2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Racist Meme: The South Doesn't Count
The idea that the votes from the Southern Region of the US do not count is a terribly racist and deplorable meme. As we all know, the contests in the Democratic primary season held in Southern States have some of the highest percentages of black voters in the nation. In some states, around fifty percent of all voters in the democratic party in those places are black men and women.
So, why is it that those states are suddenly not as important as the nearly all white Red states that Bernie won?
Now, some will blame it on location. They will say that the Deep South never goes Democratic in the General, therefore, those votes should count less. But that leaves out the fact that the Very Red states that Bernie won, also never go blue in the general. So what is the real difference? I hear tell it is the fact that the red state that he won have more progressive voters. But that is also a lie.
So the only real difference I can find is that the Red States he won are much whiter and voted for him. The states she won are much BLACKER and voted for her.
It is a racist meme. We are not 3/5ths of a human. Our votes count just as much no matter where we live or who we voted for.
We need to end this racist meme that says that the south counts less. I think it is only said to marginalize the effect of our collective votes.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)When Hillary won red states with large black populations, Bernie supporters dismissed them.
When Bernie won red states like Kansas, Utah and Idaho, his supporters cheered.
The double standard is quite obvious.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #1)
Post removed
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)No, I do not believe she is. I believe she made a mistake, regrets it, and has learned and will learn from it.
Violet_Crumble
(35,954 posts)Down in the old blood and guts I/P forum at DU2 I put myself out there defending a DUer who made an antisemitic comment believing they weren't an antisemite and what they'd said had come out of clumsiness when discussing a sensitive issue. Massive egg on face moment when they not only doubled down with their apology but floated round a few related forums blaming Jews for everything. I swore to myself then that I wouldn't make that mistake again.
Not being American I don't give a shit who supports Bernie or Hillary. But I'm seeing a lot of partisanship from some on both teams when it comes to what bravenak posted. I think this all sucks coz I've always liked bravenak and rather than thinking she's an antisemite and hates Jews I suspect it was a case of anger bringing out some really undesirable attitudes towards another minority group in order to defend her own. I doubt very much she believes any of those antisemitic tropes that pop up even at DU at times. But what she said was unjustifiable and I think she did point that out. I think it's a shame that rather than explaining to people why she said what she did (other than she was angry) and being sincerely sorry she immediately went on the offensive and tried to divert attention away by portraying herself as a victim. So I'm sort of torn. I liked bravenak, but jeez she's making it hard. In a nutshell I think what she said was blatantly antisemitic but I don't think she's an antisemite.
Hope that makes sense coz I was waffling a bit there
on edit: Having reread this I'm pretty sure I might be putting myself at risk of making that same mistake again and I'm not going to do that, so yeah. It's sad, imo
Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #372)
bravenak This message was self-deleted by its author.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Not "in anger", not "in the heat of the moment"...never.
And you let that post sit there a long time before you ginned up your "apology" (which you subsequently deleted anyway), so you clearly had no regrets for the actual post, only for the unexpected backlash when you got called out on it.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I cannot stand him. His fans are racists who run around calling blacks racist and wonder why we hate him and them. I don't even LIKE Hillary but I will vote for her just so his fans can feel the sne BERN that they have been passing out.
Look at the racist comments here. I did not know jews hated us blacks so much. Good to know. I will return it in kind. There are so few of them It's a wonder they have the gall to think about being racist against blacks.
Bravenak, Frontpage Mag 8 Comments
Fundie Index: 15
And when I have said things I shouldn't, I have always apologized for them right away, instead of waiting a month and even then only doing it when I was called out.
Anything else? Have YOU ever said anything like what bravenak did when you were angry? If not, why would you try to imply that I had?
juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This is abusive....imagine the kind of creepy stalking that must take place to search for, save,and copy and paste another DUers comments, from a totally different website, mind you.......comments, btw, that they apologized for, and they explained were made in anger. I'm not excusing the comments, but this has got to be about the 30th time they have been posted here. Our TOS values member's privacy, and I'm asking you all to hide this, showing that we as a community, respect privacy. After all, how many of us would like to be "searched." Also note that lower in the thread, comments from another website were hidden....we have enough drama at DU, why bring other websites into it?
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Mar 26, 2016, 08:21 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This post is disruptive
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: the op reaps what they sow, live with it
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Looks like a coversation?
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: More senseless AlertWars. I don't see why someone should be given a pass and have their incendiary words erased from history. Why Bravenak hasn't been PPR'd is beyond me. Do you get a special award when you get to 10 hides in 90 days? This is especially perplexing when you take into account what others here were PPR'd for a lot less in my opinion. Yes, hiding this would hide an offensive post, but it wasn't written by the skepticscott
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Talk about your drama. This is a heart felt post and deserves thoughtful concideration
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I'm sure this is msanthrope's lame attempt to shut me up, and when it didn't work, she tried to make shit up about what I said.
The alert is a basket of bullshit. What I posted was not something I stalked her on another website to get. It's all over DU...this is the fucking INTERNET. That's what happens...she needs to cope and own her own words. It never ceases to amaze me when people claim that they're being bullied and harassed by having their own words quoted back to them. And as far as her "apology", she deleted it, so that shows you how seriously she took it.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)especially repeatedly, the comments themselves get lost in the dawning perception that yes....more than one DUer has taken the time to search, copy, cut and paste the comments of another DUER from a different website.
I am in awe of the fact that you, apparently, have never said anything racist, sexist, or homophobic, or otherwise that would cause you to offer an apology.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)We both know this is pure bullshit, and doesn't remotely resemble anything I said:
I am in awe of the fact that you, apparently, have never said anything racist, sexist, or homophobic, or otherwise that would cause you to offer an apology.
So does everyone else reading this, since they read me right above saying:
And when I have said things I shouldn't, I have always apologized for them right away, instead of waiting a month and even then only doing it when I was called out.
So now everyone has to wonder why you would use such an intellectually dishonest tactic, and in such a blatantly obvious way.
And then double down on it by claiming that there is something wrong with quoting a person's own words back at them. She said it. The bell can't be unrung. I know that she and a lot of other people would like to scrub that from history, and pretend it never happened, but this is the Internet. It's not going away.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)it was apologized for. Again.... as I've indicated the comments have been posted enough times but one really begins to wonder the value of the continual posting. One begins to wonder the motives of the people who continue to post it..... to be honest I found the comments offensive but I seriously have to wonder at people who search out other DU members.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)so how much meaning does it have if she backed off from the "apology" far faster than she acted to scrub what she was apologizing for? Her original racist post was left up for a month, and her "apology" didn't even last 5 hours before she backed off from it.
As far as people's motives in posting it, the same as their motives for repeatedly posting quotes from all sorts of other people on DU-so that as many people as possible know and don't forget what kind of person this is, and so that history doesn't get scrubbed.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)the apology for them on this board. I hope you are advocating for equal treatment, then?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Feel free to point out all the vile, racist posts that stayed up for a month before they were removed, while the corresponding apology got scrubbed in 5 hours. I'll agree that all such should get equal treatment.
We'll wait.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Regardless of apology?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)What a shock. Back up your claim about those other posts. Link to them and the apologies. Otherwise I call bullshit.
Please don't waste my time with another deflection. Put up or shut up.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)debacle, and can find the scrubbings using the handy search function provided by admin.
But do you agree that Pitt and bravenak should both be treated equally then?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Nothing but more dodges and deflection. Your claims are bullshit, and you can't back them up.
I'm done wasting time with you.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I am sure you agree on the concept of equal treatment for Mr. Pitt and bravenak.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Since her posting habits haven't changed one whit since she was so richly hoisted on her own petard, reasonable people can easily conclude her apology was nothing more than damage control.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Wondering now how long it will be before bravenak self-deletes THIS OP too...
opiate69
(10,129 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)She's very much mistaken. She's going to be reminded of it every time she plays the racism card against others from now on.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)who wrote a vile, racist post here on DU, left it up a long time, wrote an apology many felt was lacking, then scrubbed both?
Why?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)there's no jury here to bamboozle, so don't blow smoke up our ass.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Nailed it.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)I'm talking about one person, and one person only. And, if you go back and read her "apology", it's clear she's mostly only sorry for the effects her racist spewing had on her "friends" here, and not really for the content of her rant.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)box, you can find the scrubs. Or you can ask anyone in the AA group here. I am sure you would advocate for equal treatment.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)A judicious use of the handy search box would tell you that, in fact, I did treat his comments in an equitable manner. Frankly, never liked the guy. Growing up in New England, as I did, I've always been more than familiar with his Northeastern tough-guy/paper tiger act. (Pro-tip - "Opiate69 + 24 hours" should give you all the evidence you might need.)
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)the inequity of treatment.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Pitt has had his words thrown back in his face probably even moreso than poor, poor put-upon brave. And, in true DU fashion, sometimes the posts would get hidden and sometimes not. Pretty much exactly as I'm seeing in the current brouhaha.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)juries, then?
opiate69
(10,129 posts)But, given the capricious nature of the DU jury system, ya get what ya get, eh?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)opiate69
(10,129 posts)Considering Pitt had his "24 hours" thing thrown back in his face 10 years later, still and brave has had to endure all of 6 days of comeuppance, I think parity is still a ways off...
kath
(10,565 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)like Bravenak's was.
Sunlight is a good disinfectant when it comes to disgusting, bigoted comments.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And attack me on that. I just laugh.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Perhaps you should read the reaction in the AA forum. But you agree, then, on equal treatment?
I found both poster's remarks offensive. I'm just asking for equal treatment so I can post his remarks freely.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Of the dog whistles they are no longer even whistles anymore. Amirite?
polly7
(20,582 posts)This one stood for months - presumably it's hidden away in the 'Grumble' now. It's been an ongoing strategy from the beginning of his campaign - like the 'sexism', 'racism' and other ugly allegations - I even read he's a crusty old Jew here. That they think they're hiding their true feelings about him is pathetic.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Both were offensive, equal treatment for both.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)We are tired of the shit. Amirite? Personally I was questioned on my minority status as well. So don't expect me to be quite amused by her race hating Amirite?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Should stay offsite. Otherwise it's a shitshow. And stalkerish.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)That includes somebody from here following to the paper. So yup. You are correct. Stakerish. So it is ok wilt you that my minority status was questioned.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)It's a time waster and offensive. Point is, no one on the Internet knows I'm really a cat,and why would ANYONE bother finding out?
Honestly....if I had a nickel for every poster that challenged the fact I am an attorney.....I'd have a lot of nickels.....
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And the never saw the light of day personal attacks at RSD were the cherry on top. IP bans, a wonderful thing
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and speaking of stalking, I have to hand moderate due to the posters from here.
Think about that one for a second. One of the loveliest sentiments recently, that never saw the light of day, but earned an IP Ban, was a lovely, "have you killed more birds recently?"
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Well, as you can see, it is worst than that.
And as far as the OP... I have seen her work from DKOS not only posted here, What got this dust off was precisely one of her DKOS pieces posted here by a friend. But also a few of her pieces have been shared to my wall and my twitter feed.
I will be very, very, very kind. She has no idea how social media works. So when she claims people are stalking her, I looked at the DKOS comment section. I saw not one familiar name. And many folks use the same handle across social media. But the Kossers had a very negative reaction to the same post that got quite the dust off here, and mind you I was late for that one.
I post a story. I post the story on facebook and twitter, it gets shared. and once it gets shared, it enters a chain of shares. I really have no clue who has read the pieces I write, and I suspect she really does not either.
I just see it in traffic reports. What do you do?
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)But not sincerely..... obviously.
I don't have to accept her apology.
And no one is stalking anybody. When someone posts the same type of stuff over and over, everywhere, all day.... you're just gonna run onto it sooner rather than later.
The problem with the Jew-hating posts is that they do not seem out of character. Would that they were!
Violet_Crumble
(35,954 posts)But I've never come out with something bigoted, tried to downplayed it as merely being a 'bad comment' then swiftly tried to turn myself into a victim. The thing is when people speak in anger it's kind of similar to when someone's had a few drinks. The firewall comes down and everything gets through and in the cases where anger fuels bigotry we get an unpleasant peek into what they really think.
Nothing in the reply to me gave any indication of remorse and acknowledging that engaging in bigotry against another minority group that faces discrimination to try to bolster a defence of their minority group that's discriminated against is incredibly insensitive and hypocritical. Instead I ended up with a short bit basically telling everyone to get over the antisemitism and a far, far longer thing about some drama where she's got the starring role as ultimate victim somewhere on the inter webs that may or may not be for real.
kath
(10,565 posts)Spot-on about her "apology".
Thanks for bringing up about what people say when they are drunk or angry -"in the cases where anger fuels bigotry we get an unpleasant peek into what they really think".
I had not read your post when I wrote my#455 below. It has really puzzled me that no one else seemed to have brought this up in the past week while discussing Bravenak's excuse.
"Swiftly tried to turn myself into a victim" - oh, YEAH. Nailed it.
Spacedog1973
(221 posts)Racism isn't always the out and out bigotry that many people think it is. It's the daily insinuation, arrogance, paternalistic and patronising attitudes that are so prevalent in DU. AA members on this forum, experience this all the time.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)exactly what to do with bravenak' rationalization of her own bigotry and my response to it?
You and others really need to give up on the "everyone else does it too" crap. Because
A. As pointed out, no they don't
B. Even if they did, that still wouldn't make it ok.
Spacedog1973
(221 posts)That this doesn't happen on DU. This is frankly incorrect. Its very common. Not that that doesn't make it right, but lets not try to pretend that this is in any way rare when its not.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)That this doesnt happens on DU.
You can't, because you made that crap up.
Here's what I said:
Most people on DU NEVER say shit like this.
NOT the same thing at all. MOST people. Do you get the difference? Or are you and msanthrope going to keep putting words in my mouth and making shit up about what I said?
Spacedog1973
(221 posts)You said 'most people never say shit like this'. I said that it happens often. Whether that means that it is most people or a small proportion of the same people saying the same shit is immaterial to what I said. You have no idea of whether this involves most people or not. I have not bothered to note each and every person who makes what I view as racist comments, but its so common that it may well comprise 'most people'.
The thing with racism, is that many people think it means those who wear a KKK uniform or voice obvious racist statements. Its also the deafening silence where racism is voiced on this forum, the insinuation, arrogance, paternalism, 'splaining' amongst many others. Are there degrees of racism? Perhaps. It would depend upon how it is received by those on the other end. I can't judge how someone should feel in regard to 'splaining' for example and neither can you.
Thats why statements involving 'most people are' are self serving and simply wrong unless they can be proved which of course they cannot.
Calm down with your bold font, CAPS LOCK and your attitude.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)That this doesn't happen on DU. That I claimed that it never happens. We both know that's a lie, your attempt to parse words notwithstanding.
I said "MOST people on DU never say shit like this". Meaning shit like THIS:
I cannot stand him. His fans are racists who run around calling blacks racist and wonder why we hate him and them. I don't even LIKE Hillary but I will vote for her just so his fans can feel the sne BERN that they have been passing out.
Look at the racist comments here. I did not know jews hated us blacks so much. Good to know. I will return it in kind. There are so few of them It's a wonder they have the gall to think about being racist against blacks.
Prove me wrong. Prove you're not a liar. Prove that MOST people on DU are posting shit like this.
And yeah, I get an attitude when people lie about what I've said. It's one of the shittiest things you can do on a discussion board, and means you have no real facts or arguments to offer, but are just stirring shit.
If you want to alert on me for calling you a liar, go ahead. I gave you a chance to be honest, and you doubled down on your lie. If a jury loves your post anyway, I don't give a shit. I'm done with you.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)would have been simply to post it and acknowledge the responses without further argument.
That it didn't turn into the attention-getting fan-fest she was obviously hoping for is the only reason I can see for her having deleted it.
What sort of child says, in effect, "I'll say I'm sorry as long as you promise to be nice to me"?
The kind excused from a time-out, having learned nothing.
nailed it again, bvf.
Response to skepticscott (Reply #397)
Post removed
polly7
(20,582 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)People didn't buy Mel Gibson's "I was drunk" excuse when he said disgusting anti-Semitic things.
So why the heck are people buying Bravenak's excuse?
polly7
(20,582 posts)The 'drunk excuse' Gibson used is laughable. As is being angry. If you've never thought those things - they wouldn't even be there to use to lash out with, period.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)and in other threads since.
the point should continue to be emphasized more - if you don't harbor racist thoughts to begin with, you don't say them no matter how drunk or angry you get.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)There's nothing in there that remotely deserves a hide.
I would love to post the jury results for that lame turkey...
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)The "I was drunk" or "I was very angry" excuse really doesn't cut it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1579028
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
The stalking of Bravenak needs to stop. Now. Referencing off-site posts and threatening to pm people against Bravenak are no better than stalking her on these pages- which is also occurring.
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sat Mar 26, 2016, 02:02 PM, and voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: stalking? where there's smoke, there's fire - her style and posting ignites controversy
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This is post is getting pretty personal. Not sure what the history is between the two, but keep the focus on the issues, not personal attacks.
The jury members who voted to hide this ought to be as ashamed of themselves as the alerter. Three of them didn't even have the stones to put up an explanation as to why they hid a post that was true. And how long are people going to keep beating on this meme of a member's posts on another site being off-limits here? This is not "stalking", for pity's sake. These are bravenak's own words, and this is HER fucking OP. It's a public discussion board, and if she posts, people have the right to respond. No one is making these words up or taking them out of context. If she doesn't like having them quoted back to her, tough. Maybe she should have thought about that before she posted them. This site is not a world unto itself. She doesn't get to be one kind of person somewhere else and pretend to be a different person here...it's all her, and it's all fair game. She and her friends don't get to play their revisionist history games, not here. And Jesus H. Fucking Christ in a chicken basket...kath didn't threaten to PM people...she offered to, to keep things out of public. More bullshit, dishonest scare tactics by the alerter (gee, who could it be???).
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Of course, ya had to figure it was going to be a blatantly dishonest, horse shit alert message.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that my posting of the jury results will being alerted on, as well. By someone accusing others of "stalking"
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Autumn
(44,748 posts)I learned that as a young child in church. You are right kath.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Which just proves my point that they search me. And they need to stop.
polly7
(20,582 posts)bi-racial?
YOU also brought over your own posts from there - TWICE, and had your pals post your writings from there as OP's here.
So what on earth are you going on about?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Her posts from DKos landed on my wall. They were shared on Facebook. They were also shared on Twitter. I got to wonder if she understands that once you publish something on thei internet you do not have to look for the author.
It is possible. But I find it highly improbable. We all have been in the net long enough to at least understand this much. Hell, I have shared DU posts on Facebook and Twitter myself. Then there are the myriad of other social media. Tumblr anyone?
For clarification. I unfriended her a while ago. Her posts landed on my wall via other folks
SMC22307
(8,088 posts)re: Sanders and race. Trust me, folks are listening now. Kos, DU, Front Page doesn't matter... you put it out there in the public domain, with your name attached. It's on you. You can't have it both ways.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)SMH.
polly7
(20,582 posts)And there's been so much more.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)noamnety
(20,234 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Because, you know, when people who think that way post here, they change their entire way of thinking, their whole belief system.
Besides, I haven't seen any who opposes Bernie banned here, have you?
Even the ones put on time out are welcomed back. A glance at some of their transparency pages, especially since the amnesty, is quite revealing.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I am beginning to think this place is not a good place to be.
merrily
(45,251 posts)If anyone has been awful to you, pm and I'll get all over him or her like a cheap suit, even if I get banned for it.
You'll have to name names, though, because I have over 50 on ignore at this point (and happily counting)
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)I am half Jewish, not that makes a lot of difference to folks who dislike Jews. Brave is one of my favorite posters on this board. Someone said something unkind about her group and she responded by saying something unkind about their group. It was a Pavlovian response that she regrets and apologized. It's time for us to accept it and move on and not use it as a cudgel.
None of us should be judged by our worst moment.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Considering her recantation of her "apology," that's a pretty sad pronouncement. No one with a lick of sense is buying your absurd little dictate here, but thanks for the guffaw just the same.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I dunno. She's my friend and also I think a lot of what she has to say is valuable. And I thought her apology was well-expressed and sincere. And I think some people pile on reflexively.
Brave, looking at what's above, sorry if I should have kept my mouth shut. Please see my recent reply to DemocratSinceBirth.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)We have all said things we regret and none of us should be judged by our worst moment.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Looking at all the message headers above, maybe I should have kept my mouth shut. But I'm just frustrated with the continued piling on, and I was frustrated when I found the message had been hidden (as it should have been) as I was in the process of replying. (Yeah, I should have alerted, but I just don't think that way....)
steve2470
(37,457 posts)The people who constantly bring up her mistake only want to hurt her. EVERYONE has said at least ONE horrible thing in their life, and Bravenak's was caught on the digital-permanent-record that is the internet. People need to drop this line of attack. I forgive her, although I'm not Jewish. I don't think she's an anti-semite for one nanosecond. She was angry and reacted.
Lazy Daisy
(928 posts)I ask myself why is it a person pushes so hard, twisting truth's, outright lying with the purpose of generating hate and the only reason I can come up with is ugliness.
Why is it OK for Hillary supporters to dismiss Utah, Kansas and Idaho as red states that will do nothing for the Democratic Party in the GE, why is it OK for Hillary supporters to dismiss the youth vote, why is it OK for black Hillary supporters to say Bernie has to earn their vote if they're going to support him in the GE should he win the nomination?
Flip that around to the Bernie side and the OP sees racism.
But then again the OP sees racism in everything about Bernie Sanders and his supporters. Now ask yourself why that is.
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)It's not just about marginalizing the collective votes of a group, it's about marginalizing that group of people entirely. Each person's vote counts, period. Doesn't matter where they live, their sex, or their skin color.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)From (still) a Bernie supporter. But wrong is wrong.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Why are you rec'g this made up sh*t, meant only to rile people up & get attention?
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Saying some of the rhetoric is wrong.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Have at it.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Hmm. Can't find a "whatever" smiley offhand.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Sorry, I just figured you had to be upset about imaginary things like she is, since you rec'd it & all.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I don't use it much, because it causes me to miss a lot. But you are welcome to. And I have used it in a pinch.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)but I question your reasoning ability now.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I always (almost) leave the door open, though.
mak3cats
(1,573 posts)...and the electoral college is still the law of the land. Turning this discussion into a racist thing is bullshit, bravenak. And I think you know it. No wonder you are one of the most ignored posters these days. You disappoint me, because you are obviously very intelligent and very involved. Just my opinion.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)in the General Election (GE) the Southern States BY AND LARGE go to the GOP candidate REGARDLESS of who wins the Democratic Primary in those states. It's not a "meme", it's a statement of fact. It's really, truly a very simple simple message, not sure why there is so much confusion and angst over it.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... the difference between a primary and a GE?
The electoral college has nothing to do with a primary.
The primary process is that by which DEMOCRATS choose their nominee - ALL Democrats, not just the ones who live in certain states.
Are you with me so far?
To say that ANY Democrat should have less of a voice in that process because of where they live is abhorrent and indefensible.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)No one has said their votes should not count or that the delegates allocated based on their votes should not count.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)There were many posts here saying just that when HRC was sweeping the south - that primary votes in "red states" shouldn't count because their state won't count in the GE.
There were some very heated arguments on exactly that topic.
In fact, you might want to check out the post I responded to, which said: "The south counts less because they are all red states and the electoral college is still the law of the land."
bravenak
(34,648 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Supports the claim being made. It asserts that the votes from southern states DO count in the primaries.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)All pledged delegates are created equal.
It's sloppy language to say any state or delegate "counts less." Because it is empirically untrue and not really worthy of discussion.
When people say a state shouldn't count or that it counts less, what they are trying to say, I surmise, is that if you are considering general election strength based on primary results, you should weight red states less than blue states.
It is just an unecessay division to discuss and it derives from sloppy language and unrelated presumptions.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... Bernie supporters.
"what they are trying to say, I surmise ..."
People said what they said - your surmise is neither here nor there.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)with a wink,wink from the campaign itself.
Sanders supporters (myself included) responded somewhat vituperatively, I'll admit...but that's because we were angry at a Swift Boat style attack on a candidate who is the most committed to actual social and economic justice
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... what's been posted here during this primary process.
We both know who said what about AAs and PoCs.
It's all there - and there's no point in disputing which "side" was posting the "Stockholm Syndrome" posts, and which "side" was rec'ing them.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)And how "Bernie has a problem with..." before any problems were ever started.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)and we'll see if they meant anything like what you're claiming.
I think we'll find that what most if not all of those posts were saying is that winning the purely Democratic primary vote in states that we're sure to go red in the GE doesn't make someone a stronger candidate in November.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)What a shock. Neither you nor bravenak can back up your claims, probably because you know that if you try, the context will destroy your attempts to paint this as "racism".
DesertFlower
(11,649 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)RandySF
(57,621 posts)And I guess we should ignore tomorrow's results in Alaska.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)voters in those states are highly unlikely to support the Democrat who wins in the primary.
The challenge we fact in November is to get our voters out in states that might quite possibly or will pretty assuredly vote for the Democratic candidate.
If we allow voters in a state like Nebraska which has not voted for a Democrat for president since 1964 to have much say in selecting our candidate, we are making a strategic mistake as a Party.
If we want to win, our goal needs to be to get the majority of voters in reliable Democratic states and swing states enthusiastic about our candidate. Thus, we should try to nominate a candidate that the states that have voted Democratic in past national elections or that are swing states that can vote Democratic if we really get the vote out want.
This extremely simple and obvious fact about how we can win the election in November is not an insult to voters in certain states. It has nothing to do with the race of the voters.
It is simply a realistic approach to the strategy of motivating voters to get out and vote.
And the OP is correct in that it isn't where a state is located or what the color of the skin of the voters is, the question is how do we nominate a candidate who is likely to inspire swing state voters and strongly Democratic voters to come out in large numbers.
That does not mean that Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters can't be happy when voters in Republican states support their candidate in big numbers. It just means that in terms of strategy for picking a candidate to win in November, we should want to please voters in strongly Democratic states and Democrats in swing states most of all. Because those are the voters who will win the November election for us.
Alabama, Mississippi, Nebraska and Kansas voters (just randomly picked states as examples) are not likely to win the election in November for the Democratic candidate.
This is a concept having to do with strategy, not race or any other thing. The OP is correct in that the same strategy consideration applies to Kansas that applies to Mississippi.
Nay
(12,051 posts)here. It's RACIST, in electoral strategy, to avoid spending advertising money in states you'll never win?? OOOOOKAY.
LuvLoogie
(6,854 posts)Here are the blue states that Barack won in 2012 that Bernie has also won this primary:
State Electoral Votes
NH 4
VT 3
ME 4
MN 10
CO 9
MI 16
TOTAL TO DATE 46
Here are the blue states that Barack won in 2012 that Hillary has also won this primary:
State Electoral Votes
MA 11
OH 18
IL 20
FL 29
NV 6
IA 6
VA 13
TOTAL TO DATE 103
Some more o' that ol' time math for ya.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)You do understand the difference between a primary and a general election?
Response to mak3cats (Reply #6)
Post removed
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)So glad Skinner rescinded the five-hide rule...no-one could have EVER seen this coming....
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Because, um... reasons, and stuff...
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Now they know they can say anything and get away with it.
If nothing else, at least people can see what they're really like now.
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1577638
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
More harassment and stalking. A MIRT member should refrain from this nonsense. Yet another subthread calling out and harassing this DU'er. This is NOT okay.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Mar 26, 2016, 12:11 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: have to judge the individual post
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Post is factual, and less of a call-out than the ones above it. If the alerter is offended by the calling-out, s/he should alert on a post that deserves it.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If a poster doesn't want to get called on having nine hides, they shouldn't get nine hides.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: S'truth (WRT to the hides)
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)I'm a huge believer in transparency. And our current jury system makes me CRAZY, so...
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Vattel's is awesome! be sure to read it!
bvf
(6,604 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)Her only purpose, as she herself has admitted, is trolling Bernie supporters.
Just ignore her.
.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)please PM me, if you don't want to link here. i can understand not wanting to post it here, for those of us who do NOT hang out at places like FrontPage Mag.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)I think one man one vote is the foundation of our system.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Sorry if that doesn't sit well with you. Feel free to amend the constitution.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Neither does the US Congress, US Senate, Sate, County, or city offices.
The Electoral College Argument has no merit and no relationship to any election except the Quadrennial General election.
It certainly doesn't apply to choosing the parties standard bearer.
Once we have chosen a candidate, it will be his or her job to chart a path to 270 electoral votes'
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Super delegates, winner-take all states, etc., etc.
So what in the world your point is, I have no freaking idea.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)One man one vote does apply to Democrats.
Super Delegates have never gone against the choice of the Democratic Party and it won't this time.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Gotcha.
And why are there super delegates to begin with? If one man, one vote truly applied, there wouldn't even be delegates. The nominee would be selected based on who got the most popular votes in all of the primaries combined. And of course, every delegate doesn't even represent exactly the same number of voters, which also puts the lie to your one man, one vote argument. That's not possible, since the number of delegates for a state is fixed beforehand, regardless of how many people actually vote in that state's primary.
Do yourself a favor...cut your losses. You clearly have not thought about this at all.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)I don't claim its perfect.
I point out again, Super Delegates have not gone against the will the Democratic Party. Check out its history.
Delegates are awarded proportionally. It is a good way to transfer one person one vote. Perfect, no.
Do yourself a favor, study our system. It is a bit arcane, but it works well most of the time.
The main point is that the Constitution gives each of the fifty stats the power to run elections, including primaries. We do not have a national election. We have 50 synchronized state elections. That is why we have fifty individual state elections, plus those held in territories. (That is where the arcane part comes in.)
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that our system is not "one person, one vote". At all. And delegates are awarded proportionately to what? To a different number of voters in every state, so a primary vote in one state does not count the same as a primary vote in another state. Not "one man, one vote".
And I have studied our system, and clearly thought about it more deeply and clearly than you, so you know what you can do with your condescending bullshit.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)must be evil.
You have a lovely night now, you hear?
Response to bravenak (Reply #11)
Post removed
bravenak
(34,648 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Just EXCELLENT!!!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Glad to get that off my chest!
DesertFlower
(11,649 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Some of us, myself included, would like to see the order of the primaries changed, randomized, or otherwise shaken up.
Also, Hillary is winning, so whether or not someone on DU says something, the fact is the voters in the south have had their voices count. So any "marginalization" is illusory.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Currently. One can hope.
ETA: I'd also like to see the primary/caucus system shaken up.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Which isn't terribly surprising. If I were a Clinton supporter in the primaries (I'm not) I would be irritated that she has run such a craptastic, out of date campaign and relieved that she's still eking out a lead despite it. But she was supposed to be inevitable (again) from the get-go.
Since I suspect she will be the nominee, I hope she will run a better campaign for the general. But I'm not gonna hold my breath.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)mind you, historically it is the Rs turn, they switch every eight years or so since 1944, with a couple exceptions. The Rs are doing their best to lose it, but hell's bells... I expect her to do horribly.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)So your decades of predicting Americas demise can finally come true.
How adorable that you'd like to see the Democrats fail so you can yuck it up and say "I told you so."
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)zappaman
(20,605 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)If he is I will work my ass off like my life depends on it. Because I think it will.
Serious adrenaline rush as I was getting ready for bed.
I started out doing way more than I was comfortable with for Bernie, backed off to just money.
But I can ramp up again if I am seriously threatened.
I will do the same for whoever is the nominee.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and I know this will come as a surprise to many, but due to the nature of it, he is just a little stronger. I know what the current polls say, but Trump has something that scares the shit out of me... and he is starting to attract people of all types to the cause.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)It's not funny.
Bernie has something of the same dynamic, and I hope to a god I don't believe in he wins.
I do not like living in interesting times, but I'm better off than 99%...
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)After reading more Trump than most news media has done...
If he loses, another one will be in the wings. The dynamic is deepening, I am not just the only one saying that.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)If I had any sense, I'd get out of Dodge. Just not sure where to go. Or if it's worth the trouble, given my age and that I've been researching suicide methods....
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)will get us in deep trouble... but hey, the first amendment still is working
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)We are fully aware of it.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Clinton's biggest advantage over Sanders as a GE candidate (in addition to her greater name recognition) is that she is willing to do anything it takes to win. Sanders isn't.
And I say that as a Sanders supporter.
Autumn
(44,748 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)They sent screenshots from here and my dkos profile so I'd like to know who it is.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 26, 2016, 08:31 AM - Edit history (1)
Even though that never happened and you yourself posted the link to your account more than once?
I think that the fact that you posted it yourself makes it silly to blame anyone else on DU.
And why do you even think you have the right to lecture anyone on racism?
To deflect from your own vile anti-Semitic hate speech?
Too late, that ship has sailed, your credibility is gone.
Note to jury: bravenak responded to me and brought up the subject, no stalking involved. This post also contains no harassment. Thank you for serving.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)That they pretent do not exist. They lack the credibility to ever be judgemental. I do care that people are harassing my family. And I think I know exactly who it is. Just let them know that if they keep it up, they will have somebody harassing them back and he is not nice like me and won't feel one bit bad after he stops the abuser from harassing him further. Even if he has to track them down and have a face to face.
Now read my sigline and listen to some music about my lifestyle.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And direct your silly threats elsewhere, I'm not responsible and I'm not the least bit intimidated by you. Stop being a bully, it won't work on me.
You have a nice day now.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)LMAO
SMC22307
(8,088 posts)about her lifestyle, you'll have your answer. We all will.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but this is actually somewhat comedic. I hate it when people do this... if you are going to say to somebody bye, well put them on ignore. In my case, they go to a very special list of folks to mostly not engage on this site.
From time to time I have to remind them they are not ignore though. If I do not, they get out of hand in the bully and site stalking behavior... but I find them funny, like you would a five year old throwing a tanter tantrum, screams and all.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)When not doing so, may well be the funniest thing I've read on DU lately.
You should try stand up.
Seriously, it's adorable.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)of that...
zappaman
(20,605 posts)And yup, I've never put you or anyone on ignore.
Nor would I say something childish like...oh..."welcome to the iggy list."
True, it's adorable, but seems silly.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)just that if you are not reminded from time to time you are not on ignore, you get completely out of hand, like a five year old.
You are hilarious though. And can make me laugh these days all for the wrong reasons. I love bullies, really, you are so funny.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)Bookmarking for when you whine about being "bullied".
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But I still fnd you quite comedic.
Free hint. Your bullying stopped working a while ago. It is time to find a new mark.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)As this thread clearly and unequivocally demonstrates.
Will you be self deleting all your bullying shortly?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And antisemitic language is not bullying.
I know that bullies have issues understanding that.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Textbook
zappaman
(20,605 posts)And leave you the last word.
I'm sure you have some blogging to get back to anyway.
Hotline tip-I heard there's a traffic jam on the 405...could make for a good "analysis".
Please proceed, Governor and try to enjoy the sunshine!
Number23
(24,544 posts)The absolute WORSE of DU all piled in to try to take bravenak down. The Lynch Mob with their pitchforks and torches, hysterically oblivious that the only spotlight their shining is planted firmly on themselves and no one else.
Looking at someone's piled high transparency page brought me here. And of course, this person wails endlessly about how bravenak is the problem while their own number of hidden posts teeters very closely to the double digits.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Response to opiate69 (Reply #275)
nadinbrzezinski This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #283)
opiate69 This message was self-deleted by its author.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)will delete, been a long night, my apologies
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Kinda hard to keep track after a point lol
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I should get back to the budget, but...
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)It says,, 'I have you on ignore. Stop stalking me'
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I said I'm not intimidated by you, try another tack.
You post in GDP and people get to respond, those are the rules.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Lo fucking l. Bye BMUS
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You don't get how this works yet?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Must be some sort of super power.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I get cyber stalked for real by some of her friends and buddies, I just don't make a big deal out of it. And the OP has been rather nasty off site with you and me... and now that she outed herself, the credibility is even lower than whale shit. And the premise of the OP, being I am in CA is ridiculous. One of the most populous states on the US, rarely counts for the primaries. I know why by the way... but a solid blue state has no say in who her party nominates.
I find it ironic to say the least. Now I should get back to the budget. Eyes are already glazed.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)They tried to find my facebook page a few months ago but failed, and they posted personal info about another poster here: riderinthestorm, of course she was understandably upset.
I was stalked in real life so I know how unnerving it can be, always looking over your shoulder.
All of this because we support Bernie, it's bizarre.
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #104)
Post removed
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I find her accusations to be quite hypocritical since I never posted anyone's info here.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Despicable.
Claims I'm not "bi-racial" enough with a mullato, Jewish, Jamaican grandfather.
Same as Nadine who isn't "minority" enough as a Mexican Jewish female.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and then people defend this shit
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 26, 2016, 01:19 AM - Edit history (1)
The bullying and intimidation had the opposite effect it seems.
We're still here.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)not fun.
I'm not going away and won't be bullied.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I'm shaking in my boots right now.
I even brought the dogs in and locked the doors!
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)So at this point, I just laugh
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)In fact I know they are.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)one of these folks, who know who, went over to the paper and TRIED TO POST, ( I manually manage the site because of them) If I had killed another bird recently. That was kind of a new low. It went to the file, and then to the spam folder and poster was IP ban, It was never was published.
That is the kind of highly fixated people we are dealing with. I guess it takes all kinds.
I just took note of it, saved it and IP banned the person
polly7
(20,582 posts)apologize if that is incorrect.
That's beyond mean and I'm very sorry. WHY are people so horrible on the internet? I'm glad you saved the IP, if it ever happens again maybe you can have something done about it.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)yup.
As I said, I noted that, and put the idiot on IP ban. What else is there to do?
I miss cookie, connie (the only remaining conure) misses him to pieces, never mind they fought a lot. Kids.
polly7
(20,582 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)they are willing to try to hit us where it hurts the most. Despicable does not start to describe it.
polly7
(20,582 posts)don't really want to. I hope the person you banned finds another outlet for their hate ....... maybe they'll try some sport that tackles real people able to fight back in the flesh, or something (I doubt it, but you never know).
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but it took a lot of reading into the bully personality
cui bono
(19,926 posts)And she posted a racist's rant on that Hillary "supporter" site just because it was against Bernie and after failing in her attempt to blame it on cali having posted it first - which was an easily proven lie - doubled down about it and said she would do it again. So clearly it's not that she is worried about racism or bigotry. Hell, she deleted her so-called "apology" when she didn't get the response she expected. Just kidding I guess.
She doesn't really believe in anything except her mission to troll DU and smear Bernie and his supporters. She is not... well I'll leave it at that, even though it doesn't matter how many hides one gets any more. Sadly, that is why this OP is here. She would be on her perpetual time out if Skinner didn't allow the riff-raff to come back with amnesty.
.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)On Sat Mar 26, 2016, 09:44 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
She told me in a pm that someone wasn't "black enough" to say the things they were saying.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1578160
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
ANOTHER creepy, stalking subthread by this crew targeting this DU'er. Alerting so admin can see what they continue to do here. This is just out and out harassment, and it needs to stop.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Mar 26, 2016, 09:55 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: the person referred to in this post is neither racist, bigoted or a troll. from what I have seen excused by these so called jurors when African-americans have been racistly described as thugs and worse, this post will not stand in my book and I don't give a damn what the other hypocrites say. Damn this post to hell.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm just sick of all the racist and race baiting bullshit. When did we decide to start identifying everyone on this board by their race, or what race we side with? I liked DU a lot better when we didn't know one's race, and we were all equal. We've become worse than Republicans when it comes to this shit. It's fucking shameful.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: A PM is private. If poster has a problem based on PM, they should raise it to the administrators. Agree with alerter that this smells of harassment.
polly7
(20,582 posts)You've posted your link twice, you've had others bring over your writings as OP's. You entered your name in your profile there - it's not mandatory, and you can delete it or change it at any time. You've also hunted until you found a picture and news article to throw at a poster right here on DU that included a lot of information on her. Yet you laughed that off.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)BYE POLLY
polly7
(20,582 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)And for something you did yourself here to someone else.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)You accused BMUS of something VERY UGLY and have even implied a threat.
You seem to think that's fine no matter she's denied it 30 times and 'she' has never done it to anyone else as you have.
YOU posted your personal information and made no move whatsoever to hide it as long as your writings were getting the attention you wanted - then the anti-Semitic crap came out and suddenly your worst enemy here is to blame for your info being made public - which is bullshit.
Again ....... why??
polly7
(20,582 posts)You'll do or say ANYTHING cruel or hurtful to play victim and get your jollies lying about and hurting people.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)doing the same thing over and over and over and over and expecting a different result?
BYE BRAVENAK!!
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I'm a little irked that the place I've called home for 15 years has been taken over by this goddamned compulsive liar.
SMC22307
(8,088 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)Horowitz.
Her little rant was considered so disgusting and vile that it was listed on fstdt.com, which is a site that collects the very grossest of the foul, bigoted stuff out there on the internet.
I cannot stand him. His fans are racists who run around calling blacks racist and wonder why we hate him and them. I don't even LIKE Hillary but I will vote for her just so his fans can feel the sne BERN that they have been passing out.
Look at the racist comments here. I did not know jews hated us blacks so much. Good to know. I will return it in kind. There are so few of them It's a wonder they have the gall to think about being racist against blacks.
Bravenak, Frontpage Mag 8 Comments [3/11/2016 4:32:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 15
Others here have posted the actual screencap - I need to learn how to do that.
SMC22307
(8,088 posts)But it's going to be entertaining as hell as she tries to do so.
kath
(10,565 posts)karma can be a real bitch.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)I wish I could find my old post from DU2 about the passing of that site's founder... He and I (and a few other malcontents) were regulars on another board (an atheist hang-out) ages ago... kinda became online friends... then he passed away from Cystic Fibrosis. At like age 20 IIRC... heartbreaking.. but I know he'd be happier than a pig in shit to know his site was still exposing the lunacy of the religious extremists on the net.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)It's important work, exposing extremism. I'm sorry to hear about your friend.
Here's to atheist malcontents!
opiate69
(10,129 posts)And, what the hell.. the site is long gone, so I should be able to name it...
here's to the Atheist Network! many a good time was had by all (well, except the ill-informed and religion-minded.... lol)
polly7
(20,582 posts)I think I got it right this time.
SMC22307
(8,088 posts)Response to polly7 (Reply #118)
polly7 This message was self-deleted by its author.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)But I'm not, bullies just want to intimidate people, it's how they roll.
polly7
(20,582 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I'm sure we're being alerted on as we type.
Thanks, polly.
polly7
(20,582 posts)And, especially when all the crap about you supposedly outing her personal details is so damned easy to prove as untrue and the FACT that she not only did it to someone else, she tried in this thread to call me a liar for mentioning it.
It's a sad, ugly game.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)What is wrong with some people?
polly7
(20,582 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Is the answer
SMC22307
(8,088 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I am far from religious, but if I were, I know that karma can be well, you know, And life will not be kind to her... the problem is that those life lessons are hard to learn from when you are closed up in that way.
kath
(10,565 posts)What. The. Fuck.
Fozzledick
(3,859 posts)Cha
(295,899 posts)On Fri Mar 25, 2016, 05:08 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
I could care less what ANY OF YOU thinks about my credibility after these anti black racist memes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1576998
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This poster is accusing the other poster of harassing her family. "I think I know exactly who it is" followed by "just let them know" followed by a threat. This person is way out of bounds with these accusations. Over the top.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Mar 25, 2016, 05:16 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Give it a rest. Please stop harassing this poster!
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This scares me. I will vote to leave it out of concern
that Bravenak might come after me if I should vote otherwise.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: An African American is talking about the racism expressed against black voters. People here are saying they don't exist.
Many African Americans have endured racist posts here to long. Including the Stockholm Syndrome post. For once we are not going to silence their voices.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No, poster is NOT accusing the "other poster".. quit lying to the jury, alerter.
In fact bmus is harassing bravenak again. That needs to stop.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I Agree it sounds like a threat.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Maybe people should not stalk fellow members around the internet. It pissed the people off who are contacted. Such a shame that people find the need to search out fellow users.
Cha
(295,899 posts)and they should be held accountable.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)given the nasty stuff off site that has been done. Go ahead and put me on ignore too.
By the way, this has not one bit to do with what she is either... but her antisemitism was exposed. Oh and by the way CHA, I will not alert on it, I will just kick it up for exposure.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Seriously.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Take a look at just 'who's' been blocked out of the thread for defending themselves from the ugliest garbage - always.
It is pretty creepy. Must have taken a whole night of alerting to get just the right juries.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)This is straight up harassment and it's fucking creepy as hell.
This isn't the first display either.
Admin needs to deal with this.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)The nasty swarming is pathetic.
Like I said, admin needs to deal with this.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Wtf are you going on about?
Two posters here who've been accused of some nasty, untrue shit have had their posts hidden, yet here you are complaining about alerts. You love the word 'creepy'. I just noticed it in the latest lame alert here. Good for you .... gotta exercise that finger, I guess.
WHAT does admin need to deal with? Accusations that are completely fucking false made over and over ad nauseum and, threats - made by the person who DID stalk and make private info public to pass around? - they should have taken care of that shit long ago, but some animals here are special - others, not so much.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)What twisted nonsense.
Nasty swarming. Call them down here now.
polly7
(20,582 posts)It would be a real shame if you actually believed anyone takes that garbage seriously.
Defending yourself against the crap spewed here isn't swarming, but you run with that - being a victim is always so satisfying, amirite?
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)My orders, what??
It's nothing more than nasty swarming. Period.
Now I'm gonna stop there before I say what I really think about this exhibition and its participants.
Have one of those nice days, ya hear...
polly7
(20,582 posts)lmfao.
Response to polly7 (Reply #475)
Bobbie Jo This message was self-deleted by its author.
kath
(10,565 posts)over? People weren't hitting the alert button on every post that brought that up.
There were some very good comments made in Bravenak's "apology" thread, by people who weren't buying it.This is one of the best:
by merrily, #268
It may take a lot of time for you to cull the hurtful posts of many DUers, but it would also take me a lot of time to cull just the hurtful posts and pms the OP {Bravenak}has made all by her lonesome.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Where did you come from?
polly7
(20,582 posts)Where'd you come from?
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Here they come...
Who could have predicted.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Guess you looked in your rear-view mirror?
Awesome!
polly7
(20,582 posts)you wanted to stay with. ??
Funny video, hadn't seen it. Glad you had it saved, probably helps you out when you run out of orders to give?
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)'This' is what you started with:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1578952
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Same demonstration of the point.
Creepy swarming. Period.
Just nasty...
It doesn't get more "schoolyard" than that.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Cha
(295,899 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)Did you know some have whole sites that were designed just to hate on 'message board enemies' from here? Do you find that creepy? I do.
SMC22307
(8,088 posts)opiate69
(10,129 posts)SMC22307
(8,088 posts)I mean, seriously, who else on DU boasts about how high their damn IQ is?!
opiate69
(10,129 posts)at least, nobody that wants to be taken seriously... but then, I think most normal people, after being so thoroughly hoisted on their own petard - as she was earlier this week - would maybe back off a bit, show some humility, dial the Spartacus act back a bit....
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Think it's a Poe?
opiate69
(10,129 posts)But, it takes all kinds, and after the last 16+ years on the internet, I think I've seen pretty much all of 'em... no matter what kind of board/community you find online, there's always at least a handful who seem to only exist to stir the shitpot.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 26, 2016, 07:37 AM - Edit history (2)
When you post horrible things about a minority candidate and then your bigotry against that minority group is exposed, people won't forget.
When you torment supporters of that candidate endlessly, accusing THEM of being racists, laughing when they try to defend themselves, and your own bigotry is exposed, people won't forget.
SMC22307
(8,088 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Well, to be fair, this is very tame compared to the usual race baiting.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I mean we suspected since there were dog whistles but there is no walking back those words.
SMC22307
(8,088 posts)No dog whistles there. Then the Seattle debacle last summer. Blatant racism. But it's OK to bash white liberals on DU, even though most of the damn site is comprised of older, white liberals. The truth came out again with that Kos post, and I'm guessing many who rationalized the other posts away aren't doing that any more. Anti-Semitism must be the limit.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)When we called her on it we were accused of making it all up, now the truth comes out.
SMC22307
(8,088 posts)The truth came out in a BIG way.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Anyone who takes it seriously will go mad from the hypocrisy.
NICE sig line, btw.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Actually, I jacked it from another poster... but, after months of the unbelievably immature fly swatter all over the place, I'm thinking the gander could use some saucing as well, capice?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And if you're lucky you'll live long enough to see it happen.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)SMC22307
(8,088 posts)just like no one harassed you with letters.
The truth will come out. It always does. (Like in your Kos post. )
SMC22307
(8,088 posts)what else ya got?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)opiate69
(10,129 posts)SMC22307
(8,088 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)0252
(so good to see you, Polly!)
polly7
(20,582 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)20. Did you ask around yet about who is harassing my family with screeshots of du and dkos?
They sent screenshots from here and my dkos profile so I'd like to know who it is.
43. I could care less what ANY OF YOU thinks about my credibility after these anti black racist memes
That they pretent do not exist. They lack the credibility to ever be judgemental. I do care that people are harassing my family. And I think I know exactly who it is. Just let them know that if they keep it up, they will have somebody harassing them back and he is not nice like me and won't feel one bit bad after he stops the abuser from harassing him further. Even if he has to track them down and have a face to face.
Now read my sigline and listen to some music about my lifestyle.
http://genius.com/Ice-cube-check-yo-self-lyrics
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I never said you. I said 'let them know' that the person they are harassing is taking ut very seriously and is not one who cares about their rights to harass them freely. That is not safe for anybody to go off and start cyber stalking people and contacting family.
If you are not the guilty party, what in the WORLD do you have to be worried about? That is VERY CONFUSING. It was directed at my cyber stalker. If that is not yourself then it has absolutely nothing to do with you.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And now you posted a threat of violence whether directly or indirectly.
It's just a precaution, it's good to get something like that on record. I'm not scared, I don't trust people who post things like that.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)put it somewhere else. just in case you get banned and would lose access to your journal.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I replied to Warren and then you responded to me, if you don't want people to post in your threads go to a group.
No one is harassing or stalking you, you posted a threat so you're the bully here.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)SMC22307
(8,088 posts)opiate69
(10,129 posts)If only they had a place to post, where their moronic, immature horse shit could go unchallenged... where nary a soul could interrupt the verbal diarrhea spewing forth from their fetid, fevered imagination....
Sigh.. if only...
Response to opiate69 (Reply #239)
Post removed
bravenak
(34,648 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but if she puts the rest on ignore, where is the fun in that?
melman
(7,681 posts)In case you didn't catch the meaning of "listen to some music about my lifestyle", have a look at the lyrics of the song in that sigline: http://genius.com/Ice-cube-check-yo-self-lyrics
Another barely veiled threat.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I wonder who she thinks she's intimidating with that silly shit?
Am I supposed to fear for my life now?
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...you need to contact the authorities rather than making threats online.
Anyway if someone were harassing my family IRL because of some dispute on a message board, I would not hesitate to sic the cops on them. What I would not do, is to encourage someone I know to get even with them. That is just asking for trouble.
YMMV
beedle
(1,235 posts)if not out right violence allowed to remain?
I see where other posts, one with a simple insult abut looking in a mirror was hidden, but someone can threaten sending someone to have a 'face to face'?
Mind blown!?!?
Response to bravenak (Reply #43)
Post removed
kristopher
(29,798 posts)I saw a similar assault on you by her yesterday, and I googled the DU screen name. Nothing else.
Her information is all over the place from the first page first entry on down. To blame any loss of privacy on anyone other than the person who created all of those accounts is pretty clearly wrong.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 26, 2016, 08:09 PM - Edit history (1)
She claimed that people posted her full name and personal information here but when I looked at the threads that never happened.
Then she said people linked to her personal info/account but again that never happened. A link to another post at Kos was posted, nothing at all about her.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)I've never seen them be the least bit tolerant of that kind of talk and she seems to be chomping at the bit to make a it a routine part of her dialog.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)As it stands now some posters are allowed to do whatever they want, there are no consequences to their actions.
I'm just glad others are speaking up about it, the best way to take away a bully's power is to stand up together.
kath
(10,565 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)It didn't really register until others noticed it and I went back and read what she posted.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Sure, now you and your compatriots claim that there must have been a threat of violence because of a reference to a rap song....
polly7
(20,582 posts)If 'you' didn't notice a threat of violence, maybe it's because you don't want one to be seen. Who are YOU to tell someone when they should feel threatened???
This bullshit all started when bravenak accused her of being responsible for stalking and threats to her family - did you tell HER that was an unreasonable belief???
bravenak
20. Did you ask around yet about who is harassing my family with screeshots of du and dkos?
They sent screenshots from here and my dkos profile so I'd like to know who it is.
bravenak
43. I could care less what ANY OF YOU thinks about my credibility after these anti black racist memes
That they pretent do not exist. They lack the credibility to ever be judgemental. I do care that people are harassing my family. And I think I know exactly who it is. Just let them know that if they keep it up, they will have somebody harassing them back and he is not nice like me and won't feel one bit bad after he stops the abuser from harassing him further. Even if he has to track them down and have a face to face.
Now read my sigline and listen to some music about my lifestyle.
Now read my sigline and listen to some music about my lifestyle.
http://genius.com/Ice-cube-check-yo-self-lyrics
You can jump in and accuse BMUS of seeing things that aren't there without fear of a reply .......... well, fuck that.
Bravenak 'implied' her threats not just once, but twice. No-one is stupid here, not sure why you try so hard to make what's right in front of our fucking eyes into what you don't want it to be.
Oh, and then there's this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1577180
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Is there anything about my personality that indicates to you that I fear a reply from any poster on this board?
As I indicated, perhaps BMUS did not feel threatened, because she did not see herself an object of any threats. That is certainly a reasonable interpretation, since BMUS does not strike me as the type of person who is unintelligent and unable to assess her own feelings. She certainly seems to be able to express herself to her full capabilities. (10 points if you get the reference without goggling.)
polly7
(20,582 posts)20 points if you can get over yourself long enough to see the hypocrisy of accusing someone of seeing threats when they're not there made by someone who's actually done what she's 'threatening' others with.
30 if you can admit you have no fucking clue as to what someone other than yourself might feel threatened by.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I'm sorry you didn't get the reference. It's a wonderful song.
polly7
(20,582 posts)I'm sorry you don't get that ......... I've heard it's more of a character flaw than anything, so there's always hope.
(Now - how many points did you really get? I'm curious! But ......... guessing, 0?)
opiate69
(10,129 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/118718430#post205 she starts in at post 205 and it goes on and on from there.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027706669#post104.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141386859#post27
polly7
(20,582 posts)of course, so would be unable to point it out further. Gotta keep those fingers busy!!
But, a 'threat' isn't really a 'threat' if it's directed towards the person being accused of something she didn't even do - (for attention, I guess ........ as it's been denied 30 times - I can't think of another reason) even when stated outright - over and over.
The hypocrisy is stunning.
Thanks, opiate69.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Go Leafs!
polly7
(20,582 posts)Hassin Bin Sober
(26,272 posts)This person is continually alleging BMUS has something to do with whomever is "contacting her people"
That's bad enough.
But now she is threatening that some people are trying to track theses people down and do violence.
They contacting actual OGs about some petty internet shit. People who have done dimes in the state pen, threatening them over internet talk.... That's why they fucking with. Aint that some shit. And racist!!! Geting folks extra hot and bothered.
They contacting actual OGs about some petty internet shit. People who have done dimes in the state pen, threatening them over internet talk.... That's why they fucking with. Aint that some shit. And racist!!! Geting folks extra hot and bothered.
219. They can't hurt me but they have some angry people rekated to me who are not interested in
dumb ass word games. They want retribution. Over dumb ass bullying messages. I told them not to bother getting mad and tracking folks down but they are trying to find the culprits anyway. They are not like ME. I am chill. They looking to wreck somebody and it's not funny. Talk about a message board beef gone wrong. I would put up a warning to leave my people alone but that might just make them act worse.
Remember that episode of Dave Chapelle? 'When keeping it real goes wrong?' They actin like that. Trippin!
opiate69
(10,129 posts)unfortunately, given past experience, I'm betting if they do weigh in, it'll be in full-throated support of her.
SMC22307
(8,088 posts)The plot thickens! (I must have missed that last night what with all the flurry of activity.)
Do tell, Bravenak! A DUer? A Kossack? A Frontpager? One of the zillions on social media?
opiate69
(10,129 posts)SMC22307
(8,088 posts)This thread needs a horse:
opiate69
(10,129 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)that whole forum that was started just for BMUS hate over at the cave, probably long-hidden now, tells me who she's trying to say is doing ......... whatever it is. But that's jmho.
melman
(7,681 posts)Just a reference to a song, nothing implied by saying "music about my lifestyle".
I mean, it's not like she's been ranting about "OGs" and the "wntfw" for days.
Oh, wait..she has.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/118718430#post218
http://www.democraticunderground.com/118718430#post224
http://www.democraticunderground.com/118718430#post231
http://www.democraticunderground.com/118718430#post219
http://www.democraticunderground.com/118718430#post237
jeff47
(26,549 posts)seaglass
(8,170 posts)the usual suspects have come out to play.
kath
(10,565 posts)His comment wasn't a vile bigoted one targeting a whole group of people.
See this post, which was a response in Bravenak's "apology" thread (which B self-deleted):
by merrily, #268
It may take a lot of time for you to cull the hurtful posts of many DUers, but it would also take me a lot of time to cull just the hurtful posts and pms the OP {Bravenak} has made all by her lonesome.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Any accusations of harassment are a figment of someone's imagination.
Thank you for serving.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)Impressive command of the language, yes.
kath
(10,565 posts)As noted above, she reminds us all of her high IQ all the time.
MelissaB
(16,420 posts)ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Calling out a fellow DUer by name- especially to jurors- takes harrassment to a whole new level. The harrassment of Bravenak needs to stop. Arguing points in a thread is fine but THIS is beyond the pale.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Mar 26, 2016, 07:50 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This thread has so many posts which should have been hidden but were not. The whole thread should be locked. Since it has been allowed to continue, I vote to leave this one post.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The particular post being alerted on is not harassment, nor is it a call-out. And frankly, looking at this thread, anything that does cross that line is most certainly going both ways. This whole thing just makes me sad. GD: P is awful these days.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
840high
(17,196 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)although sometimes I play the bass.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)We have been hearing about how we are less than since the three fifths compronise so I think that liberals should be aware of history and not feed into racist memes. No apologies. Just stop it.
Now. I think we should all vote on the same day. Just like the general.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But I do hear what you are saying.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It was more for the ones who do it than for you.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I kinda like the give-and-take over the course of several months. But the same states in the same order every cycle I don't like.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)You have a very good point there. That's another thing I don't like about media deregulation and corp/gov melding.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Curious. Or should they have two takes at the apple and the rest of us obviously not "vote."
I consider our elections that compromised anyway.
But this is kind of silly, but the order of the primaries should be reviewed. or a national election day would be nice. Don't expect you to get why those of us in California feel marginalized when it comes to the primaries though. (Though this year we might, and might is the operative word here, as in maybe, likely not, count)
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Ditto. I've been trying to revive ER News for some time, for all the good it's likely to do...
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)maybe we can get the minimum wage "voted up." that is why I am showing up. The primaries, whatevah... and many Californians feel that way.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)mcar
(42,209 posts)from a white Southern Democrat. It doesn't take much reasoning to figure it out.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)mcar
(42,209 posts)So the DUers saying "what? where?" just aren't paying attention, I guess.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It looks ridiculous at this point
mcar
(42,209 posts)Red state or blue, black, brown or white. GOTV!
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)It has nothing to do with race. It has to do with how those states almost always go via actual voting.
There's a good article from Politico from May of 2015 pretty much outlining what states they can already predict in the GE.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/2016-predictions-117554
The battleground states will give you déjà vu.
By Kyle Kondik, Geoffrey Skelley and Larry J. Sabato
May 03, 2015
...
We dont really have elections like 1960 and 1976 anymore. In the current Electoral College battlefield, 40 of 50 states have voted for the same candidate in all four elections since 2000. And, of the 10 exceptions, three were fluky: New Mexicos pluralities were wafer-thin in both 2000, when it went for Al Gore, and 2004, when George W. Bush took the state. It has now trended mainly Democratic. Indiana and North Carolina, meanwhile, narrowly went for Barack Obama in 2008, in part because Obamas campaign invested heavily in field operations and advertising in those states while John McCain, out of necessity, neglected them. Overall, Hoosiers are still predominantly Republican and Tar Heels marginally so. That leaves just seven super-swingy states: Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia, all of which backed Bush and Obama twice each, and Iowa and New Hampshire, which have voted Democratic in three of the last four elections.
So its no wonder that these special seven states start as the only obvious toss-ups on our first 2016 Electoral Map.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)This has been going on for 400 years, politico articles notwithstanding
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)It'll be quite clear that even when the Dem candidate wins the primary by a landslide in the south, they almost never win that state in the GE. Same can be said for Utah and Idaho.
I've no bones to pick with either candidate here, but just looking at the cold hard numbers of actual voters.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The general is a separate issue AND our votes COUNT THERE TOO. If we EVER want to take back the South it will be on the BACKS of BLACK VOTERS.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Simple demographics.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Everybody's vote SHOULD count equally, and that's why I am in favor of the popular vote winning elections, BOTH in the primary AND in the General. Had this been so Al Gore would have won the 2000 election without the need for any Supreme Court involvement.
Then a voter in Mississippi/Utah really counts just as much as a voter in Ohio. Unfortunately, with the Electoral College the voter in Missippi/Utah is screwed because his vote is swept up collectively and voted en masse as the winner of that states' popular vote.
For example , say The Dem candidate won a state with 20 electoral votes. It wouldn't matter if the the candidate won 100% to zero or 50.1 to 49.9. They'd still get the same number of electoral votes. Until this antiquated system is replaced with the simple popular vote the system is set up for "swing states" to continue to decide elections, making them to campaigns "more important".
Much more to write on this, but I think the race issue is not where the problem lies here, but in the structure of the Electoral College system making some states much more important due to their closer general election proximities.
Chitown Kev
(2,197 posts)Then candidates will spend time in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois...that's where the most people are...and the Republicans would be quite disadvantaged by that right now.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Now, to a Democrat running in the GE for President, they're not spending time in Mississippi anyway. They're counting electoral votes, and their chances of how to get them. Believe me they're targeting bigger states already because that's where the electoral votes are.
Chitown Kev
(2,197 posts)in New York than you will in Mississippi. Plus, consider other markets; New York will also get you coverage in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
Mississippi will get you coverage in Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, and the like...now if you do Louisiana as opposed to Mississippi, we might be working with something (Georgia, too)
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Having some states proportion versus winner takes all really screws it up.
For example PA was considering going to a proportional electoral delegation meaning if Obama beat Romney in PA say 52-48, they'd both be getting the same approximate votes, while a state like Ohio goes winner takes all making it a much more valuable state then proportional delegation becomes weaker for a state like PA, because essentially it's lost it's full power of electoral delegate numbers.
Yes, you will always get a larger share of number of votes in NY versus MS. That is whether the electoral college remains OR one switches to the popular vote. As to coverage, that breakdown is already taking place. Changing to the popular vote wouldn't change coverage at all.
I could live with the electoral college "IF" ALL states were proportional and nobody had winner takes all, but that's not going to happen. An amendment to the constitution that revises the voting aspects of the first amendment to simply say the Presidential election will be determined by the majority popular vote of the country supersedes the electoral college provision.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)so much bile and nonsense to get to the first rational post in the whole thread. Guess I should have popped in earlier.
SMC22307
(8,088 posts)We know your thoughts on black and Jews, care to weigh in on blacks and Sikhs?
Tomorrow's going to be a VERY good day.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)SMC22307
(8,088 posts)Wonder where Marissa and her little buddies are?!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)SMC22307
(8,088 posts)and it's gonna be a thing of beauty.
Along with the pro-weed/anti-Hillary crowd.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but true, they are.
SMC22307
(8,088 posts)Some folks really need a history lesson.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)SMC22307
(8,088 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)SMC22307
(8,088 posts)It worked.
TheBlackAdder
(28,072 posts)SMC22307
(8,088 posts)(Two margaritas and I'm ready to play armchair psychiatrist. )
Logical
(22,457 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)SMC22307
(8,088 posts)Oh, wait. That's already been done.
SMC22307
(8,088 posts)SMC22307
(8,088 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)BYE
PEACE OUT
SMC22307
(8,088 posts)Work your way around the world in good-byes.
Go.
SMC22307
(8,088 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)You can PM me with the details, if you like.
SMC22307
(8,088 posts)Wonder what ol' Thom would think of her keen insight on blacks and Jews.
coyote
(1,561 posts)About our esteemed Hillary poster (who she does not even like). I guess Hillary has brought her to heel. Anyway, you learn something new every day.
SMC22307
(8,088 posts)"Look inward."
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)SMC22307
(8,088 posts)and it's going to be a thing of fucking beauty. Those that voted to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour, AND to raise their property taxes to help disadvantaged kids.
And lovely cancer survivors who support Sanders' healthcare-for-all plan:
And the anti-globalization crowd:
Thing of fucking beauty.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)SMC22307
(8,088 posts)I know so!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I am in awe of them.
SMC22307
(8,088 posts)Spouting off on a message board? Not so much.
840high
(17,196 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)opiate69
(10,129 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)SMC22307
(8,088 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)SMC22307
(8,088 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)SMC22307
(8,088 posts)Better?
"Useless white supremacist liberals" everywhere! Seriously, God Bless you good people of North Carolina. McCrory and the GOP thugs have given Reverend Barber and Moral Mondays one more item to add to the list.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I am on the other coast, or would be there camera in hand
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)threads sank like a stone. But now that we have Hillary v. Bernie, race is front and center... for some. Curious.
Well, if you ever make it to Raleigh, we'd welcome you and your camera!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)our local black lives matters events either. I find that, like you, quite curious.
And I have documented the local events as well. They do not care about labor either. so I guess we can feel a tad better now.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)SMC22307
(8,088 posts)who supports Sanders' healthcare-for-all plan.
Not really funny at all, if that thumbs down was meant for me.
kath
(10,565 posts)better or worse than Jews?
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=nbum3c&s=9
I cannot stand him. His fans are racists who run around calling blacks racist and wonder why we hate him and them. I don't even LIKE Hillary but I will vote for her just so his fans can feel the sne BERN that they have been passing out.
Look at the racist comments here. I did not know jews hated us blacks so much. Good to know. I will return it in kind. There are so few of them It's a wonder they have the gall to think about being racist against blacks.
Bravenak, Frontpage Mag 8 Comments [3/11/2016 4:32:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 15
glowing
(12,233 posts)And its true... How many times in non-presidential election years have so many railed against the crap the southern states pull with their Pug leanings.. taking away women's rights, disenfranchising voters, stamping on the rights of human beings in general... It has nothing to do with the primary voters in the states to say that the Democrats don't win the presidential election in these states. FL is iffy all the time.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)glowing
(12,233 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)glowing
(12,233 posts)The southern states... They run local, county, state, and take the win in the general... I hate it! I live in this red hell and originally hail from VT...
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though that you tried really, REALLY hard and went into your research with NO preconceived notions whatsoever.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I know why. It aint cause they are more liberal, thats for sure.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)They always claim that HRC is a GOP, I have to wonder about that one - LOL
bravenak
(34,648 posts)She wins!!
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)He polls terribly compared to BOTH of our candidates. Regardless of who wins this primary, we are going to crush the HELL out of him. His rhetoric is not playing well outside of their party. I honestly do not think we will need to 'move to the center (which means to the right of center)' during the general.
I am very thankful that they will have a contentious convention. We need to work on local races. We can take back our nation by taking back our cities and states.
wildeyed
(11,240 posts)A Trump nom will put it in the bag.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)Just reacting to a really funny post...
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)or history just don't mean shit. We, my family, were just property to White America of the South. To think that humans were treated as nothing but property, to be sold, and breeding us animals for breeding to mention a few.
Shame.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)dchill
(38,320 posts)It just counts for Republicans, almost always. It's NOT racism to say it, it's electoral politics. It's fact.
It is the primary and WE COUNT JUST AS MUCH NO MATTER WHAT STATE WE LIVE IN
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)There is a difference.
Lilith Rising
(184 posts)results in some folks freaking right the hell out.
It is a racist meme to be sure and thank you for saying so.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Rather than admit their own sins
rachacha
(173 posts)It's how the electoral college works. Personally I think it sucks and needs to change. Same with "super" delegates.
Any system that causes one individual's vote to count as more or less than another's is undemocratic.
Skid Rogue
(711 posts)of blood and treasure this country lost down south in order to further expand our democracy should give us all pause. As democrats, we need to be mindful and respectful of those loses... and victories. Some people may not see how vital the south is to this democracy, but Kennedy and Johnson and Lincoln and King sure as hell did.
If folks claim to be "liberal" and don't get that fundamental point, I don't know how to reach them.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)As soon as Sanders lost South Carolina the mask came off many of his supporters. Fortunately they don't control the process, so every state gets to have a say in the primary. At this point the whole meme is not even worth responding too, since the people using it are on the losing side.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)They howl with outrage if he gets no airtime. If she wins a state. But apparently writing off the south is perfectly aceptable.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)By some give rise to our importance and lowers their standing. Not everyone gets the privilege of living in the south.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The South is a lovely place.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, and the other deep, red, southern states are going to the Republicans in November.
Arguing that the south "counts less" has a strong component of truth in that regard.
I live in Tennessee. My vote hasn't counted in the past 4 elections and it won't count this year either. My state delegation will be all Republican.
Who on this board is a racist? Who are you talking about? Who is "some"? Who is "they"?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... not the GE.
Do you think your vote in the primaries doesn't count, or shouldn't count?
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)and I'm aware of the kind of chatter Bravenak is referring to. But come on? Is anyone actually making serious proposals to rewrite the party's convention rules to discount the votes from anticipated red states? I don't think so, and if they were it's a complete non-starter.
Holy crap! Talking about whether or not it's "racist" for Democrats to comment on the fact that some of the southern states that Hillary won in the primary won't matter in the general is just forced and contrived. Sander's supporters complaints might be irrelevant whining at best, but the blanket charge of "racism" is false and ridiculous and frankly much much worse than Sanders people complaining about losing Mississippi.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)But that's how repubs roll. And troll.
Response to cheapdate (Reply #181)
Post removed
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Oh right, red states count in inverse proportion to the amount of black people in them amirite?
I've been trying to keep this kind of shit from "Bernie supporters" from influencing my vote for close to a year now and it gets harder and harder.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)it's delegates and the rules for assigning them. Sander's base are obviously racists. Thanks to Bravenak for stating the obvious.
Legends303
(481 posts)Remember the high percentage of AA voters were in the South and thats why he won those states in 2008 and 2012. The excuses they give for Sanders is mind blogging sometimes.
dchill
(38,320 posts)When compared to those on Wall Street and those paid to carry their water. Red State, Blue State US Territory...
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Tell me I'm imagining what you just posted
dchill
(38,320 posts)Satisfied? Why not?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Everything from calling for a return to the economics of the 1950s(!), through lamenting the 40-year stagnation of wages, a stagnation which is only true for white workers (minorities have seen significant gains over the same period), through thinking having marched a half-century ago is some kind of trump card, to the thinly veiled claim that if black people "just knew what was best for them" they would support Sanders.
Bringing up the shameful Constitutional situation by which slaves got zero votes and their "owners" got three-fifths of their votes (making them eight-fifths of a person) and comparing that to the situation Sanders supporters face is odious.
Skid Rogue
(711 posts)I always feel so guilty when I see myself, or anybody else through "Dred Scott" eyes. We can tackle all your "Wall Street" reform without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Why do you guys keep going there? Ya don't have to.
dchill
(38,320 posts)I'm NOT a racist. I'm NOT sure about you.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Because I get the sense he doesn't get this either.
dchill
(38,320 posts)You don't. HRC played the race card when she called in the chit on John Lewis, and had him misremember Bernie Sanders' contribution to the civil rights movement. Jonathan Capehart helped, too.
Denigrating and denying do not negate. I don't know exactly why people do what they do, but I do know what they do.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)in the context of modern white alienation from the political process. You don't "get" how angry that would make a lot of African Americans. Sanders has never made that specific comparison but he seems to have similar instincts.
dchill
(38,320 posts)I read it. I commented on it.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)You said we all are, comparing your current alienation from politics with the brutal history of both slavery and black disenfranchisement. And you probably see her bringing it up and yours as parallel. It doesn't make you a bad person, remotely, to have done that; that's how you feel. But it's a very bad rhetorical instinct to have if you want to win black support.
dchill
(38,320 posts)My "current alienation with politics" is the story of MY life. There is nothing current about it except that it still IS. DEMS and Repubs have ALL lied to me, and to you, I suspect.
I am not 3/5 of a human, or any other fraction. No one is. I resent the OP's presumption that any other idea resides in in the mind of her imagined oppo. I use snark, but that should be obvious.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)There's some messed up stuff going on here on this thread.
I'm sorry the sane posters are having to defend themselves, for no reason other than walking into a trap.
DU is becoming quite twisted.
Skid Rogue
(711 posts)I don't know you, so I don't assume the worst of you. Promise.
What I'm asking is, why drag "Wall Street" into this discussion in such a flippant manner, while using symbolism that has such a deep racial meaning?
That's all. I'm not calling you a racist, but it just doesn't feel right.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)I am so sorry you believe what some people say that the south and the voters in Southern States are somehow not important. All people have a right to vote and those in the south have fought harder to have that right.
All voices are important in this America. Try not to listen to people who say they speak for the Sanders campaign. I don't listen to the rude people on who say they speak for Hillary when they say hateful things.
People get hot-headed and speak without thinking.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)Clearly those votes count.
Racism is a thread like this.
TheBlackAdder
(28,072 posts).
The couple of times I've corrected this OP writer, they performed a self-delete of the OP.
.
DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)Dishonesty combined with a lack of moral conviction...
... can only be explained by following orders or grievous group think.
Much like dropping bombs on civilians.
delrem
(9,688 posts)I think it's fucking despicable.
But Skinner unleashed it, so it's on Skinner.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)He never said such things.
I will help you out and point out that it was Michael Moore's tweet that first started this racist meme.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)She creamed us in Mississippi and Louisiana and South Carolina, he said, before adding that Democrats are not going to win those states in the general election.
As we head to the west coast, which is probably the most progressive part of America, I think as you go forward youre going to see us doing better and better.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/20/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-south-west-coast-us-election-2016?CMP=share_btn_tw
He purposefully conflated the general election voters with the primary voters in his dismissal of southern states dems aren't going to win in the general election.
Were not going to win Kansas and Oklahoma either but there's no dismissal of thise states from Sanders.
This is exactly the mend the OP is referring to
DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)The statements you are quoting are not the same as the racist message in the Original Post or perhaps you can only see what you want to see.
The Original Post as well as yourself are putting racist words in other people's mouths.
The source of the racism is thus the person writing the Original Post.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)This is after you said he did no such thing...
Yes he did
But again the northern red states dems aren't going to win in the general aren't being dismissed by Sanders.
You take a shot at it then... What's the difference between southern red states dems aren't going to win and northern red states dems aren't going to win?
tia
DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)Just reread my replies.
It's all right there.
By your silly argument...
If I say that the milk has gone bad, it means I hate milk.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,919 posts)Response to bravenak (Original post)
Post removed
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)of um say Al Sharpton promoting the idea that Bernie Sanders and Sanders supporters are ? it, since he claims none will say it and Sharpton won't say what "it" means.
And no one will tell me why AA leaders sold out to Hillary and the Kochs.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)Response to bravenak (Original post)
imari362 This message was self-deleted by its author.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)opiate69
(10,129 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Racists can be anywhere and post under anonymous conditions.
Right?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I notice racism against blacks is particularly unnoticed or uncared about.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Right?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)a Democrat since 1964) should not and do not count for as much in the Democratic primary/convention (in terms of delegates).
All the Southern states which are more conservative than the extremely Western states vote before the Western states.
The OP is correct that Bernie supporters are very happy about the fact that Democrats in Utah and Idaho for example, two very conservative states, voted for Bernie.
We shall see what happens in California, which is one of the most if not the most diverse state in the union.
African-Americans in the South are liberal on race issues. I have no idea where they stand on economic issues or on other social issues like gay marriage and separation of church and state and other similar issues.
We Bernie supporters are happy that Bernie has won some super conservative states in the West that will never join to elect him in November just as Hillary supporters were happy that Hillary won votes in super conservative states in the South that will, as states, never vote as states for either Hillary or Bernie in November.
None of these states count for much in terms of the voters who are likely to vote for a Democrat in November. But there is still a lot of joy for the supporters of a candidate when that candidate wins a primary regardless of its relevance or irrelevance to the winning of the November election.
And unless there is a big and very sudden change in the hearts of Americans in the conservative states in the South, Midwest and West, the outcomes of all these primaries are pretty irrelevant to the November election.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)And Yes. We will see in Cali, NY, and PA
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)After all, those are by far the 2 most critical states in the general election. The Republican nominee likely can't reach 270 electoral college votes without winning *both* of those states. Do I really think there should only be those 2 primaries? No. And I also think the whole Clinton-Dixie meme is beyond stupid. As I've pointed out a few times...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511559961
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511495322
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511495322
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511460282
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511401642
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511416414
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)California, like the votes of people living in other large states like Texas and New York count less in the electoral college because that institution consists of one elector for each representative a state has and one for each senator.
Since we have, like all other states, only two senators for our very large population, our votes are not worth as much in the electoral college as the votes of people in smaller states.
We can change all of this unfairness by electing the president by a direct vote and doing away with the electoral college.
In the past, with a constitutional amendment, we changed the way that senators are elected. We can get rid of the electoral college. I am all in favor of doing it.
While within the Democratic Party, we see the vote of a Democrat living in Nebraska or Alabama as of equal importance with the vote of a strongly Democratic state, they really aren't when it comes to election time.
The electoral college is relevant to this issue in that in most states the electors for the electoral college are elected in a winner take all election. And the minority, in the states in question, the Democratic voters can vote for Democrats all they want, election after election, but the Republicans will represent the states in the electoral college.
We should change that if we are serious about giving Democrats in states like Mississippi a real voice in the presidential elections.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Nebraska and Maine are the two states which award delegates proportionally, by congressional district.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)year in which the election was very close, but normally it doesn't mean much at all.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I just differ on the importance of "winning the state" when electoral delegates are all that matter in the end, and Nebraska is unique in how it chooses them.
delrem
(9,688 posts)War, and war profiteering, with the least regulated investment capital market as possible, not being the least.
So don't you say that I'm a racist for not supporting Hillary Clinton.
Hey, you can be proud that your candidate, the candidate that most embodies your ideals as a person, won in the south.
Clinton's southern firewall worked.
And I have to say, with a bit of thanks to you and your friends.
Congratulations.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)ericson00
(2,707 posts)and even then, Dems do much better in the South/Deep South than the Plains States and Upper Rocky Mountain states.
Additionally, states that aren't deep South, like KY, TN, AR, MO, and WV coming up are states Dems actually have won in the past quarter century at least once, tho those states twice. No Dem has won, or come anywhere close, many of the Bernie states like UT, ID, WY, NE, KS, etc.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)But I also think that Trump being their nominee provides us a chance to win states we have not won in decades. Regardless of who is our nominee.
Socal31
(2,484 posts)There are real racists in this election. By the time we focus on them, the term "racist" will have lost some of its meaning.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)But we have to work on our own issues with race, in our own party. All of us have work to do.
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Post removed
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I have no idea what this meme you are talking about is. Many of our Southern Dems are BLACK. Are they confederates?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)The fact that they're there does not mean they "rule". White male racists still control most if not all of the states of the former Confederacy.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Just that it didn't end the race.
Bernie doesn't have to stop running to prove that he respects black voters.
And it wouldn't benefit POC for HRC to be declared nominee now.
You're better than this, bravenak.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It was even written about on a newsite in an article with links back to here on an op that was not hidden. Nobody ever said that he needs to stop running. The point was to stop saying those states do not count as much as the others. Nobody expects an apology. Only I do apologies.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We have to make the case that the remaining states matter as much as Super Tuesday states to be able to do that.
We'd be saying the same thing about Super Tuesday states not being the end of the matter if they'd been 99% white and HRC had carried them
It has never been about saying that black votes don't matter. It's about saying those states, by themselves, didn't end anything.
We know we lost to HRC among POC that day. We are working hard to increase our support in those groups. And Bernie as a candidate has nothing to do with what the 'bros say(btw, most of the 'bros have now turned out to be right-wing troublemakers tied to Ron Paul, so our candidate should not be getting bashed about them anymore). What are we supposed to do to put the race smears about Bernie to rest?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)but you can't point to anywhere that it actually happened.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)What the hell is that supposed to mean then?
I purposeful conflation of general and primary election voters
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)in November.
It's not a dismissal of black voters at all...it's a recognition that there are probably too many caucasian reactionaries in those states ffor our ticket too have much of a shot of the electoral votes in those states.
For example, due to the complete inability of WHITE Southerners to change and grow on race to any significant degree we both know that nobody the Democrats could nominate this year is going to carry South Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, or Mississippi. And even Bill got shut out in most of the South in '92 and '96. HRC couldn't take those states in the fall, and even Bill got shut out in those states in '92 and '96.
That's ALL it meant.
No Democratic presidential candidate would ever have meant what you keep implying Bernie meant.
delrem
(9,688 posts)It's BrockPAC stuff.
They use existing accounts and they create accounts as needed. Then they paint their picture.
I think reality is different than that.
It's fact that Hillary Clinton got overwhelming POC support in the southern states.
The southern states were indeed her "firewall".
I don't believe that fact is because POC in those states think Sanders is a racist, sexist, misogynist monster as depicted by BrockPAC.
I think that's just a lot of sound and fury.
The one thing I've never been able to get my head around is how Hillary Clinton expects to win by swiftboating "white progressives" as her BrockPAC has done. Portraying Sanders and his supporters as being racists.
That's the thing that boggles me, how any politician could think they could win over the Democratic party base in that way.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts).... knowing the general election is irrelevant to the conversation.
Dems aren't projected to win any GE red states .... That goes without saying.
Again he's not mentioning the red GE states he won that are not mostly black dem primary voters in he context of whether dems are going to win then in the GE....
His words are quoted and we can read
And yes... Sanders has done and said some pretty fucked up things about Black's and towards Black's this primary season.
Having a guy who called Obama "niggerizzed" stump for him but only in mostly white Iowa and NH... and the ghetto comment... Come to light as the most obvious
This unneeded comment about which red GE states we can win or lose in the GE while the context of the conversation was about the dem primaries is one that can't let pass...
If he was saying this about the mostly white voter red GE states it would've been a non sequitur
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Bernie wasn't saying those voters don't matter. He is on the side of black voters more than HRC is in terms of his record.
He was saying that the contest wasn't decided on Super Tuesday.
We all agree that black votes everywhere count.
What it comes down to is, while Bill and Hill have won extensive black support and while black people have every right to vote for what ever wish to vote for, their votes do not prove that HRC is the superior candidate.
And it still remains a valid point that neither Clinton has done anything, in terms of their actual record, to EARN POC support. They have never been loyal to POC and never taken a single risk in your behalf.
In their Arkansas years, they never stood up to white supremacists in their state. Not once. They never made any significant effort to boost black voter registration.
There were no situations in the Nineties in which Bill and Hill could ONLY survive politically by kicking POC in the teeth in the ways they did.
Your community gained nothing in the Nineties from those two appeasing GOP racism on crime(all policing policies supported by that administration were expansions of institutional racism) and unemployment and "personal responsibility" (something neither Bill NOR his GOP partners had any moral authority to lecture anyone about)...OR from them agreeing with the GOP equation of blackness with welfare fraud and out-of-wedlock parenting.
There were NO moments at any point in the Nineties(before HRC's too-late-to-matter comments about Abner Louima)n when either Clinton was ever, in any meaningful way, on your side. Ever.
They made no significant efforts to revitalize the economy in any significantly POC areas of the country. About the only ways POC were able to get work in the Nineties were in the fast food industry(where the person who starts on the fry machine stays there for the next ten years)or in the military(the sector of the economy whose employees are most likely to die on the job).
As Senator from a state where being antiracist carries with it no political risks, HRC never spoke out against racism, social or economic(corporate capitalism is a form of economic racism, after all) and never did anything, even after we got a Democratic congress back in '06) to push through any measures through addressing institutional racism.
All of that is context, too.
You have shown those two massive loyalty, but the question remains:
If they did nothing for you in the Nineties, why would you think they'll reward your support NOW?
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... middle class working non poor under Clinton.
You can say the Clinton's had nothing to do with the economy but that sounds ultra wingerish at best and goes along the same damn lines Obama haters are saying about his influence on the current economy not being in the dumps; that either they had no influence or whatever they did wasn't good enough.
also,
It's understood that those states don't count in the PRIMARY ELECTION which raises the question why in the hell bring them up in the context of the GENERAL ELECTION in the first place?!!??!?!
He's not saying the red states he won that are mostly white wont be won in the GE and there's the disparate view
Either way, it's Sanders own words
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)'He's saying those states didn't end the contest.
It basically sounds like YOU think Bernie could only have proved he respects POC by withdrawing from the race after Super Tuesday...even though a withdrawal would have meant Bernie was giving up on fighting for economic justice(and economic justice is something POC need even more than whites, thanks to the alliance between racism and capitalism).
Bernie never attacked black voters. He never would.
Jobs were created in the Nineties. Those jobs didn't depend on Bill being right-wing and anti-union(remember, beig anti-union always means being objectively anti-POC, because POC hold most of the jobs in which union representation, strong workplace safety laws, and strong anti-discrimination laws are most desperately needed) on economic and trade policy.
The creation of those jobs did not require OR excuse Bill and Hill's unquestioning acceptance of the racist myth that welfare and "personal irresponsibility" were predominantly black things(most people on welfare and most people abusing drugs, refusing to work and having children out of wedlock are and have always been white people).
Nor did they require Bill to sell out to newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani and the white supremacist movement on crime policy. We didn't need mass incarceration and more executions to get more jobs.
Any Democrat who was in office at that time would have presided over the creation of the same number of jobs.
BTW, it's weird that you've been one of the posters here most heavily bashing Bernie over his support of economic justice, yet your last post used the argument that economic growth makes every betrayal Bill and Hill inflicted on you no big deal.
Vinca
(50,168 posts)The people, for whatever reason, do not take to Bernie. They left him. He can't stay there and hold their hands and try to convince them otherwise as the primary race continues to go by. Maybe the south is racist, by the way. Maybe this is a Jewish thing.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)imagine2015
(2,054 posts)So you think Hillary and Bernie Sanders will do better than Obama in the south?
Nonsense!
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)Election politics at best.
Sanders understands the difference even if his supporters don't
Vinca
(50,168 posts)It doesn't mean Bernie didn't try to win them over down there.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... About the general election except to disingenuously conflate the two.
Either way he's overtly NOT saying the same about the northern mostly white primary voter red GE states he won recently or is projected to win.
This goes asking with the op claim that dismissing the southern blue primary states as general election red states lends one to think it is because they're mostly black dem primary voters.
No one else has come up with any other near factual explanation for statements like his or anyone elses delinitation of southern GE red states vs northern GE red states.
There sure is a lot of paying dumb though
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)coyote
(1,561 posts)But apparently making anti-Semitic comments and trolling Bernie supporters is acceptable at DU.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)1 or 2 percentage pts for the Dems would tip them Blue.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)We have made some big gains in the south in recent elections. Florida, Virginia, North Carolina.. even Georgia and Texas are starting to turn.
If we can flip some of those big traditionally southern Red states, the GOP will never win the WH again.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... That would flip the country for generations
DCBob
(24,689 posts)monicaangela
(1,508 posts)used the vote count as what decides who won or lost an election.
The complete and final 2000 election results are in. Al Gore, the Democrat, received 50,988,442 votes; George Bush, the Republican, received 50,449,494. Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate, got 2,185,330; Pat Buchanan, running with the Reform Party, had 430,307; Harry Browne, the Libertarian, got 390,062; John Hagelin, the Natural Law candidate, got 102,384; Howard Phillips, the Constitution Party candidate, garnered 93,136; James Harris, the Socialist Workers Party candidate got 7,249; David McReynolds, the Socialist Party USA's standard bearer received 5,548 and Monica Moorehead, the Workers World candidate, received 3,171 votes.
There were other candidates who received a smattering of votes. Strickland got 90, Dodge got 208, Venson 535; Brown 1,606; Wright 23; Youngkeit 161; Lane 1,044; Kunzler 1; Kenyon 6; Eicher 4; Huber 3; Pettway 1; Choate 34; Birchler 8; Easton 5; Judd 15; Schriner 24; Marcus 17 and Mooney 7. So, the 2000 presidential election was not just between Al Gore and George Bush, but there were 29 named candidates plus a further 22,150 write-in votes. There were more than 22,000 candidates for president in 2000, not 2. That is, if every vote counts, which, they clearly did not in the 2000 election.
Gore won the election, but Bush was able to get the United States Supreme Court to rule that statutory deadlines were more important than the people's right to have their votes counted. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled that there is no right to vote for president under the Constitution. So the Supreme Court stopped the vote count when Bush had a 300 vote lead in Florida.
http://www.leinsdorf.com/Gore%20Wins%20the%20Election%20by%20538.htm
So Gore won that election, and I'm sure that isn't the only election where the popular vote did not decide who won the election. All votes count, question is: Are all votes counted?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
imagine2015
(2,054 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)imagine2015
(2,054 posts)Oh .... do you have a link for that direct quote?
Or are you just looking for ways to swiftboat or smear him?
And if Bernie actually said that I agree with him!
He's just stating an obvious fact.
Does that make me a racist?
Matt_in_STL
(1,446 posts)Especially the anti-semitic rants. Then they pretend they don't really feel that way when they post here and call everyone else racist.
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)Democrats are not going to win those states in the general election
Sanders own words
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)I don't think the fact that the Bible Belt is more condemning of GLBT rights is not an African American versus white issue.
I don't think the fact that the Deep South's hostility to collective bargaining rights is not an African American versus white issue.
I don't think the Bible Belt's skepticism to woman's reproductive health rights is not an African American versus white issue.
I think the West Coast has some regional characteristics that make it a bit different from the rest of the US (it's a bit more progressive) just as the Rust Belt is a unique region (it's more embracing of collective bargaining rights). The Bible Belt is also uniquely anti-progressive as a region, but this is not an African American versus white issue.
wildeyed
(11,240 posts)of the Democratic Party as a whole. To suggest that we disenfranchise certain Democrats based on region is one of the shittiest and most undemocratic suggestions I have ever heard.
The fact that Bernie Sanders did not persuade more black voters to support him is on him and his campaign, not on the voters he failed to win over. The fact that he has been dismissive of those voters after the fact MAY be a big clue as to why they didn't support him in the first place.
BTW, I did back of the envelope delegate math and only included blue and potential swing states and Clinton is STILL winning by a significant margin. Also, Texas and NC will be blue within the next decade or so, according to demographic trends. Pretty sure that majority-white red states like Kansas and Nebraska are going to stay in the GOP column for much longer. So even by their own twisted logic, disenfranchising red state Democrats does not net a primary win for Bernie Sanders. The only way to do that is to kick blacks out, specifically. And in addition to being immoral, no Democratic presidential contender wins without black voters in the GE. And pretty sure that if you don't let them vote in the primary, they will not flock to your candidate in the GE.
Just sayin'
DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)I would expect to see that in Late Breaking News.
I think when a person puts racist words in other's mouths...
Racism is perpetuated by that person.
wildeyed
(11,240 posts)Since you are guilty of some serious echo chamber bullshit yourself.
Do you even understand the definition of racism? "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." How is Brave suggesting that either race is superior?
On the flip side, suggesting that southern states where the majority of voters are black, should not count, or (OMG, someone really did say this here) they should all vote on a single day and we will call it "Rainbow Tuesday", is a form of white supremacy.
DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)you will just blame that kid over there for the racist comment.
Could it be the school bully is the source of the racist comment?
polly7
(20,582 posts)wildeyed
(11,240 posts)because you know your original attack was wrong. Cute.
As to the new thing you are alleging, you start with the false premise that Brave is a bully and a SECOND false premise that there were not subtle but still racist comments regarding Southern voters. Here are just a few examples
Please Google "dog whistle" if you are confused about the nature of subtle racial attacks. Also note that just because someone didn't mean to be racist, doesn't mean that they are not and does not protect them from being called out on it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511392406#post7
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511401642#post6
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511390486
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511358772
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511389641
The campaign and surrogates have been fueling this:
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/3/17/bernie-campaign-fueling-supporters-associating-blacks-with-confederacy
Didn't Sanders himself say something divisive about Southern blacks being less informed than backs from the rest of the country?
You know what, it is NOT racist to point out when something is racist. And the bullies are the ones promoting white supremacy, not those who they are attempting to silence and disenfranchise.
Thanks for playing
DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)Great.
wildeyed
(11,240 posts)Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)the crap here on this so called liberal message board, I no longer believe that.
The racism is obvious, thank you for pointing it out and if pointing out racists is racism, then we are all done and out.
wildeyed
(11,240 posts)Which is painful, but maybe good too. For too long, it has lurked in the shadows, in coded language and in the actions of "good white people". But Obama and Ferguson have forced what was once subtle and hard to pin down into the public consciousness.
The worst offenders here are hardcore repeaters who post almost continuously, a few obvious trolls and low post count newbies. It gets to be a bit of an echo chamber. Hopefully things will improve after this endless, horrible primary is finally whistled dead, the promised jury tweaks take effect and the ban hammer is wielded against those advocating against the actual nominee.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)It's just the way our election system works. No one is trying to talk you out of voting. But those electoral votes are all going to the GOP. The campaigning in the south is pretty much done now, except for Florida since it's a swing state.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)And it doesn't vote Democrat. Letting a region that won't vote Dem in the GE decide the nominee isn't pro-equality, it's just stupid politics.
The Dems should let the states that WILL vote Dem in the GE decide the nominee. In fact they should decide the order of the Primary states based on which states had the highest percentage of Dem voters in the previous election.
Letting states like Mississippi, that won't vote Dem, and haven't voted Dem for years and years, is idiotic. Almost as idiotic as claiming that not supporting such a stupid idea is "racist".
wildeyed
(11,240 posts)The only people who say "And it doesn't vote Democrat" are wingnuts. You should edit your post
opiate69
(10,129 posts)?ts=635406006960000000
wildeyed
(11,240 posts)opiate69
(10,129 posts)wildeyed
(11,240 posts)They are a random assortment of images you found on the internet It is hard to educate anyone who does not understand the basic rules of debate, that IS true.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Mainly, that the Democratic Party itself has used the exact phrasing that he did. Ergo, you were laughably, demonstrably wrong in trying to correct him. For further edification:
?v=1448600392
From: http://store.democrats.org/products/vote-democrat-chill
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)wildeyed
(11,240 posts)"Democrat Party" is a political epithet used in the United States for the Democratic Party. The term has been used in negative or hostile fashion by conservative commentators and members of the Republican Party in party platforms, partisan speeches and press releases since at least 1940.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)#Modern_usage
Also "Democrat" Party is grammatically incorrect.
http://www.dailywritingtips.com/democrat-is-a-noun/
But as a master of public relations and propaganda, you know that already
opiate69
(10,129 posts)But, as a native English speaker with more than a 3rd grade education (I assume anyways), you know that already.
wildeyed
(11,240 posts)the father of propaganda and public relations as an inspiration would know the difference between a noun and an adjective, that is true. And also understand why the incorrect usage is historically considered an insult.
I thought perhaps it was a simple spelling error, that happens to all of us. But apparently, no, it is was intentional.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Or, maybe your high school Language Arts teacher.
http://store.democrats.org/products/vote-democrat-chill
wildeyed
(11,240 posts)Exactly. And you know as well as I do that it was Tom DeLay and fucking GWB that started back with that term.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
And, as has already been pointed out to you, Edward never said "Democrat Party". What he said was "The South isn't a race and it doesn't vote Democrat." Which, while not necessarily being "English Teacher approved", is, and has long been, a popular bit of sloganeering - one which the Democratic Party has used for many, many decades.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)Is that I have very little interest in pedantry. You know exactly what I meant and the missing "ic" was obviously not a slight.
So yes. Sigh.
wildeyed
(11,240 posts)ESP?
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)Instead of wasting your time chiding me you could have looked at my posts and come to the conclusion that I just left off the "ic" because I was being casual and quick.
Or you could have just let it slide, because you know... Why did you think it was an important thing...? Just because?
Honestly man, let it go.
It's a waste of my time - at the very least.
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Post removed
840high
(17,196 posts)for ALL POC.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Lee Atwater's "Southern Strategy" on any other given day.
imagine2015
(2,054 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Often very explicitly stated "because demographics"?
Go figure.
Gothmog
(143,999 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)PDittie
(8,322 posts)Then again, maybe you were referring to the Republican party (in which case you'd be correct). Since you didn't specify...
OZi
(155 posts)What has been the turnout in the red states Bernie has won? Is there more of a chance in those places of going purple or blue?
I'm hopeful that at least one of the candidates has a chance to flip states in the GE. I don't see HRC being able to do that. I also don't see either candidate having a chance at flipping states in the deep south.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)and you ain't any stinkin better with the stupid racism charge
gordianot
(15,226 posts)I have seen what is going on in the rural South and my border State. Trump and Cruz what they stand for is not an accident. The perceived internal Democratic conflicts such as those promoted in this thread will come home to roost. The financial wealth establishment in this country is no ones ally or friend if you are not a member of the club. Non members can enter in the servants entrance on occasions you might be led to believe you are a member of the club, that is a mistake.
SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)Response to bravenak (Original post)
Post removed
Number23
(24,544 posts)and
and
and
over some of the hidden posts too. The hysterical hypocrisy dripping off of so many of them is simply precious and adorable.
You got the whole gang, didn't you? The lynch mob, wanna be tough guys, list makers, note takers, black friend and everybody else. This is one for the ages right here.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Glad I left it to them. I have no idea who got hides or wtf went on after I started using ignore. Must be interesting.
Chitown Kev
(2,197 posts)if it weren't so sad...
In fact, its' entertaining AND sad. Especially considering the amount of ignorant anti-black posts people have commented and recced
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The masks came off. This is all way over the top.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Was it the hollering over how horrible bravenak is from folks that have seen just as many -- if not MANY more -- time outs, hidden posts and Flagged for Reviews as she has?
Was it the unbelievable hypocrisy of Manny and WillyT's biggest fans now screaming to the hills over racism?
Was it the inevitable appearance of the Black Friend? Quiet as a fart in church when these folks talk about how black people are "low information voters" and insult our community but the SECOND any black poster talks about the WELL DISCUSSED and OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGED harassment of black posters here, suddenly there they frothing furiously and accusing us of "paranoia?" I guess Skinner is paranoid too because even he has acknowledged that there is a problem with how black posters are treated here and has said that the admins are working on doing something to address it.
At one point, in the middle of this thread, I actually expected to somehow see pitchforks and torches! The numbers weren't there but the volume of posts from bravenak's fan base of 12-15 members sure tried to compensate for the dearth of participants. I dunno. Maybe a 6 out of 10 on the entertainment scale?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I live in Montana. Montana is a red state. No matter who I vote for, my vote will go to the Republican nominee. I feel like my Presidential vote doesn't count, but my vote for our local elections do. If there weren't local elections, I probably wouldn't vote for POTUS.
Excitement. Many Bernie supporters are very, very into him. I support Bernie as a lesser evil, but many of his supporters seem to fully support him. He's a long shot, and so every victory, no matter how small or meaningless in our system, is viewed as a reason to celebrate.
None of the red states will matter in the GE as far as the Democratic nominee's chances go. A good friend of mine is Mexican. She fucking hates Trump. She views his rhetoric as an attack on her family. If Trump wins the nomination, then no matter who she votes for (she's a Bernie supporter), her vote is going to Trump.
I don't believe that the phenomena you're talking about is racial prejudice, but rather excitement. None of the red states matter because of the Electoral College. If you live in a red state, you're voting Republican whether you like it or not.
The Polack MSgt
(13,159 posts)Stunning. This thread is amazing
Honey may attract more flies than vinegar, but nothing, and I mean nothing makes them swarm like a big helping of their own favorite bullshit out in the open for all to see.
I love that one literary reference was posted several times.
People went out of their way to paraphrase George Orwell - A direct quote is too hard I suppose - because they just wanted to remind you that "some animals are more equal than others".
So helpful.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Some seem to think that says the opposite of what they think it does. I only left it up so they could get their fill of insulting me and have a party. And boy, did they party like its, well, that was before my time on earth that they still had this type of party.