Stop 3/5ing the vote of the AA community.

[msanthrope]

I've seen a troubling trend over the last few months in GD: P, the denigration of the votes of Black Democrats. Whether they've been accused of being low-information voters, being duped, listening to 'slander,' or having Stockholm Syndrome, the continual drumbeat seems to be an attempt to drive down the vote in that community by insulting them and implying that their votes were not achieved correctly.

Yes...drive down the vote in the AA community by telling them that their votes were achieved through trickery.....suggest that the AA community is lesser, part of "the Confederacy." That's not a strategy that helps any Democrat. It makes you wonder why someone would post, insulting an entire demographic. Why would anyone try to drive down the AA vote?

Why would anyone recommend posts that suggest such? Why would anyone post offensive material, and keep that material up after some of the most notable posters in DU's AA group have indicated that it is offensive?

No Democrat benefits from that behavior. Not a one.

[stonecutter357]

1. K&R!

[Hekate]

2. KnR

[JustAnotherGen]

3. Rec

[Warren DeMontague]

4. And who has benefitted from the past 8 months of nonstop insults thrown at Sanders supporters?

Is that goin' down the memory hole?

[msanthrope]

9. Downthread, the point was made that Sanders won the white male

demographic. He didn't win any other demographic.

I have to admit, Warren, that the woes of American white males are pretty low on my list of shit to give a flying fuck about. The slings and arrows they suffer on the Internet? Gird your loins.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. Yeah, that's what I thought.

More of the same.

[msanthrope]

13. Honestly, Warren, this thread is about something serious....a deliberate

political strategy to depress a key Democratic demographic. That's the only way the Senate is kept by the Republicans.

Senate. SCOTUS. Both of which are FAR more important than the feelings of either you or me. Bernie is over... .but the downballot is not. Find a downballot race, and work the fuck out of it. Make the revolution come from below.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. Come on, tell me how my opinion doesn't matter because I'm a, you know..

well, fuck, can't really help my demographics, although the post in question did say "young white males", you know, that completely dubious assertion of demographic preference (which, if even arguable from a slicing of today's numbers, I am sure will change drastically as geographics of the primary states do --read Colorado) but... you're welcome to call me young, too, if you want.

My feelings don't give a shit, but I have a very good memory. Like if you think I'm gonna forget you cheering on the barely sentient community college blogger troll who couldn't debate her way out of a paper bag, who signed up only to call me a rand paul acolyte and order me out of the Democratic Party I've worked my dreadfully white male ass off for the past many decades, you're mistaken.

[msanthrope]

18. You're still pissed at me for that? Jesus, Warren....nt.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. Nah, I don't stay pissed.

But I also don't let the bullshit people say on the internet affect my political decision-making. And there has been a nonstop noise machine here for 8 months or so about "teh berniebros said this!" masquerading as discussion around political decision-making.

Look, you guys have won, in all likelihood. I acknowledge that. I figured all along Hillary would probably be the nominee, and I certainly have a good list of reasons to support her and skills and qualifications which I think will make her a supremely capable POTUS. I have no problem there, assuming there isn't more shit coming from the DOJ that could upend the apple cart.

But the irony of the people who have literally spent the past 2/3 of a year here in GDP (as well as other places, as we all know) in a full-tilt series of lame ad hominem attacks against "sanders supporters" to still be going on about the untenable outragee of who said what because they said this and canyoubelieeeeeeeeeve it.

It's a small bit of hypocrisy that I just can't let pass without comment.

And yes, there has been some strenuously bad bullshit said about AA voters in southern states here, I am not disagreeing with you there.

But again, if we're really looking to "cut the internecine squabbling", do you honestly think that the way to do it is with yet more of this insulting "white male berniebro" bullshit?

[msanthrope]

21. You know what's interesting to me, Warren.....your personalization

of my OP. I don't mention you, Bernie, or any of his self-proclaimed supporters. I think you missed my point.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. I merely asked a question, which was who exactly benefits from the shit what has been flung at

people who support sanders, and your response in essence was "fuck em since they're all white guys".

I've suggested for a while that Hillary ought to look at the Demographics - outside the echo chamber of people who honestly believe the ONLY person supporting Sanders has been a fedora-wearing redditor with a soul patch and a purple shirt - where she isn't doing as well; think Millennials- and ask how to better inspire and motivate and win them over.

Sanders, obviously, has a problem with minority voters, or has so far like he did today. I don't dispute that, I can speculate as to potential reasons as to why that might be, but unlike the people you mention your OP (which clearly is referencing Sanders supporters, even if you didn't say it in so many words) I'm not going to denigrate the opinions of those voters or tell them who they "should" support. They've made their preference clear and more power to em.

But Sanders having a problem w/those demographics doesnt matter if he's not the nominee. Hillary will need to win in November.

[msanthrope]

27. HRC will get her millenials. First and formost, her campaign is smart enough to

run voter registration drives on college campuses, not wait for the DNC to do it for them. That was a major misstep by the Bernie campaign.

HRC didn't need millenials primary votes....which is why her voter registration drives will be after each primary. She will get her millenials.

[Warren DeMontague]

30. "her" Millennials.

You realize that the condescension displayed towards them has been a big part of the problem, right?

[msanthrope]

33. Poor dears.The demographic I am talking about worry about getting

shot by cops on a daily basis.

Millenials are being condescended to? Wow.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. The people shooting African Americans are the people guarding the gated communities of the

people paying Hillary's lobbyists.

[msanthrope]

58. Indeed. So, then Gwen Carr is what? Not seeing how HRC is responsible

for her son's death?

[Warren DeMontague]

79. deflect, insult, and try and make the conversation into something it isnt.

rinse, repeat.

Its not only condescending, its intelligence insulting to try and pretend, here, that somehow millennials not wanting to be condescended to has jack diddly shit to do with cops shooting minorities.

millennials not wanting to be codescended to doesnt have anything to do with cops shooting minorities. "Berniebros" dont have anything to do with cops shooting minorities.

Know what has to do with cops shooting minorities? The DRUG WAR. That Hillary helped escalate. That Bernie Sanders, at least, has had the guts to call a "failure".



Anyway, These lame tactics have permeated hillary's campaign, substituting for issues and policy based conversation, all the way to the top.

One hopes that smart people - and Hillary is smart- can do better.

One hopes.

[msanthrope]

89. Sorry Warren, but black lives are more important in this campaign

than the hurt feelings of millenials.

[fleur-de-lisa]

108. +1

[Warren DeMontague]

186. You insult them, "how is this helping?"- that's your question.

And if your thread was actually about, say, police violence, then you might have a point. But it's not, it's about people saying nasty stuff on the internet.

So "but that's just people saying nasty stuff on the internet" isn't really a rational response.

[msanthrope]

136. Welcome to DU. MIRT!!!!! Cleanup in aisle three!!!!! nt

[msanthrope]

138. I'm white, and you say "bitch" like it's a bad thing. I welcome your hatred. nt

[auntpurl]

142. How do people get banned these days?

With the jury system? How does a moderator know to do it?

I'm sincerely asking. I'm from the old DU days, lol. Is there an "alert moderator" or "alert site admin" process I don't know about?

[msanthrope]

144. You can alert on a post, but MIRT, a committee of troll zappers, keeps a pretty tight rein

on things....just alert, and let it go from there.

[auntpurl]

145. Cool, thanks for info nt

[auntpurl]

139. Good lord.

Just, all kinds around here these days. Although I would hope that kind won't be here for more than about 2 more minutes.

[msanthrope]

141. He's dead, Jim. nt

[whathehell]

202. They may, on a daily basis, worry about getting raped and

murdered. ..but hey..getting shot by cops is ALL that matters, right?

[nikto]

34. Hillary's only chance of getting a significant number of millennials if she wins the nomination is..

To have Bernie as running-mate.


Without Bernie on the ticket, Hillary will draw relatively few millennials,
and she could possibly lose to Trump.

Here's some food for thought ...

http://static.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrats-nominate-sanders-a-trump-nomination-means-a-trump-presidency

[msanthrope]

35. Um. No. Either Castro or Warren will draw the millenials.

So will actual voter registration drives.

[onenote]

46. That's a sad indictment of millennials, isn't it?

The assumption is that Sanders will pick up the Clinton supporters, particularly among minorities if he is the nominee. I suspect that is correct, because those voters understand the evil that is Donald Trump and the threat he poses to minorities, women, gays, the disabled, etc.

Yet, the assumption also is that millennials (particularly white millennials) will stay on the sidelines, vote third party, or even vote for Trump if Clinton is the nominee.

How does someone who is willing to enable a misogynist bigot like Trump and not work to protect those that he threatens call himself or herself "progressive?"

[azurnoir]

166. "HRC didn't need millenials primary votes" so she ignored them

that will not be forgotten either

[msanthrope]

169. No....she allocated her resources to people who would show up to the primary. nt

[azurnoir]

172. hmmm Bernie won by 20+ points in my state so millenials here must have shown up

or maybe are their support is being a bit over blown, in any event it seems Hillary's supporters have what could be seen as a denigrating attitude towards young people

[nikto]

203. Hillary getting the Millennials is not guaranteed

An actual Millennial speaks.
Excerpt:

"She claims to want to rein in abuses on Wall Street, but her top donors throughout her career have been Wall Street firms. And I’ll never forget her shameless invocation of 9/11 to justify those donations. Then, of course, there’s her “evolution.” She was against gay marriage for years; now that it is a popular position, she’s wrapping herself in a rainbow flag. She was for the Trans Pacific Partnership for years; now she’s against it, also coinciding with popular opinion. The real question I have is: What Hillary will people be voting for if she gets the nod?

I am also bothered by her political double talk. Whenever Hillary reminds us that she is, in fact, a woman, I can’t help feeling condescended to. Does she really think that gender is a substitute for policy positions in a Democratic primary? "



http://www.salon.com/2015/11/30/more_like_reagan_than_fdr_im_a_millennial_and_ill_never_vote_for_hillary_clinton/



Hint:
When Hillary and her supporters try to win over the Millennials,
it is best not to ridicule, mock or belittle them.
They are no Tea-Partiers!
Many are, like this woman, educated, well-informed young
people who are fed-up with a system that has systematically short-changed working people,
young people, and the middle class, and this was not done by the GOP alone (NAFTA, GATT, 1995 Crime Bill,
1996 Telecommunications act, Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994,
repeal of Glass-Steagall ----All HUGE deals with far-reaching and lasting NEGATIVE impact on
great masses of people---And Bill Clinton backed every one, bigtime).

Sweeping these issues under the rug could be a colossal error for the Democratic Party
in this election. These are the fears of the Millennials, and these must be mitigated in order to securely
capture the Millennial vote and beat Trump in November.
If Hillary selected Bernie as running mate (assuming he'd accept), these problems would be largely
neutralized, and could be minimized as GOP weapons in the fall.

In addition, I would hope that Hillary would release the texts of her speeches to Goldman-Sachs
SOON, when we Democrats could work it out and mitigate any problems at a time WE SELECT.
Otherwise, you can be sure a shameless GOP will put it out when THEY want, at the time
that benefits THEM best (like October).

We are talking about winning now.
These are serious tactical/strategic questions.

[cherokeeprogressive]

72. No words could be uttered, typed, or written by me or anyone else here...

that would "depress a key Democratic demographic". That's just fucking silly on its face. If you believe anything a DUer submits is intended to or results in another DUer's decision to vote or not to vote, you've gone over the edge into DU Obsession and really, really need to take a break.

Other than that... please fucking stop lecturing me. It ain't fucking workin'.

[JTFrog]

76. "Other than that... please fucking stop lecturing me. It ain't fucking workin'."

Something tells me you completely miss the irony in your post.

[msanthrope]

124. Indeed. One wonders what would, actually, work. nt

[John Poet]

146. I agree with that.

The OP's presumption that posts on DU are going to have an effect on voter turnout,
that could even be measured with the most powerful microscopes
is stupid on it's face.

[yardwork]

36. Warren, I'm sure you've seen the OPs

It's not an attack on white males to say that posts calling SC and GA useless states are wrong.

[JTFrog]

70. +1 n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

83. Of course not. But I didnt bring up "white males"

She asked how those attacks were helpful, and I said there has been a metric fuckton of nasty ad hom shit thrown at sanders supporters here for the past 8 months, too, and how is THAT helpful---

to which I got the response "well yargle bargle down there says they're all white men so fuckem"

Actually yargle bargle said we're all young white males. Maybe by DU standards.

[yardwork]

101. As a Hillary supporter I'm here to tell you that there's been a lot of mean stuff thrown our way too

I haven't seen you participate in that, though.

[Warren DeMontague]

188. And likewise.

[Jester Messiah]

90. Oh look, black people and white people are throwing shit at each other on the Internet again.

That Hillary... such a uniter.

[yardwork]

105. Actually, we're not. This white person is proud to stand with people of color.

[msanthrope]

185. This white person is proud and happy of her OP. nt

[Gothmog]

177. The Clinton campaign has been treating Sanders with kid gloves

The concept that the Clinton campaign has been very negative on Sanders is simply false when you look at what Sanders would be subject to if he was the Democratic nominee. VOX had a good article on the potential lines of attack that Sanders would be exposed to if Sanders was the nominee. http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10903404/gop-campaign-against-sanders One of the more interesting observations in the VOX analysis is the fact that Sanders have been treated with kids gloves compared to what Sanders would face if he was the Democratic nominee. I strongly agree with the VOX's position that the so-called negative attacks against Sander have been mild. Form the article:

I have no interest in litigating any of these attacks here. Like any Democrat elected president in 2016, Sanders wouldn't be able to get much done, but he would block attempts to roll back Obama's accomplishments and have a chance to fill a few Supreme Court vacancies.

When Sanders supporters discuss these attacks, though, they do so in tones of barely contained outrage, as though it is simply disgusting what they have to put up with. Questioning the practical achievability of single-payer health care. Impugning the broad electoral appeal of socialism. Is nothing sacred?

But c'mon. This stuff is patty-cakes compared with the brutalization he would face at the hands of the right in a general election.

His supporters would need to recalibrate their umbrage-o-meters in a serious way.

The attacks that would be levied against Sanders by Karl Rove, the Kochs, the RNC candidate and others in a general election contest would make the so-called attacks against Sanders look like patty-cakes. Karl Rove, the GOP and Kochs are not known for being nice or honest and as the article notes there are a ton of good topics available for attack. Raising taxes is never a good campaign platform (Just ask President Mondale). The GOP would also raise the socialism and age issues if Sanders was the nominee.

Again, I agree with the VOX position that so far, Sanders has not been subject to negative attacks close to what the GOP would use against Sanders and the attacks against Sanders if he was the nominee would be brutal. I urge Sanders supporters to read the VOX article to start to get a feel for what real negative attacks would look like.

[Warren DeMontague]

187. that wasn't my question, was it.

[Gothmog]

191. Your post 4 referenced eight months poor treatment of Sanders supporters

That same complaint is being made by others at to the Clinton campaign who are claiming that Clinton is engaging in scorched earth tactics. I live in a very red state where I have seen what the GOP, the Kochs, Karl Rove and the RNC candidate (hopefully Trump) would do to Sanders if he was the nominee. I am amazed that people think that people are claiming nasty and unfair attacks against Sanders and his supporters when the stuff that I have seen has been mild compared to what Sanders would face if he was the nominee.

Rove, Ricketts and Future 45 have been busy running ads to help Sanders in the primary process and to attack Clinton. So far these ads may be helping Sanders but Clinton is still winning despite the best efforts of the GOP, Rove and others to help Sanders. Based on the current probabilities on the Predictive markets and the analysis of Nate Silver's website, it appears very unlikely that Sanders will be the subject to the same level of attacks by the Kochs, Rove, the GOP and Trump that Clinton has been subject to for some time;

Support the candidate of your choice. I will support the candidate of my choice. I am fully prepared to see what the GOP will throw at Clinton because I have seen these attacks for a couple of decades.

[Warren DeMontague]

192. people made the same argument about Obama, in '08.

There is no objective evidence that the 'pre-vetting' of Clinton is going to help her. Beyond that, Trump has already made it clear he's going to hammer on stuff like the email situation. "she is currently under investigation by the FBI" is a new line distinct from those two decades of attacks.

I have no doubt that, if Sanders is the nominee, they will (rightly) call him a Socialist, etc. But they will call whoever we nominate a socialist. That said, I suspect HRC will win the nomination, I have since the get-go. And I'll support her even though I strongly disagree that she will make the more electable candidate.

But lastly; That same complaint is being made by others at to the Clinton campaign who are claiming that Clinton is engaging in scorched earth tactics. --- again, that's not really responsive to me and the point I am making in this thread. It's changing the subject.

[Gothmog]

194. But for Sanders, the attack ads write themselves

The attack ads from this appearance on Meet the Press write themselves. It is not a a great move to say that I am not a capitalist in that sound byte is so easy to use https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/12/why-bernie-sanders-isnt-going-to-be-president-in-5-words/

Meet the Press ✔ @meetthepress
CHUCK TODD: Are you a capitalist?@BernieSanders: No. I'm a Democratic Socialist.
8:33 AM - 11 Oct 2015

And, in those five words, Sanders showed why — no matter how much energy there is for him on the liberal left — he isn't getting elected president.

Why? Because Democrat or Republican (or independent), capitalism remains a pretty popular concept — especially when compared to socialism. A 2011 Pew Research Center survey showed that 50 percent of people had a favorable view of capitalism, while 40 percent had an unfavorable one. Of socialism, just three in 10 had a positive opinion, while 61 percent saw it in a negative light.

Wrote Pew in a memo analyzing the results:

Of these terms, socialism is the more politically polarizing — the reaction is almost universally negative among conservatives, while generally positive among liberals. While there are substantial differences in how liberals and conservatives think of capitalism, the gaps are far narrower.

...The simple political fact is that if Sanders did ever manage to win the Democratic presidential nomination — a long shot but far from a no shot at this point — Republicans would simply clip Sanders's answer to Todd above and put it in a 30-second TV ad. That would, almost certainly, be the end of Sanders's viability in a general election.

Americans might be increasingly aware of the economic inequality in the country and increasingly suspicious of so-called vulture capitalism — all of which has helped fuel Sanders's rise. But we are not electing someone who is an avowed socialist to the nation's top political job. Just ain't happening.

You can try to argue that the two terms are not the same but that will not stop the Kochs from running $200 milion to $300 million using that term in negative ads that would be very effective.

Sanders literally handed the GOP, the Kochs and Rove a ready made sound byte that can be so easily used

[Warren DeMontague]

196. I think we do better when we inspire people and are perceived as actually standing for something

Unfortunately this fall we're probably going to be running on "vote for us, cuz we're not nuts like the other guys are" again.

It may be enough, but many of us want more from our party.

And self-assured beltway conventional wisdom about the US electorate has been proven wrong enough times that it shouldnt be taken as gospel truth. Not anymore.

[Gothmog]

205. I have the template for a button similar to your vote for theme

It is time to dust my button machine off again.

I am forced to live in the real world and so I have to deal with real attacks. I had to go yell at the county election administrator because an election judge gave my son in law grief for using one of the approved forms of voter ids. I hate to break it to you but the Texas voter id law probably had a stronger negative impact on Sanders than Clinton in that older voters either had ids or could vote by mail. The TDP push vote by mail and the numbers were amazing compared to prior years. To the extent that younger voters lack the required id, Sanders may have been hurt more than Clinton in Texas.

I am irked that the 5th Circuit has not ruled on this and the Texas Democratic Party is doing everything that it can to kill this law. If you want to point fingers for Sanders results in Texas read this http://www.texasobserver.org/election-identification-certificates-voter-id/ This is the world I live in and so my time is taken up dealing with these issues (I devoted a ton of time in 2014 helping on voter id issues).

[Warren DeMontague]

206. Anyone who has to live there has my sincerest sympathy.

I would be the first to admit I live on a different planet in terms of political reality, in a state with the first openly bisexual governor in US history, where adults can walk into a state regulated and taxed retail establishment and buy marijuana for recreational use.

But I do think history has shown the winds to be blowing in my direction. Maybe not as fast as I might wish, but still. It is also worth noting that in 2004 we nominated the "smart, electable" choice, and in 2008 we nominated the "you'd be crazy to..." One.

I wish you luck with the whole voting id thing. Sounds despicable, but par for the GOP course.

[anigbrowl]

207. "nonstop insults thrown at Sanders supporters'?

My goodness, some people have incredibly thin skin, while simultaneously being blind to the behavior of their own cohort. Bernie fans have collectively been extremely vocal and specific about their dislike of Hillary Clinton, to the point that many of them seem to dislike her more than they dislike the Republicans. Talk about dishing it out but being unable to take it.

[Warren DeMontague]

208. Only one side has tried frantically to make "the supporters" & associated memes an actual issue

In the primaries.


Maybe because when real concrete policy issues have been lined up in a candidate to candidate comparison, they rapidly run out of shit to say.

[Lucinda]

5. KNR

[leftynyc]

6. My pleasure to kick and rec

this post. Under the bus is rapidly running out of room. I just saw Steve Kornacki break down the votes by looking at all the states voting last night - Bernie won white men, Hillary won everything else - white women, black men and women, Latino men and women. Pretty stark numbers. Don't worry, msanthnrope, you're in excellent company.

[NCTraveler]

7. Very well put. Nt

[Starry Messenger]

8. Especially puzzling since she's winning every demo

except young white men. Hmmmmm.

[msanthrope]

10. The Republicans need depressed Democratic turnout to win the GE and keep

the Senate. It's not tough to figure out who benefits from this.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. Well thank God hillary is doing such a bang up job with Millennials, right?

I mean, as long as we're just making shit up.

[msanthrope]

14. Warren, step back a second. The downballot....the Senate

is up for grabs. More important than internecine squabbling....HRC will be our nominee. It's time to work the downballot.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. I know she's gonna be our nominee, in all likelihood.

Which is why I strenuously hope there isn't some shoe waiting to drop in terms of the FBI investigation.

It's also why I've said from the very beginning I have wanted her to run a better campaign, because frankly it's been a bit craptastic so far. The shit with Millennials is a glaring example.

I'd like her to win in November.

But if you want to do the party unity dance, maybe calling people names isn't the best way to get there.

[YCHDT]

100. She's doing great with young black and Hispanic Millennials

[lovemydog]

15. Some have even suggested that we 'discount' or 'ignore'

their votes in red states. Like their vote in a primary should count less.

Like the infamous 3/5 compromise.

That should make anyone who knows history want to hurl.

[VulgarPoet]

143. +1.

[BumRushDaShow]

20. Yes, 3/5th has been institutionalized

and generationally-engrained. This is what we call "systemic racism" and the perpetrators have a scotoma to the fact that they are contributing to the system of racism/white supremacy by continuing to insist on their world-views being "universal", and anything contrary to that is "wrong".

The hand-wringing going on here on DU is an example of this, as there is a complete disconnect regarding how many POC see the candidates - i.e., from their own world-views/experiences/expectations/desires, versus the world-views of the complainers, who would generally be risk-averse to anything impacting their own world-views/experiences/expectations/desires.

So the complainers then label POC as being impacted by such nonsense as "Stockholm Syndrome" - which not surprisingly references an incident in a country with a notable tiny population of (non-European) blacks. And in order to do this, they highly exaggerate, to the level of fantasy, what their chosen worldview is and why it must be "universal", and will demonize anything, to the point of ridiculousness, that would contribute to a different point of view contrary to theirs.

As black-talker and Civil Rights activist Joe Madison says daily -

In America, we are culturally conditioned to believe, that White is superior, Black is inferior, and the manifestation of that cultural conditioning is that Black people are undervalued, underestimated and marginalized.

[msanthrope]

24. I think this post should be it's own OP.....

The lack of self-reflection in some on this board is painful to watch.

[BumRushDaShow]

32. I wish I had time

to do more OPs but between work and home the past year (going on 2nd year), I have been so jammed up that I can only manage to jump in every once in awhile as my "break" from that, and then its back into the netherworld again.

[sufrommich]

40. Great post. nt

[auntpurl]

80. Excellent post. nt

[Octafish]

87. Dr. Frantz Fanon, M.D. wrote about that very subject.

For some reason, Texas history books don't mention him and he's never brought up on the tee vee.



“Negrophobes exist. It is not hatred of the Negro, however, that motivates them; they lack the courage for that, or they have lost it. Hate is not inborn; it has to be constantly cultivated, to be brought into being, in conflict with more or less recognized guilt complexes. Hate demands existence and he who hates has to show his hate in appropriate actions and behavior; in a sense, he has to become hate. That is why Americans have substituted discrimination for lynching. Each to his own side of the street.” ― Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks

[BumRushDaShow]

95. Had his books in my household growing up

including that one. Fanon was one my mother mentioned all the time.

[Octafish]

97. War Hero. Psychiatrist. Anti-Colonialist. Revolutionary.

A great role model for all who believe in Democracy.

Thank you for sharing, BumRushDaShow.

“Not all readers are leaders, but all leaders are readers.” -- President Harry S Truman

[BumRushDaShow]

98. "Wretched of the Earth"

is sitting on my bookcase as well.

[Octafish]

106. Outstanding analysis. More than relevant, it is basic for human progress.

“The basic confrontation which seemed to be colonialism versus anti-colonialism, indeed capitalism versus socialism, is already losing its importance. What matters today, the issue which blocks the horizon, is the need for a redistribution of wealth. Humanity will have to address this question, no matter how devastating the consequences may be.”

― Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/865773-les-damn-s-de-la-terre

I believe Dr. Fanon had a follower in President John F. Kennedy, who, as a New Deal Democrat, believed in using the powers of government to make life better for ALL Americans. He also believed in democracy for other countries, from Congo to Vietnam.

Dodd and Dulles vs. Kennedy in Africa

“In assessing the central character ...
Gibbon’s description of the Byzantine general
Belisarius may suggest a comparison:
‘His imperfections flowed from the contagion of the times;
his virtues were his own.’”
— Richard Mahoney on President Kennedy

By Jim DiEugenio
CTKA, From the January-February 1999 issue (Vol. 6 No. 2)

EXCERPT…

The Self-Education of John F. Kennedy

During Kennedy’s six years in the House, 1947-1952, he concentrated on domestic affairs, bread and butter issues that helped his middle class Massachusetts constituents. As Henry Gonzalez noted in his blurb for Donald Gibson’s Battling Wall Street, he met Kennedy at a housing conference in 1951 and got the impression that young Kennedy was genuinely interested in the role that government could play in helping most Americans. But when Kennedy, his father, and his advisers decided to run for the upper house in 1952, they knew that young Jack would have to educate himself in the field of foreign affairs and gain a higher cosmopolitan profile. After all, he was running against that effete, urbane, Boston Brahmin Henry Cabot Lodge. So Kennedy decided to take two seven-week-long trips. The first was to Europe. The second was a little unusual in that his itinerary consisted of places like the Middle East, India, and Indochina. (While in India, he made the acquaintance of Prime Minister Nehru who would end up being a lifelong friend and adviser.)

Another unusual thing about the second trip was his schedule after he got to his stops. In Saigon, he ditched his French military guides and sought out the names of the best reporters and State Department officials so he would not get the standard boilerplate on the French colonial predicament in Indochina. After finding these sources, he would show up at their homes and apartments unannounced. His hosts were often surprised that such a youthful looking young man could be a congressman. Kennedy would then pick their minds at length as to the true political conditions in that country.

If there is a real turning point in Kennedy’s political career it is this trip. There is little doubt that what he saw and learned deeply affected and altered his world view and he expressed his developing new ideas in a speech he made upon his return on November 14, 1951. Speaking of French Indochina he said: "This is an area of human conflict between civilizations striving to be born and those desperately trying to retain what they have held for so long." He later added that "the fires of nationalism so long dormant have been kindled and are now ablaze....Here colonialism is not a topic for tea-talk discussion; it is the daily fare of millions of men." He then criticized the U. S. State Department for its laid back and lackadaisical approach to this problem:

One finds too many of our representatives toadying to the shorter aims of other Western nations with no eagerness to understand the real hopes and desires of the people to which they are accredited.

The basic idea that Kennedy brought back from this trip was that, in the Third World, the colonial or imperial powers were bound to lose in the long run since the force of nationalism in those nascent countries was so powerful, so volcanic, that no extended empire could contain it indefinitely. This did not mean that Kennedy would back any revolutionary force fighting an imperial power. Although he understood the appeal of communism to the revolutionaries, he was against it. He wanted to establish relations and cooperate with leaders of the developing world who wished to find a "third way," one that was neither Marxist nor necessarily pro-Western. He was trying to evolve a policy that considered the particular history and circumstances of the nations now trying to break the shackles of poverty and ignorance inflicted upon them by the attachments of empire. Kennedy understood and sympathized with the temperaments of those leaders of the Third World who wished to be nonaligned with either the Russians or the Americans and this explains his relationships with men like Nehru and Sukarno of Indonesia. So, for Kennedy, Nixon’s opposition toward Ho Chi Minh’s upcoming victory over the French in Vietnam was not so much a matter of Cold War ideology, but one of cool and measured pragmatism. As he stated in 1953, the year before the French fell:

The war would never be successful ... unless large numbers of the people of Vietnam were won over from their sullen neutrality and open hostility. This could never be done ... unless they were assured beyond doubt that complete independence would be theirs at the conclusion of the war.

To say the least, this is not what the Dulles brothers John Foster and Allen had in mind. Once the French empire fell, they tried to urge upon Eisenhower an overt American intervention in the area. When Eisenhower said no, Allen Dulles sent in a massive CIA covert operation headed by Air Force officer Edward Lansdale. In other words, the French form of foreign domination was replaced by the American version.

CONTINUED…

http://www.ctka.net/pr199-africa.html

Jim DiEugenio is a DUer and a top researcher and writer. Guy writes a flamethrower of a review, too, setting ablaze those in error -- whether pro-, anti-, or just plain ol' status quo.

[VulgarPoet]

147. Institutionalized; hook line and sinker.

"If you are serious about Sanders message of us instead of Clintons message of mine then stop falling for the fucking lies here and elsewhere. All Democrats and leftists are suffering from "Stockholm Syndrome" when year after year for the last 40 they have voted supposedly for a progressive Democrat and got a right of center neoliberal. How long can the left hold their noses? I do think that name recognition is still a big issue. I supported Jesse Jackson but even I didn't know much about Sanders until the Iraq War run up. And even then I still didn't know a lot. Why would I? The Clintons have been on the public stage for good or bad for decades. And yes, the Master/Slave relationship is real. Whenever you or any leftist lets an authoritarian prick tell you you are a traitor and a retard for wanting 'free shit' and then you turn around and hold your nose and vote for a neoliberal anyway, I am sorry but you are a slave to the blue team."

This is the shit that opened my eyes further to the fact that there are two distinct machines that consider each other enemies. This is the kind of shit that really showed me the depths of my own hypocrisy. I'm staunchly against fundamental evangelical Christianity. I'm staunchly against acts of terrorism. Overall, I'm completely against binary, one and zero thinking-- and both sides espouse it. Even worse when one and zero thinking becomes black and white thinking, and you're made out to be some kind of slave, traitor, or uncle tom to some binary cause.

[lovemydog]

160. ^ This is an outstanding explanation

of systemic racism that exists in our country and of course at any gathering of large numbers of people too, like here and other social media.

Thanks for your post BRDS.

[betsuni]

22. K&R

[nc4bo]

23. There have been other black people who have said the same thing.

And there may be some truth in it if you listen to Tim Black's thoughts.

So not all black people think the same despite what DU says.

Remember these words? We are not a monolith.

[That Guy 888]

26. Do you belive Bernie Sanders directly insulted black voters in the South?

I see that posted quite a bit on DU.

[msanthrope]

28. What are you referring to? nt

[72DejaVu]

31. I wouldn't say directly

but the "smart" remark in Minnesota came damn close, although I don't think it was deliberate.

[YCHDT]

104. Yes, and the tone deafness of "Killer Mike" speaks volumes. He is a rare known and is being

... touted as a star it seems because he's big and black and doesn't like Hillary.

[That Guy 888]

130. The quick reply of the person in the audience about the average donation being $27?

Why would a DEMOCRATIC Candidate purposely insult Black voters? To what purpose?

I see a lot of hurt feelings about non-existent insults, I just hope you sincerely believe that for some BAFFLING reason Sanders (and by extension EVERYONE who backs him) is suddenly (or secretly always was) a RACIST, which would be sad. If it's an "artful smear" to support Clinton or fun with bigotry, than it's even worse.

As for the tone-deafness of Killer Mike, is that about:

But I talked to [activist] Jane Elliott a few weeks ago, and Jane said, ‘Michael, a uterus doesn’t qualify you to be president of the United States. You have to be—you have to have policy that’s reflective of social justice.’

If it is, I remember Clinton supporters being outraged about it and like the Sanders slur it was deceptively quoted, usually leaving off the Jane Elliot part, and saying that Killer Mike said it all on his own.

[liberal N proud]

29. K&R

[treestar]

37. Indeed, it's appalling

AA voters know what they are doing. Insinuating otherwise is disgusting.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

38. I keep seeing 2 kinds of posts appear to predominate among Hillary supporters.

The first kind lambastes Bernie supporters for vowing to not vote for Hillary in the general election. "You simply must vote for her if she's the party's nominee," we're told, "because she'll be the party's nominee."

And then there's posts like this calling Bernie supporters racists.

If a bloc of voters were as racist as some Hillary supporters protest I wouldn't want them anywhere near my candidate. Kinda like how we note David Duke nodding his head approvingly at some of the things Trump says and count that among the reasons to disqualify Trump.

But them supposedly racist Sanders supporters? Well, I suppose all can be forgiven so long as the just get behind the right candidate.

Heck, maybe there could even be redemption for David Duke.

[BumRushDaShow]

45. Why do folks continue to insist that it is "Hillary supporters"

who are the only ones calling out offensive perspectives being presented on DU?

Calling out offensive content that marginalizes POC voters because their perspectives are different from someone else, is not calling someone a "racist". It is pointing out that what was written should be reconsidered in the context of a POC's reason for thinking the way they do and why they act or react the way they do, based on their own experiences/world-view/expectations.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

53. I could break the internet pulling up posts on DU complaining that rural and lower class whites

are voting against their best interests by voting for the GOP. Yet, no one claims that is reducing rural and lower class white to less than human status.

Noting that the African American community may not be familiar with Sanders history with the civil rights movement and that the policies that Hillary has supported over the years is not reducing them to 3/5, lesser-person, returned-to-the-chains-of-slavery status. And no one is saying it's their fault for not knowing; it's just a fact he isn't know much outside the state he represents.

If this is the rhetoric you guys want to traffic in enjoy your general election campaign all by yourselves.

Call me a racist in one breath and plead with me to be on your side the next? Sorry, I require a bit more integrity for my vote. Maybe you're not done with me but I'm done with anyone who would play such despicable games and I won't align with people who would accept a racist's vote -- because I find racism to be so detestable.

[BumRushDaShow]

59. The difference is

and this could be illustrated by an oft-quoted Lyndon Johnson -



Do you see the difference? The denigration of the "poor white" for acting the way they do and voting the way they do and why becomes irrelevant, because in this country, they are STILL considered FAR FAR ABOVE (in the cultural hierarchy) the wealthiest and most well-heeled/educated black.

[msanthrope]

47. I think you've made an assumption.

You assume the people who posted such commentary are actual Bernie supporters. I do not.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

51. Whatever. You blast Sanders supporters without the slightest hint of discretion then

come along and say, "Oh, but I didn't mean you, dear."

[msanthrope]

54. I am surprised you have taken my OP so personally. Why? nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

57. Whatever. Call people racist one minute, want to know why they don't want

to be on your side the next. Just like I said.

Now you're going play the "only a racist would be offended by being called a racist" game. Yeah. Sure. That's right up there with: Only the guilty protest their innocence and only witches don't drown.

[msanthrope]

61. I called no one a racist. But are you denying that the terms "Stockholm Syndrome" or

"Confederacy" are not racially-charged?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

65. You're not calling anyone a racist, you're just claiming they're being racist.

And the incident from which the term Stockholm Syndrome is derived was a robbery, not based on racism. So there's nothing inherently racist about the term.

[msanthrope]

69. ok....what about "Confederacy." nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

75. What about the fact you're looking for any excuse to call people racists?

Fine! They're racists. Tell them to not vote for Hillary.

[BumRushDaShow]

81. Pointing out the use of racist terminolgy and talking points

is not calling someone "racist".

A parrot can mimic racist utterances but is that parrot a racist for doing so (i.e., was it consciously choosing to utter the terms for an effect or just repeating what it heard without a thought for the meaning or how it may be interpreted)?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

110. Maybe you're just mad the parrots have been trained to repeat "super predators."

[BumRushDaShow]

112. There's no being "mad" at anything

Your bias is showing with your assumption that I am part of your worldview of "Bernie" vs "Hillary" and I am not. "Parrots" repeat what they hear and are often rewarded for the "repeating".

The question that you dodged however, was whether that "parrot" was "a racist" for the repeating of the offensive terms, with the assumption that they may not have done so with an intent to cause harm, as they did not realize the loaded meanings and interpretations of those terms and their impact.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

113. "'Parrots' repeat what they hear and are often rewarded for the 'repeating'."

I've heard that -- but I've never repeated it.

[BumRushDaShow]

115. Yet you miss the point of the analogy

That one can spout racist crap but not realize what they are spouting is racist, and thereby would not needlessly need to be defined as one. Where others spout the same crap, doing so consciously and deliberately, therefore suggesting that they are racist (or prejudiced in some way).

It's something that Joe Madison oft-repeats in quoting/paraphrasing MLK -

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

The former is what people try to point out and correct when posters do it and the latter points to someone who is doing the spouting for an intended purpose/reaction, and don't care what anyone else thinks.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

118. Racist crap should be denounced but it's not racist crap you're denouncing.

You're just covering for corporatist, criminally-investigated, super-predator Goldwater girl.

[BumRushDaShow]

129. Ahh there it is...

Defining what is (should be) considered "racist crap" by someone not "you".

[msanthrope]

92. I think you illustrate the problem in your post......

You seem concerned about people being called racists. You have not, however, addressed the actual racism.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

109. What racism have I failed to address?

The non-racism of Stockholm Syndrome or the sorta, kinda racisty racism of "super predators"?

[msanthrope]

116. You really don't think using "Stockholm Syndrome" to describe Black voting choices isn't problematic

and poorly used? Suggesting that there is something psychologically wrong with Black people for voting for HRC isn't offensive?

Using the term "Confederacy" in the context of Black voter choices....that's not offensive?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

117. "Stockholm Syndrome" has no racial connatation. You're fabricating that out of wholecloth.

If someone can contort any non-racial statement into a racist statement then how do you propose to immunize yourself from such charges?

[msanthrope]

119. Again....do you really think suggesting that Black people have a psychological problem

en masse because they support HRC isn't offensive?

How about "Confederacy?" You've not addressed that.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

200. I will not address something with no context. Care to address "super predators?"

[Bluenorthwest]

128. Yes it does. Tons of it and boatloads.

Of course the OP WillyT made specifically targeted African American and LGBT voters by name. He made a direct connection, perhaps unaware that this is in fact a term used to disparage with a long history, but he made the connection.
Today, the OP who is straight and white leaves out the LGBT from reportage on the Stockholm post, also leaves out the fact that that thread was full of Bernie supporters like me, many LGBT, who castigated the ever living crap out of WillyT. He's been doing posts like that on DU for years and years.

So to me it is odd to always edit out the fact that that OP was about LGBT as much as African Americans and that Bernie supporters objected to it in droves. The straight white OP tries to use the other straight white person's OP to attack Bernie supporting LGBT who were attacked by the first and dismissed by the second straight white preacher.....

[msanthrope]

133. I don't identify as straight. Thanks. mt

[msanthrope]

149. Back for another round? How sweet. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

201. I'll tell you what I've told the other 2 --

If you're so convinced these longtime Progressives that have spilled so much internet ink over the years denouncing the bigotry and homophobia that has crossed our eyes for so long are now suddenly manifesting themselves as racists and homophobes then please, do yourself a favor and tell them you don't want them supporting your candidate in the general election.

We wouldn't want David Duke and his slimy ilk siding with us so go ahead and jettison everyone else who is deemed to be a racist.

[nikto]

204. Excellent response

[RunInCircles]

41. I have struggled to understand

I get supporting Clinton for welfare reform. AA's are proud of their ability to succeed and thrive in a system which is still rigged against them in many cases and they don't like freeloaders any more than anybody else. The fact that this hurts young mothers who are single or separated the most is just an unfortunate consequence.
The prison pipeline is supported because crime was often highest in poor neighborhoods and they wanted to be safe too. If more people need to be imprisoned to ensure safety that is just the way it is. There is a direct connect the dots line between this reasoning and more AA's being killed by cops though. Rather than focus on law enforcement could we have spent the money to improve opportunity? Until politicians who support policies which focus on imprisoning more people are soundly rejected the emphasis will be on taking down anybody who appears less than white and safe. This leads directly to our current spate of cops killing POC without consequences.
Yes Bernie worked for civil rights and then he went to live in Lilly White Vermont so he has not been in your neighborhoods and you have rejected him soundly for not visibly being there for you all these years. Most of you accept that he has worked and supported fairness in his legislative career but it is not enough to merit your support.
The AA community has spoken loud and clear. They support Hillary strongly. I think this means that BLM is being rejected by the AA community though. Hillary's record is clear substantially increased incarceration and more wars. I am against these things but hey what do I know.

[BumRushDaShow]

50. And here we have an example of

broad-brushing what AAs "think" and "feel" and "experience" and "expect", therefore what the POC be-all end-all focus "is". Everything "objectified" in one neat little package.

Over the past 3 decades, I have had the opportunity to participate in many many sociological workshops that pointed out the "objectification tendency" of a number of non-POC cultures here in the U.S., and it is reflected in their world-view of defining others.

[RunInCircles]

52. Yep My bad!

Seriously, You either support her policies, Don't care about her policies, or forgive her for her policies.
Which is it?

[BumRushDaShow]

62. And once again

YOU get to define how one should view the universe - as "either/or". Black and white. One must pick one or the other or none.

Classic example.

[msanthrope]

73. Well...he gave you three choices! What are you complaining about? nt

[RunInCircles]

74. Which is it?

Support, Don't Care, Forgive? Did I miss a choice?
Oh and greater than 80% is not a broad brush that is lock step!

[BumRushDaShow]

77. You still don't get

that many people do not think or operate within an "object"-type world-view (i.e., pre-defined "choices&quot .

As an analogy, note that there is a difference between the "multiple choice" test and the "subjective test".

[auntpurl]

82. Yes

People on DU talk all the time about how important their individual vote is, how important it is to vote their conscience and their feelings - person by person, mind by mind.

But when they talk about African Americans, it's like they are some huge amorphous blob voting as one hive mind.

People have preferences. People exercise those preferences in the voting booth. So far, the African American community has pretty much rejected Bernie Sanders. One by one.

[BumRushDaShow]

93. This is it exactly

You have some folks who really really do like Hillary and her policies (maybe not 100% but enough to not throw the baby out with the bathwater, and they look at her time under a President, who many sacrificed their time and even pay, to support in 2 elections).

You have some who really like Bill (and by association Hillary) due to the rarely discussed but inherently unique "cultural" relationship that southern blacks and southern whites have between each other that is not really seen between northern whites/blacks. I.e., there are regional issues that come into play for the decision. Bill has played this up to the hilt, which is what politicians do. Some of the "other side of his coin" (the backhand slap while smiling in your face) garners a level of deciding whether such is important enough to impact a long-term goal. This may seem frivolous but it is part and parcel of the attempts at forming a "cultural" tie-in -

It is something that the Obama family have CONTINUALLY done - "touch base" with "the community" - notably things like this -

You have some who are looking for the person they best feel can get into the office and pragmatically advance "as much", but never "all", of what they would like done, based on all the feedback that they hear around them... and with "holding feet to fire".

And you have some who are dedicated members of the party who will come out and vote in every election, even as a centenarian, for whoever is at the top of the ticket of their party, no matter what their policy.

In essence, each individual has a reason and for those who do actually choose to exercise their vote, they decide the "risk/benefit" of their choice.

[Adrahil]

42. K&R. Enough of minimizing black voters! NT

[Herman4747]

43. What a stupid original post. Okay, give us a round number....

Out of all the messages posted at DU what percentage "denigrates the votes of Black Democrats"? Give us a nice round number.
Show us say just ten posts comprising this notable "troubling trend" that "denigrate the votes of Black Democrats." Can you do that?
I don't think you can.

[BumRushDaShow]

55. One can start with

the mother of them all - "Fuck you, Mr. President, you piece of shit used-car salesman." (referencing the current sitting President, a Democrat and the first black one at that) that didn't get self-deleted until almost a month later after hundreds of recs and almost a thousand posts... It was the Joe Wilson "You Lie!" moment on DU.... and one can go on from there. In essence, whoever (or whatever) POC "support" that is not in the interest of certain DUers, then the entire POC community is subsequently denigrated and marginalized.

All you have to do is put the term "black" as a search term in this forum's search function and you will see dozens... I expect many more to come.

[Herman4747]

60. And just how is this denigrating specifically black VOTERS? n/t

[BumRushDaShow]

63. Really?

[msanthrope]

64. For real? You don't see how that OP would be offensive to Black people? nt

[Herman4747]

67. It would be offensive to ALL the voters who elected the President

Not just the black ones.

[msanthrope]

71. Ok....but we are talking about Black people. So let's stick to them. Can you

imagine why it would be offensive to Black people?

[Herman4747]

122. Given that our President is half-white,

why should we stick to only black people?

[msanthrope]

123. Because Black voters is my OP subject. And you aren't answering my question. Why? nt

[Herman4747]

151. Do you answer mine? n/t

[msanthrope]

152. Yes. nt

[Herman4747]

154. NO, YOU DON'T!

See, for example, post 43.

[msanthrope]

156. You were given an answer. My OP also detailed several other threads. And of course, you've

read the Stockholm thread. Let's start with those, shall we?

[Herman4747]

158. I WANTED A PERCENTAGE, WHICH YOU FAILED TO PROVIDE.

Then you LJED by saying you had answered all my questions.

I have had it with you.

[msanthrope]

164. Ok then....nt

[BumRushDaShow]

134. "Given that our President is half-white"

But he hasn't self-identified as that (at the 1:40 mark) -

You see, in America, "race" is whatever the power structure defines it as at that moment in time and often whatever the individual decides they are (even when others try to define that for them).

In Plessy v Ferguson, anyone 1/8th or more "black" was considered "black", but in general, if you "look black", then that is what you "were" until you somehow proved otherwise. And had this President not shared many many pictures of his white mother and maternal grandparents, or even his asian step-father, one would have never known he was "bi-racial"... just by looking at him. And this is where the kicker comes in - even if he had "looked white", as soon as some distant black relative was discovered, his "perceived race" would now be thrown out and his "apparent race" would be "designated" (*except when further twisted by the power structure to somehow differentiate by providing "exceptions" to the convoluted rules - e.g., how many North African blacks who literally look black, were suddenly considered anything but because... they were not "Sub-Saharan" ).

So it has always been a "genotype" / "phenotype" thing that gets randomly selected and projected at the whim of the oppressor.

Joe Madison frequently mentions an analogy that he had been told long ago about tokens and money and "value". I.e., When asked "What is the value of a nickel?" and you say "5 cents", and then when asked "What is the value of this bus token", and after a pause, you say "whatever the current fare is" (or equivalent). Meaning it is basically a fiat with a changing value assigned by "someone else" (not you). And that is what has happened to "race" and why it represents one of the most bizarre of constructs, but one that must be known by those negatively impacted by it, otherwise that person's survival may be at risk.

[Herman4747]

153. Guy, Don't be giving me Plessy v. Ferguson nonsense.

Plessy v. Ferguson has been repudiated by the U.S. Supreme Court.

[BumRushDaShow]

180. "Plessy v. Ferguson has been repudiated by the U.S. Supreme Court."

"Guy".... That's irrelevant because it certainly hasn't been "repudiated" by the oppressor public. The only thing the Supreme Court did was to offer a remedy to those who try to discriminate by making things "separate" as long as they are "equal". I.e., it de jure.

But that stops no one from creating an environment to do so de facto.

[auntpurl]

197. Just wanted to insert here that I think your posts are great.

It is so nice to have substantive discussions with people. Not something I get to engage in on DU some of the time lately, I'm afraid.

[BumRushDaShow]

198. I bow down to others here on DU

who have posted far more substantive essays and discussions on DU - one of which is here, posted just today, by bigtree. These are the types of discourse that attracted many of us to DU, even with the knowledge that people will disagree (and most are willing to be adult enough to agree to disagree), with the occasional sniping back and forth. It will be nice to be able to recapture that type of discussion on DU once more.

[auntpurl]

199. Yes it will.

I have no wish to hurry along the primary process in real life, but damn, I can't wait for it to be over on DU.

[auntpurl]

84. I suggest DU-searching the term "low information voters"

and seeing how far you can distance that from African Americans in the context of each post.

I know you won't do this, but I genuinely wish you would, because no matter which candidate I support, I have been shocked at the kinds of things that have been said about African Americans here recently.

[randome]

88. A 'round number'? Don't be ridiculous.

Starting with the egregious Stockholm Syndrome, there have been several others on a similar topic -that blacks don't know what's good for them.

And it isn't enough to judge solely by the OPs themselves, it's the number of respondents who agreed with those sentiments that points to a 'troubling trend'.

In my humble, white opinion.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[JaneyVee]

44. K AND R!

[VulgarPoet]

48. K/r.

Yes...drive down the vote in the AA community by telling them that their votes were achieved through trickery.....suggest that the AA community is lesser, part of "the Confederacy."

This is the shit that's been galling me more and more as of the first posts to go up where other Sanders supporters started using that term like it was in vogue again-- I pull for Sanders, yes, but I'm fucking sorry, when did every Southern state that Bernie didn't win in become "the Confederacy"? Are we still in a civil war?

Christ.

[AgadorSparticus]

49. It is the same petulant mentality that is not getting what it wants.

So it goes after the AA vote because AA did not get in lockstep with the perceived movement. I didn't realize it until I came back to DU how different my perception of the Bernie Sanders movement is compared to his supporter's on DU. And I have to remind myself all the time that I don't even think all of his supporters are like what I have seen here.

I really support Bernie Sanders and his vision. I can't get behind this cult like mentality, though. And yes. I see HRC and her ruthlessness. She is very much the insider. And that whole paradigm of politics has got to go. It is truly killing America. And I hope to god, the powers that be are paying attention.

[VulgarPoet]

161. +1.

[1StrongBlackMan]

56. Posted to for later. eom.

[bigtree]

66. k&r

[NurseJackie]

68. Excellent post.

[consciouslocs]

78. Cosigning and could not agree more!

K&R

[Jitter65]

85. Actually, when blacks are this denigrated and trashed, as voters, they just get more determined.

Visit a church right after some BS about their vote appears in the mass media. They laugh and begging round up their already registered voters. They did this when Obama was running. They just keep quiet and GOTV. They watch and smile as people like Cornel West and Tavis Smiley talk down to them...it doesn't work. Even with some of their most favorite icons like Harry Belafonte...they just sit back and listen and wonder what happened to him. Black voters on the whole have minds of their own. They know what they see, feel, and hear. so just keep on trashing them, it only makes them stronger and more determined. If bullets, nooses, and beatings, and dogs, and spit, and burning crosses didn't stop them...do you really think belittling their vote will?

[BumRushDaShow]

99. Nails it.

[Quayblue]

111. Pow! nt

[azurnoir]

140. Here's one for ya how many more times will the South see Hillary before the convention?

ya know all those churches she was singing hallelujah with? I'm thinking they've served their purpose and she's off to other things

[msanthrope]

163. "ya know all those churches she was singing hallelujah with?"

I thank you for proving my point.

[azurnoir]

165. really or you just avoided my question - I'll take that as what you can't say

[msanthrope]

167. I think your implication that Black voters were somehow hoodwinked by a candidate who will

now abandon them is an offensive one. I don't know her campaign schedule, but I expect that Hillary will be below the Mason Dixon frequently enough.

[azurnoir]

170. Blacks being hoodwinked is your apparent projection I said the South and churches

unless you're saying Hillary only went to Black churches?

[msanthrope]

171. This is a thread about the Black vote. nt

[azurnoir]

173. well you seemed okay when threw millennials into the thread

[msanthrope]

174. Oh....I thought it rather proved my point. On a thread about the Black vote, it

didn't take long for someone to someone to fail to address that demographic, and want to talk about the only demographic Bernie won....white men.

[azurnoir]

176. the only demographic in Texas that is - in my state he won across the board at least according to

the map

[Blue_Tires]

86. Hey, I try to point this out and get ignored

hopefully they might listen to you instead...

[mcar]

91. Well said!

[fleur-de-lisa]

94. K&R

I agree 100%. No white person should EVER lecture an African American about politics or tell an AA how to vote or why to vote. We don't have that right.

And the condescending bullshit that white people, mostly Bernie supporters, post on DU is disgusting. I'm white and I support Bernie, but I will NEVER try to tell a POC how to vote.

Haven't we as a nation done enough horrible things to AAs? One would think that on a Democratic website, of all places, we would treat our AA friends with dignity and respect. I guess it just proves that there are racists even in the Democratic party.

I used to believe that some of the people posting such trash on DU simply didn't know how offensive their message was. I no longer believe that. I think they know exactly what they're doing and it's appalling.

I apologize to our AA friends on DU for the disgusting posts by some of my fellow Bernie supporters.

And I urge all Bernie fans to call out every one of these racists posts on DU. Bernie would be horrified if he saw some of the shit on DU these days.

[BumRushDaShow]

103. You don't have to apologize

for those who can't or won't accept differences. Their very behavior speaks volumes and needing to "apologize" only reenforces the "collective guilt" issue that often gets promoted and used to marginalize different demographics.

[obamanut2012]

96. Great post -- k & r

The Confederacy/Red State stuff is appalling to me, too, especially as a Southerner. So tone deaf.

[Octafish]

102. Great strawman.

Please show some examples of "3/5ing the vote of the AA community."

From what I've read, most ALL DUers -- pro-Bernie or pro-Hillary -- are good people.

[msanthrope]

120. I don't answer your questions. nt

[Octafish]

125. I can see why.

Strawman argument.

[ismnotwasm]

107. K&R

[Orsino]

114. Never mind the 1/4ing, of course.

Every election year.

[Gothmog]

121. K&R

[Bluenorthwest]

126. You know, I'm personally bothered that the infamous Stockholm post is constantly mentioned sans

the fact that it targeted LGBT voters as well and without mention of the many posts made by Bernie supporters straight and LGBT that harshly criticized the content and the poster and his constant history of making such posts going back years on DU. I personally made many posts in that thread and gave the OP no quarter, and yet almost daily some Hillary supporter attacks me using that fucking OP which attacked me. It gets old, this working of a sore but if you are going to do it, be fair, do not affect that a single poster represents anyone other than himself and certainly not those who castigated the ever living fuck out of him for that OP.
I'm sick of it. It was an attack by a Straight White Male against African Americans and LGBT. That's fairly common on DU, actually.

I can link you to Hillary supporters making hugely antisemitic comments and claim that defines the lot of you but that would be shitty behavior. Fact is, many many of DU's most anti gay posters are currently 'Hillary supporters'. So are many LGBT posters. They do not define each other. The fact that some Bernie basher says 'gays have plenty of rights already' does not mean YOU are like that. Not in my world. But using the standards you offer up, it sort of does.

So now, go back to delivering your Straight White Opinion at us. That's what it is, is it not? Straight people were and are the entire opposition cohort to LGBT rights. So I rarely give them the right to preach at me unrelentingly as if they were something other than Straight White people. They tend to hide behind other people's candy.

[msanthrope]

131. I identify as Bi. Been a long journey. But thanks for asking.

Last edited Wed Mar 2, 2016, 02:39 PM - Edit history (1)

I did not discuss the LGBT aspect because I prefer to make shorter, more concise OPs. I do find it interesting that within the first few posts, however, the talk turned to white males and their votes.

[Agnosticsherbet]

127. People must take that care when suffering the bitterness of a loss

not to strike out at scapegoats.

My grandmother told used to tell me that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

132. FACT

Despite being 12.5% of the population African Americans provided Barack Obama 26% of his vote in 012.

And the last Democratic president to win an election with a plurality or majority of white votes was Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Our party would be lost without them!

[Gothmog]

178. Which is why McConnell's stupidity on the SCOTUS vacancy is so stupid

The nominee of the party will need strong African American and Latino voter turnout to win. If President Obama nominates Loretta Lyncy and she is treated badly by McConnell and the GOP controlled Senate, then the Democrats need to use this to motivate turnout and to help the Democratic nominee win and hopefully help the Democrats retake the Senate

[silenttigersong]

155. Wow

[msanthrope]

157. Yes. The opinion of one Black person does not negate the postings on this board. They are there,

and unaddressed.

[silenttigersong]

159. Nina Turner

Could she be a future Presidential candidate?I dare to dream!

[Spazito]

162. Well said!

[azurnoir]

168. are we back to race because Hillary is pandering for NRA $$$ so gunz are off the table for now?

[msanthrope]

184. "Back to race?" nt

[azurnoir]

189. seemes last week or week before it was all guns

[Attorney in Texas]

179. The fact that a former First Lady of Arkansas does better in Dixie than a Jewish civil right leader

is not a denigration of African American voters. It is a fact that the Clintons have ties to the Dixie states, and it is a fact that the states of the Confederacy have not been welcoming to Jewish civil right leaders.

It is a pattern of more-conservative/less-progressive voting seen in white voters and others who cast their votes from former Confederate states.

These states tend to go Republican in general elections and, when they rarely do elect Democrats, those Dixie Democrats are often more conservative than some of the least conservative Republicans from the Northeast and from the West Coast.

The Democrats from Dixie are less progressive than the Democrats from other parts of the country. It is not a racial issue (and if it were, New York, Washington DC, and other territories with high African American populations would be electing red-state Dixie Democrats BUT THEY AREN'T). It's a cultural issue.

Stop blaming African Americans for electing conservative Dixie Democrats because that is a problem that crosses racial lines!

[msanthrope]

181. I thank you for providing an example of what I was saying in my OP. nt

[Attorney in Texas]

182. Why do you hold African American voters and not white voters responsible for the vote in the South?

[msanthrope]

183. Again, Thanks for your views on the "Confederacy." nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

190. I feel free to criticize the vote of ANYONE I think is voting for a bad candidate.

And in this election, I think anyone not voting for Bernie Sanders (who isn't a member of the financial elite) is making a mistake. I'm not going to be an ass and speculate on why they're making a mistake (that is, accuse them of being low-information, etc.); that's none of my business, and it's pretentious.

But I damn sure reserve the right to make the progressive argument that voting for the socio-economic status quo is self-defeating. They're free to disagree. Being a person-of-color doesn't give one a pass on having their politics criticized. No one has the right to expect being free from that sort of criticism...only that it be done in a civil, respectful manner.

[RiverNoord]

193. If anyone is specifically denigrating the worth of even a single Democratic vote

in the caucus and primary processes, there's another political party that would likely welcome them with open arms.

I'm not sure the Democratic party deserves the level of support it receives from the African American community, but there should be zero tolerance - absolutely zero - for suggesting that any vote cast by an African American is in any way less valuable than anyone else's.

However, if what this is really about is the potential implications of a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the office of the Presidency having successes in party primaries in states that are 99.9% likely to vote for any Republican candidate in a general election, but having either minimal successes or losses in states that are 99.9% likely to vote for a Democratic candidate in the general election... That's got nothing to do with the ethnicity, religion, economic status, or any other characteristics of the deeply valued Democratic voters in the 'likely Republican' states.

Simple history and math leads to the reality that party primary/caucus voters in states such as Colorado, Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, North Carolina - their level of interest in possible Democratic nominees is more important than the preferences of those in Alabama, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Louisiana. A Republican party nominee candidate who won New York and California would rack up a lot of party delegates, but if that candidate lost Texas, Kentucky, Utah, and Mississippi, the candidate would be ahead in delegates but look very much like a likely loser in the general election.

Would such an analysis be inherently denigrating to Republicans in California and New York? What if they were mostly Jewish or Catholic? Would it mean the analysis is just plain antisemitic or anti-Catholic? Or would it be nuts and bolts evaluation of the prospects of the candidate's general election victory?

Bernie Sanders winning the Oklahoma is neat for him, but there is no reasonable possibility that he would win the state against a Republican candidate for the Presidency in any hypothetical matchup. Am I denigrating the Democratic voters of Oklahoma by saying so? Damn - they're probably better Democrats than I am in Minnesota. It's tough to be a Democrat in Oklahoma. But, tough as they are, they know that, tough as they are, and as hard as they might work, they're not going to be on the winning side in the general election. I was born and raised in North Dakota and lived and voted there about as much as I have in Minnesota. I damn well knew, every single time, that I wasn't going to be delighted to discover that North Dakota went for Dukakis, or Al Gore, or Barack Obama (I was in MN for Clinton and Obama 2). I heard that my vote didn't mean anything, but I still voted time and again, and didn't expect anyone to say 'wow, North Dakota was 35% Democratic this year - last year it was 33%!'

[AgingAmerican]

195. I don't buy your premise

That AA voters are hypersensitive crybabies who cannot handle criticism, or people disagreeing with them, on political issues. I just don't buy it, sorry.