillaumeb]

75. Again, generalities in response to specifics.

So any criticism of Democrats is "proof" of being an "anti-Democrat"?

Again, but with less hope of a specific reply, what specifically about the author's citations of certain of Clinton's policies as being against the concerns of Democrats do you disagree with?

An example: Was NAFTA a good thing for the bottom 90% in your view, and why?

Another example: Was the financial deregulation signed by Clinton a good thing for the bottom 90%, and why?

And as a point of information, the post WAS alerted on, with results that you can see.

[muriel_volestrangler]

78. Of course it's anti-Democratic - look at the title, that you decided to keep

It's not about Bill Clinton; it's about all Democrats, at all times. It criticises Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and then says "the party has no interest in waging a struggle for racial equality, and it never has". It ends up criticising President Obama, finishing with "it's also a testament to the true nature of the Democratic Party that Obama waited to speak out until it was too late to do anything about it".

You posted a comprehensive attack on the Democratic party. Live with it. You like what it says. We'll remember. And the alert will be better informed, the next time.

[guillaumeb]

80. I did post a comprehensive attack in the Democratic Party.

I am not the author, but I felt the article could provoke and inspire conversation.

Again, you ignored my specific questions about specific issues.

I will assume that you are aware that the Democratic Party was the refuge of Southern segregationists, sometimes called Dixiecrats, until the Civil Rights Act of 1965. Does this fact mean anything to you?

And for the third time, how about NAFTA and financial deregulation? No opinions on these issues either?

Let me add a link to a current thread wherein Democrat O'Malley criticizes President Obama and HRC:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12812061

Are these types of threads also motivated by reflexive hatred for the Democratic Party?

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. NAFTA and financial deregulation are obvious red herrings, and not about Black Lives Matter

that I really didn't think you expected an answer to. But, if you're desperate to change the subject from your clusterfuck of an anti-Democratic OP, then financial deregulation under Clinton was a bad idea, which allowed the 2008 disaster and forced Obama to bail out the banks, and NAFTA may or may not have been a good idea.

If you'd posted an article that pointed out the abysmal Democratic record on civil rights before the 1960s, you'd have a point. But you posted something saying the Democrats have never cared, and which attacks the current Democratic president, and the 2 leading Democratic candidates (and it's not as if it has a good word to say about any Democrat, including other black ones).

[guillaumeb]

83. We agree on financial deregulation.

But I pointed out a few times that Clinton actually signed the Gramm Leach Blily Act. The three sponsors were GOP politicians. I did not blame Clinton for the Act, but for a lack of a veto that might have halted the Act being passed.

But William Clinton "owns" the Ricky Ray Rector and Sister Souljah incidents. These were "anti-black callouts" to southern voters in my view.

I also think that NAFTA is/was a disaster for the bottom 90%. Any trade bill that allows money the freedom to move while restricting the rights of workers is a bad deal.

The author talks about "Democrats". I must assume, as most people seem to have assumed here, that the author is talking about the Democratic Party, not every individual Democrat. When people talk about the inability of Democrats to inspire the electorate it is helpful to look everywhere for ideas. The pathetic Democratic turnout of 2010 led to the redistricting that virtually guaranteed GOP control of the House until at least 2020. There was a reason that young people and minority voters stayed home in 2010 and 2014. Until the reasons for low Democratic turnout are understood and dealt with I have no reason to expect Democratic electoral success in Congress.

And yes, the title IS provocative. But there are many provocatively titled posts on DU. Some inspire intense and heated discussion.

[geek tragedy]

18. History did not begin in 1992 and it did not end in 1999.

Someone should remind the authors of this.

[guillaumeb]

20. And who says that the issues raised are specific to the 1992-1999 era? eom

[geek tragedy]

21. Let's back up. 20% of Democrats are black.

So right off the bat "Democrats don't care about black people" starts off otherizing black folks.

This is a troll article written by people who hate the Democratic party.

[guillaumeb]

31. and what percentage are union members and female, or a combination?

The article is titled referring to blacks but is also applicable to labor, females. and others.

[davidn3600]

23. Then go vote for Donald Trump

If you think the Republicans are going to treat you better...then go vote for them. It's not like we have a whole bunch of choices in this country.

I don't know what you want the Democrats to do. First off, we have a lot of political gridlock in this country. So that makes it difficult to get much accomplished. Second, there is no law that can be passed that will end racial prejudice. Is there a law that will make the KKK take off their sheets? Is there a law that will make all people stop judging each other on skin color?

There is no silver bullet here. We can't end racism overnight. This is something that will take generations to fix. That's the reality whether we like to admit it or not. Many, many folks in this country are very stubborn. They get set in their ways, traditions, and beliefs.

And we are not the only country with racism issues. Every country has this problem to some extent.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

24. Start sponsoring legislation.

Want black people to think Dems are worth voting for, as opposed to simply voting AGAINST Repubs? Be seen TRYING to do things for them, even if Repubs block you at every turn. I simply don't understand the constant excuses for politicians not actually DOING anything for voters. Why the hell even bother to try to elect someone if you don't expect them to do things for you when they get elected? Don't make excuses for politicians ignoring voters, join the other voters in demanding more of the politicians. You never know if something is unlikely but still possible until you actually try. And having voters see you try, even if you fail, gives them even more reason to elect MORE Dems in future cycles. If they actually think you'll do something for them once you've got enough people, they'll elect more people. If they do and then you don't, you lose future voters.

[guillaumeb]

33. amen. You said it much better than I would have.

Make the Democratic Party mean more than :"we are better than the GOP". That does not inspire.

[nc4bo]

45. ^^This! nt

[RiverLover]

48. Really well said, Erich!!

[merrily]

51. Erich has that gift.

[Skittles]

25. YES

[tularetom]

26. Black votes sure did

[guillaumeb]

34. Yes they did. They are the margin of victory in many elections,

and are still taken for granted.

Labor, especially unionized labor, is generally a reliable leg of support for the Democratic Party. But labor has received very little from Democratic Presidents since 1992.

[Starry Messenger]

27. Did the matter to the ISO?

I guess I've missed what legislation they have endorsed for anti-racism.

[JI7]

29. this is probably someone who thinks the democratic party was great in the old days

ignoring how certain people were treated back then and now is suddenly upset about and acts like there was none before clinton came into office.

such fucked up shit.

[Starry Messenger]

64. I have an ISO member in my local.

They hate the Democratic Party and think anyone who tries to do any coalition work with the party, or with members of the coalition groups that work within the party, is a total class traitor who is practically a fat cat capitalist in their own right.

They only like working with groups they consider the cool kids of the left.

[JI7]

28. not so much before civil rights, but afterwards yes which is why the party is mainly made up

of minorities.

[DFW]

30. I'm sure they do to people like Keith Ellison, Jim Clyburn, Elijah Cummings, John Conyers, etc.

On the other hand, guys like Tim Scott, Clarence Thomas and Allen West couldn't give a rat's ass.

Not that the SW party is exactly anyone's ally.

[guillaumeb]

35. The opinion piece does not say that the Democratic Part has done nothing.

But pointing out the shortcomings is necessary. Certainly the vast majority of all progress made by working class people of all colors has come under Democratic leadership, but welfare reform came under Clinton, as did NAFTA and the war crimes against the Iraqi people. It never helps to present a fictionalized history of the Democratic Party. We must acknowledge what needs to be improved rather than settle for garbage.

Under William Clinton, NAFTA transformed the American workplace as the Gramm, Leach, Blily Act transformed our financial system and "welfare reform" transformed our social services. Would any here argue that the aforementioned three helped the bottom 99%?

[DFW]

37. "Pointing out shortcomings" is always useful, agreed

However, statements like "The party has no interest in waging a struggle for racial equality, and it never has" are so over the top, that they leave no room for ANY effort ever made by Democrats to improve the lot of any Black folks in the country. The statement is patently untrue, and is a continuation of the "there is no difference between the parties" meme of Ralph Nader in 2000. Ask Sanders, Clinton or O'Malley what they would be looking for in their next Supreme Court nominees. Then ask the same question of Bush, Walker, Rubio or any of the other nut cases on the Republican side. Who do you want ruling on sensitive Civil Rights cases for the next 8 years? Don't care? No difference? Looking to buy oceanfront property in Wyoming while you're at it?

There is a great difference between the parties, no matter which of the current Democratic presidential candidates you might hate, even if it's all of them. Look which of the current Supreme Court Justices tried to preserve all aspects of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and which ones voted to remove some of parts most protective of minority voting rights. Look which ones were nominated by Republicans and which were nominated by Democrats. THEN tell me "The party has no interest in waging a struggle for racial equality, and it never has." The article contains its own fatal poison pill right there.

[guillaumeb]

38. The title of the article is provocative.

If I were the author I would not have used those particular words. But I am not the author.

But 150 years after the American civil war, blacks are still fighting for equality. Union members in the US have fewer rights than in most European countries. US labor law is weaker and much more weighted toward the capitalists.

And William Clinton did sign "welfare reform" while he was President, and bragged about it. He also did rush home to Arkansas to execute Ricky Ray Rector, and "stood up" to Sister Souljah.

I have always argued the idea that the SCOTUS is a vital issue that must influence our votes. I have not supported any particular Democratic candidate here, but I have also said that whoever the Democratic candidate is, that candidate will get my vote. For the SCOTUS issue among others.

[Larkspur]

39. Got news for this author -- Power does not give up anything with out a fight.

Paraphrasing Fredrick Douglas.

No great changes happened in this country because politicians think in a vacuum. Politicians that We the People elect reflect OUR values. So yes, it takes Movements, like the Abolitionist movement to persuade people and their leaders to make slavery illegal. Remember prior to the 18th-19th centuries, slavery had existed in human history for 7-8,000 years. Making slavery a moral anathema and illegal was a novel concept that the Abolitionists faced.

[guillaumeb]

40. Agreed. People must pressure politicians, not expect to be lead by politicians.

[raouldukelives]

42. +1000

People seem to think it ended because we voted for it to end. In reality it ended because people not only refused to profit from evil to others, but actively opposed it.

Just as today and the reality of climate change. There are those who don't care if they heap suffering upon others today and most certainly, tomorrow, and there are those who say not in my name. Who refuse to be a piston in the engine of suffering.

[Tarheel_Dem]

41. "Socalist Worker". 'Nuff said.

[guillaumeb]

53. ad hominem. Enough said.

[Shankapotomus]

43. All talk and no action is

not necessarily all you want to see but sometimes the language a president starts to use can prepare the country for changes down the line. And Clinton certainly got the conversation rolling in various areas and enabled the country to start thinking about making changes.

After all, the next Democratic president that followed Clinton was African American.

[guillaumeb]

57. True enough.

But Clinton's changes to welfare mandated a 5 year maximum lifetime period for eligibility for benefits without any accompanying actions to actually help people leave welfare.

Clinton's changes to the economic climate embodied in NAFTA and the Gramm, Leach, Blily Act set the stage for the economic stagnation and job loss that still plague the country.

[Shankapotomus]

62. You're right

and I wouldn't challenge anything you wrote.

[craigmatic]

47. No they really haven't democrats throughout the decades wanted peace and calm in which to

conduct business. They didn't care how they got it and really still don't so justice took a backseat. Police brutality has been around since 1865, The 13th Amendment may end slavery but it gave them a loophole to start building prisons and here we are today. We've always been seen as a politically necessary inconvenience.

[guillaumeb]

59. Agreed on all points. Prisons are a growth industry in the US,

and minorities are their clients.

Michelle Alexander makes the point far better than I could. Slavery was replaced with prison with the result that minority labor was once more "free labor" for the rich.

[Vinca]

55. Well, I'm sure Republicans will step up to fight for racial equality and justice.

It appears Democrats are assumed to have magic powers and can make everything right with the twist of a baton. Presto change-o, the world is filled with rainbows and singing birds.

[guillaumeb]

60. I do not think that anyone assumes that Democrats have magical powers,

but taking black votes for granted has happened among Democratic office holders. And taking union votes for granted. And womens' votes.

Republicans like Eric Cantor took the votes of racist whites for granted, until they voted for his even more extreme opponent.

[pnwmom]

77. Apparently you haven't noticed that we have a black President; and that is because

Democrats believe black lives matter and that a black person was the best qualified to lead the country.

[guillaumeb]

84. I DID notice that. But thank you for asking.

But President Obama has not exactly enjoyed maximum support from his fellow Democrats.

Remember Max Baucus and the health care negotiations? I do. In my view Baucus epitomized the corporate Democrat who knows where his contributions came from and voted accordingly. Rahm Emmanuel is another such Democrat. There are more than a few such Democrats.

[Lee-Lee]

82. I see the party treat minorities like they treat organized labor

Just well enough to ensure they secure the voting block without alienating anyone else to do it.

Not nearly as well as should be done, or as they promise during campaigning.

[guillaumeb]

86. Nicely said. But in the saying you just might be called an anti-Democrat!!

As to campaign promises, President Obama promised to do certain things that he did not accomplish, but he faced GOP obstructionism and did not have a veto proof majority after the first 8 weeks in office. No one should blame President Obama for this situation.

[Lee-Lee]

88. They are still head and shoulders better than the alternative

So of course they get my support- but they do know they are better than the alternative so they only have to do the minimum to stay that way.

Being a public sector employee in NC taught me that well with regards to how they treat organized labor. Collective bargaining is banned for all state and local level government employees in NC and has been since he 1950's. And no matter how much the Democrats in this state preach about support unions and workers they had decades where they had total control and could have easily changed that law.... And did nothing about it.

Because they knew that they didn't have to...

[guillaumeb]

89. Absolutely.

I recently retired after 38 years working for the Federal Government. Unionized and proud of it. But I agree that some Democrats are willing to take union contributions while providing little to no real support or votes.

As to your situation, right to work is the real problem and until the Democratic party commits to working on this issue it is up to workers in individual states to vote smart.

[Lee-Lee]

91. In NC it's far worse than just "right to work"

It's a complete and total ban on collective bargain for any and all government employees, period.

Right to work would be a huge step forward in this case...

[guillaumeb]

93. Bruce Rauner, the new governor of Illinois, wants to implement

a similar plan here, but his lack of a majority in the Illinois Legislature prevents a NC type of situation here.

And some union workers still persist in voting for the GOP.

[ericson00]

85. "Socialist Worker," yes.

McCain coulda been talking about magazines like that when he talked about "firing up the crazies."

[guillaumeb]

87. Are you familiar with the magazine?

Or is it the word "socialist"?

Why is the word socialist such a bad word in the US?

1) Government run health care is much more efficient than privatized care.
2) The government run US Postal Service always outperforms privatized services.
2a) The US Postal Service provided banking services until the late 1960's Why not let the people profit from providing these services?
3) Government run water and other utilities are always cheaper and more efficient than privatized services
4) Government run services take the profit motive out of the equation.