2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBefore the big clampdown, I'm gonna say this
The worst aspect of this primary has been an assertion of a weird form of inverted GOP thinking in the Democratic Party in which ethnic and gender differences have been exploited for political purposes.
The inversion of what has long been the core message of progressive populism and mainstream liberalism is astounding and depressing.
One can not be an Economic Progressive Populist without also being racist and sexist? If one wants to reduce government corruption and concentration of wealth and power, one is automatically a "white privileged Berniebro"?
It makes no damn sense.
Yes, it is true that Racism is an ongoing problem, whether or not we have a society that has more economic justice and democratic (small d) government.
Yes, Sexism and gender inequality is an ongoing problem, whether or not we have a society that has more economic justice and democratic (small d) government.
But it's ridiculous to say that that addressing the obscene overall concentration of Wealth and Power that has been allowed to occur since 1980 is just a "white privileged progressive" concern. That's playing right into the hands of the GOP and Big Money and Big Power.
The notion that we cannot address problem of poverty and Monopoly Capitalism simultaneously with addressing racism and sexism is a load of Economic Conservative crap.
The idea that we are supposed to huddle in a lot of Little Tents, instead of working together to make the practical side of life better for EVERYONE as a Big tent is not logical. It is not condusive to reform that can benefit the 90 percent on a real life level, as well as a more moral society
These False Choices have set back the course of Social and Economic Justice. They threaten to make the polarization and gridlock that supports the Oligarchy that oppresses the 90 Percent stronger and more permanent.
Paradoxically, it simultaneously furthers national political divisiveness WHILE ALSO bringing the GOP and the Democrats closer together -- in terms of NEITHER party being an actual counterbalance to Corporate Power and Wall Street Greed. It further enables government systemic corruption.
We CAN walk and chew gum at the same time. But only if we recognize that it is possible and desirable to do so.
Sorry but just had to say that before saying such things is not allowed here.
,
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
djean111
(14,255 posts)That is Third Way, all the way. Not supporting it.
And yeah, classic GOP stuff. Years ago, my sister asked her daughter why she would vote for Bush, seeing as how Bush was for war. My niece said, I don't care what else he stands for, I am voting for him because he is against gay marriage.
This is how it works - wave a social issue to distract, and the rob the citizens blind before sending them off to fight. And to those who immediately gasp oh! So gay marriage is just a distraction! - no, it is being USED as a distraction. There is, and was, never any reason that we could not have gay marriage AND economic justice AND no bloody warmongering. But, evidently, that Third Way kool-Aid is fucking delicious to a great many people.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)
Pastiche423
(15,406 posts)
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Well done.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Pathetic how well so many are taken in by this. Or deliberately spread it.
randome
(34,845 posts)
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Racism claims on Sanders and his supporters over and over again.
The tactic took "attack your opponents strengths" to a whole new discusting level.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)Economic Progressives in a big way.
djean111
(14,255 posts)of war and fracking and the TPP and fiddling with Social Security and be denied Single Payer. ALL of us. That is what equality means to the Third Way.
ReasonableToo
(505 posts)fasttense
(17,301 posts)Oh wait...
If we all had equal economic opportunity, alot of those racists and sexists would have very little power. Their opinions would be toothless without the money to force their opinions on the rest of us.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)
jcgoldie
(11,631 posts)Economic progressivism is neither racist nor sexist and I don't recall anyone this primary season claiming it is. What was racist about the Sanders movement was not the economic message but the fact that they chose to claim that the votes of large segments of the population were somehow less valuable because they came from parts of the country that traditionally vote republican. It just so happens that these are the same places where minority voters are most highly represented in the democratic primaries. Devaluing their votes is racist by definition whether thats the intent or not.
And I do believe that much of the hyperbolic criticism of Clinton from the left is also based in sexism. She's the establishment candidate thats obvious but I do not recall candidates like Bill Clinton, Gore, or Kerry who could be criticized in similar ways being subject to anything like the amount of vitriol and hatred from democrats that Hillary has endured. So what's the difference? She's more dishonest? I'm sure that's the argument, but I don't think its based in reality, I think its code.
obamanut2012
(26,076 posts)I 100% agree.
Great post.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Lied and had to walk back several statements.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)-- by the FBI and Dept. of Justice rather undercuts your argument about honesty.
DCBob
(24,689 posts) AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Regardless, the IG report makes no claim she did anything illegal. Sure.. she didnt follow all the rules and regs perfectly but nothing illegal. I know you and other Berners and the GOP are desperately hoping and praying for an indictment but its not going to happen.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)But it sure did expose the lies she has been telling.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)"Misstatements" or lies...you be the judge:
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/05/27/ap-fact-check-clinton-misstates-key-facts-in-email-episode/
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I think she can easily clarify all of those inconsistencies.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)She admits using a personal server was mistake but she doesnt admit to doing anything nefarious or illegal. Her motivation was simply convenience and control.. not to evade FOIA.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Thing is you connect the dots of this report with other known information, and the picture as a whole is very damning. That is probably what will happen with the upcoming IC IG report and the final FBI report.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)The IC IG and FBI reports will likely confirm much of this.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)If you have any specifics I would be glad to discuss.
BTW, here is a preview of the FBI report..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512171118
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts) 
Rilgin
(787 posts)She did not follow the rules at all. The FOIA was totally ignored. Not just not "followed perfectly". She set up an outside system to evade all rules and regulations that Democrats have fought for regarding transparency. She was only perfect in not following the rules and regulations that provide transparency in their entirety.
The report made that clear and made it clear that she has been outright lying about her emails and server/ The FBI director has also made it clear that she has been lying about the fact that the FBI investigation is a criminal investigation not something called a "security review".
Your phrasing of not "following perfectly" is exactly the problem some of us have with Hillary versus some other candidates. It is spin and not truth and does not give any sense that anyone has learned anything.
We tried to get rid of inherited power when we left the British Empire but apparently its back. You may be right that the democratic administration will try to protect her now that she is the candidate. She may not be indicted and may in fact end up with a promotion despite ignoring the rules. However, that too is part of the problem. We do not need someone who has the instinct to hide her truths from the voters and need someone in office who recognizes why what she did in setting up a non transparent system is so bad.
There is no reason we should be going into the presidential race with a candidate with such high deserved unfavorables. I still think there is a chance that the Republicans will be able to get their unfavorable candidate out of the race although it will be difficult for them. If so, we will be left with a candidate that is the lease liked in modern history by the general electorate against whoever they put up. Right not democrats are very lucky its Trump who seems an even more flawed candidate than Hillary.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I didnt both reading the rest after that.
Rilgin
(787 posts)2 years after leaving office in response to it finally being leaked that she in fact had many many work emails she started producing emails that should have been in the possession of the State Department when she left office. You know this.
Her excuse was that if she emailed someone, it would show up in their email records which might only be true of people who were using government email accounts which was not Hillary and not many of her chief aides who were also using her private server. You know this.
FOIA requests of the State Department revealed no emails of Hillary until the hidden server became public. You know this.
Hillary is a Yale Trained lawyer who worked for a big corporate law firm then was a senator beside all her other time in the White House and all the disclosures and testimony of her and her husband. She would certainly be aware that there were laws governing record keeping and disclosure. If for convenience, one of her charges on the people setting up an independent system is that such system would comply with record keeping and disclosure responsibilities.
You know all this. She did not follow all the rules and regulations regarding communications in a less than perfect manner. She did not follow the rules and record keeping responsibilities of government employees in their entirety.
However, you know this.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)She complied with the FOIA requirements.
Rilgin
(787 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)I think that time deadline is not that strict. For sure its not a felony.
Rilgin
(787 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Gotta go.
Rilgin
(787 posts)If a report says "At a minimum" and then says you did not even do what a law requires at a bare minimum, the report is saying you did not comply whatsoever with the rules and regulations applicable to federal employees work product. This is a far cry from your spin that she didnt follow it perfectly. The report says she did not follow the rules and regulations at all not even to the minimum
The reason for any record keeping rules relates to disclosure whether through subpoena or through FOIA requests. However you know that. Her practices were met to hid her work rather than provide transparency so we voters could know through the press what she did while in office. This (transparency) has been a democratic party value which is now being thrown under the bus by Hillary and her supporters.
DCBob
(24,689 posts).. of their records immediately upon leaving office. That seems to me to be a minor issue as long they eventually provide the documents.
Rilgin
(787 posts)This is just not the case and flys in the face of common perceptions which is the political problem with Hillary's conduct. She did meet with IT people and even though she herself is not an IT person she just ignored what they said. Most people have the common experience of going into a work place and being informed of what their email address is and what kind of paper work and records they have to maintain. Unless they are using incredibly bad judgement, they do not recreate the wheel and use the existing systems provided for them. If they use other systems, they make sure that the outside systems comply with the record keeping rules of the organization unless they are using incredibly bad judgement or like Hillary want to totally evade such record keeping and disclosure requirements.
Anyone who has worked in an office knows that there are information procedures that are followed and know its connected to various laws. I worked at a corporate law firm similar to the one Hillary worked at. At such law firms, there are procedures for files, copies, record keeping that are followed from the most junior associate to the name partners. There are departments that make sure the procedures follow record keeping and disclosure requirements.
You suspect that most high level people just ignore the IT departments and set up totally independent systems and do not charge such people with complying with record keeping laws? I suspect you are wrong. Only someone like Hillary who believes she is above the law would think of this and unfortunately, you dismiss the fact that it has been a key democratic issue what we expect OUR leaders to follow to act with transparency.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I dont have time to go through all of it and correct it so here is the bottom line..
She did not intend to use the server for classified information. It was for personal use and non-classified departmental use. The fact some classified information may have passed through it by mistake or accidentally is not a felony.
Rilgin
(787 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 16, 2016, 12:38 AM - Edit history (1)
You did say she followed the rules but not perfectly. Thats the only thing i said you said. I didnt discuss the classified rules because i do not have a solid opioniin.
With regard to the foia and federal record keeping laws and rules she followed none of them. Nothing is more clear and thats what the report said. And she did not even do the minimum required. Your points about her intentions are just her expressed excuses and you and i can not tell if her statements after the fact are the truth.
The only solid truth is that she set up an email system that was not transparent and only sent emails to the state department when caught and then not all of them
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Good grief.
Rilgin
(787 posts)Good greif! I have not said jail. That is a total strawman argument as was your focus on classified info.
Once again for me her problems are transparency and the foia. Between our 2 positions on what such violation of our values should mean I prefer my position.
You dont just argue that she should not go to jail you think she should get rewarded for violating a long held democratic party value by promoting her to an even higher office.
I think that maybe she should not be rewarded for such actions and again so you dont use another strawman. I am not pushing jail nor talking clasaified information handling laws. I am talking transparency and foia which ahould be a democratic value. And i am pointing out that there is a huge gap between advocating jail time for someone who ignores laws that relate to democratic party values and advocating that the peraon be our champion.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Rilgin
(787 posts)Most good politicians when faced with scandals that are not illegal but reveal significant character flaws would think of withdrawing before they lose in the GE. If she wins this scandal will be with us for years because it is real. Democrats each race run saying they will be the most transparent administration in history. Transparency is a big deal with some of us and democrats have had a long fight against Republican secret government. Her actions show a total disregard for transparency and open government and this should be a big deal regardless of criminal penalty or laws.
Obviously Hillary did not withdraw and there is no real good solution at this point since she did not withdraw. She and the democratic party are all of us lucky that she is running against Trump a republican with even more flaws and baggage.
However, not having an answer is different than minimizing her problems and flaws. Our discussion started because of a post of yours where you minimized the issue by saying she followed the rules but not perfectly which is actually 180 degrees from the truth. Again, she didn't follow the record retention rules at all in a way that would give effect to the FOIA. The report said bluntly she did not even do the minimum required of her.
Hopefully she will win to prevent Trump. However, this scandal will be hammered by a Republican congress or swept away by a Democratic Congress for the next four years. Neither which is good for good government. Perhaps rather than swallowing this we can learn from Hillary and prevent future candidates from getting away with it knowing that rules violations do not prevent promotion.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Regardless Hillary is our nominee... the good the bad and the ugly.
Response to DCBob (Reply #22)
AtomicKitten This message was self-deleted by its author.
randome
(34,845 posts)Both investigations are not worth the time or energy to trumpet as somehow elevating one's opponent. Yet endless OPs claimed the opposite. Sanders' supporters were always his own worst enemies. Sometimes Clinton supporters were the same for her.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)eastwestdem
(1,220 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)But you know it's just a coincidence that peoples' standards all of a sudden changed dramatically and the decisions so many formerly beloved Dems made years ago are suddenly murder.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Who could not brush that meeting off fast or hard enough, by the way.
I shudder to think what these folks would do if Hillary had spent $60K of donor money to hang out in the lobby and ambush the pope at 4 am to discuss POVERTY. Good Lord, the irony!! 
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)And as the poster above said, I appreciate you typing it out so I didn't have to.
I would add to your very cogent argument that no one said economic justice cannot be striven for or accomplished simultaneously with racial and social justice, but Bernie's campaign didn't do a good enough job of acknowledging and addressing both. In that POC have very strong concerns regarding their on-the-street and general safety in light of all the racial violence we've seen in recent years, the Bernie campaign should have known they needed to address the racism issue specifically and head-on. Saying economic justice raises all boats is not good enough when you might get shot before your boat rises.
But I have had this argument with Armstead before and he doesn't see that the Bernie campaign failed to address its attention to POC's concerns, instead claiming the whole POC don't like Bernie thing was a stitch-up by the Hillary campaign. So... 
Armstead
(47,803 posts)was that of assuming that people would already realize he has also had a lifelong to social justice.
I have followed him for years -- including back ijn the 1990's when he was one of the few voices in Congress talking about things like the disproportionate exercise of police force and incarceration against POC -- so people like me did not feel like he had to emphasize that.
His economic message was emphasized because that is what has been missing from the political debate, and that is what he and we focused on.
But that was not a deviation from his long held goals and beliefs. He did not have to change himself, he just needed to be more effective in commnicating that as a key element of his overall his message.
Bernie DID make adjustmjents , and made certain to emphasize his positions on social issues were clear as he went along. Those who think he didn't have not been listening.
Unfortunately, by the time the meme that Bernie is insensitive to racial issues was embedded it had taken on a life of its own.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)He needed to be more effective in communicating (his social/racial positions) as a key element of his overall message.
I've never been one who thought for one second Bernie Sanders was a racist. I don't think POC think he is either (although I certainly can't speak for them). But in that we keep having unarmed black men (and women) shot in the streets (I mean, this is international news, I know, I'm an expat) this election cycle the issue needed to be front and center. Bernie didn't know that or believe that or take it seriously enough. And as you said, by the time he course-corrected, it was too late.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)He gave too much credit to Democratic Voters to already KNOW The Issues.
He should have followed Mencken's advice:
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
As one who has followed Democratic Politics for 50 years, I was intimately familiar with Bernie's honorable track record, and angered by the people on DU who Swiftboated
him on this record.
eastwestdem
(1,220 posts)go back and look at to validate is long-term commitment. He did remarkably little work as a senator in terms of legislation.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)to push for one of her many landmark civil rights bill she championed.
Er wait a minute...
uponit7771
(90,339 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)
chervilant
(8,267 posts)I've seen this rather defensive argument before...
Hi11ary is the "presumptive nominee" because the corporate megalomaniacs who've usurped our media, our politics, AND our global economy want her. We the People do not. It's just that simple, really.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)Like me?
Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)It looks like more we the people disagree with you fewer the other people. We evidently want Clinton more than Sanders.
The fact is that Sanders had to figure out where to focus his time and resources. With the lopsided front-loaded nature of Super Tuesdays, combined with the obvious fact that Clinton had a huge advantage in the southern states, Sanders had to focus on the states where he had more of a fighting chance of winning or making a strong showing.
That was not racist, but strategy that reflected the practical reality of the situation. Had Sanders the time and resources, I am sure he would have preferred to be able to spend more time in the southern states, but he had to make choices.
As for the hyperbolic criticism based on gender. I won't deny in a larger sense that it may play a role with some people.But it's a cop out to claim that it is a primary source of the objections and criticisms of her. It stems from a lot of legitimate objections people have to the history of she and her husband (they are political/business partners, there is no denying that, and they acknowledge it) and the faction of Democrats they represent. I won't go into all that here, you know what it is based on. But Biill Clinton has been subject to plenty of "vitriol" for the same reasons.
So she is subject to dislike and strong language by many people. But you can't blame that on gender.
That's as misdirected as saying the primary reason Trump is criticized so strongly is because he is a male.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)independent woman.
Hillary was wrong to be ambitious, she was wrong to want power yet ambition and power were always admired in male leaders.
I am afraid your side will spend the next few years and months trying to rewrite history.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)This assertion that Bernie supporters are sexist just makes Hillary supporters look disconnected from reality. It makes communication impossible,
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)They were pretty vociferously anti-Warren after she endorsed Hillary.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)auntpurl
(4,311 posts)when he endorsed Hillary.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)it was expected. Warren's rhetoric was essentially the same as Bernie's....So some who love both Warren and Bernie saw it as a betrayal.
Personally, I was just disappointed, but more by her unwillingness to support Bernie during the primary rather than her endorsement of Hillary.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)My support of Sanders over Clinton was nothing a result of her being a woman. I am a 30 something professional that happens to support his platforms over Clinton's -- and not because she is a woman.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)or not. Her gender doesn't have a goddamned thing to do with it.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)I'd vote for Elizabeth Warren in a second. Or many other women.
I don't like warmongers. I don't like corporatists. I don't like opportunists. So, knock off the gender crap. She's everything in a politician that I don't like.
thank you.
surrealAmerican
(11,360 posts)There have been others.
You can stop pretending that such things don't happen and never existed.
ismnotwasm
(41,980 posts)Is necessary and valuable and... very uncomfortable..to the dominant white culture. Racism and sexism is entrenched, digging it out and exposing it is painful.
That doesn't mean it should not be done, and done often.
That's the problem as I see it, it basically adds up to ill-advised attempts to be "color-blind".
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Of course you do because your post is exhibit #1.
His economic message is common sense and hard to knock down, so team Clinton built this strawman, of racism and sexism to attack.
And succeeded.
To say I'm disappointed in democrats is an understatement.
Point 1: the attempt to blunt Clinton's wins in Deep South states was not racist by any stretch, it was mearly pointing out that these states have a very low probability of being in the blue column for the electoral college in Nov, which basically nullifies any votes for the Dem candidate in those states at the end of the day. I'll admit that this was a bit of a clumsy campaign tactic, but to claim it was somehow racist is ridiculous, discusting and wrong.
Point 2: Bill, Gore and Kerry didn't receive criticism for being part of the establishment because the environment is very different now, post Occupy WS, than it was back then. Hell, even the Repubs are dealing with the same anti-establishment phenomena...that's why Trump is the nominee. Criticisms of Hillary have nothing, zero, nada to do with her gender...it has everything to do with her establishment creds, her corruption and honesty problems.
bonemachine
(757 posts)Let's try a metaphor:
A person has an abusive partner and finally tries to leave them. There's no particular escalation of the abuse to point to, but an longtime friend has recently taken the step of talking to their friend about the abuse that they've been put through. Their other friends ask them, "Well, you've been putting up with this for years and nothing has changed. Why are you leaving now? What's the difference?"
It's not a perfect metaphor, but I hope it makes a little sense?
The difference is that we progressives have been getting the same treatment from the center right of the Democratic party, but this is the first time that we've had a real progressive alternative that seemed within reach in my lifetime. So yeah, there's has been a bit more animosity towards the establishment candidate in this cycle because the choice was so much more stark.
Gothmog
(145,231 posts)Great post
arikara
(5,562 posts)We know her. Gender has nothing to do with the dislike from the left, the fact is that we simply don't trust her. She promoted fracking all over the world. She seems to have no aversion to wars, she hangs out with Kissinger and laughs when somebody is killed for pete sake. Anything progressive like single payer, she says "no we can't". She takes millions in donations from the biggest corporations and we are supposed to believe that she won't be doing them favours. She's made millions off speeches to wall street, tells them to "cut it out" but doesn't plan to do anything else. She's lied about silly things like dodging sniper fire which makes her appear untrustworthy.
Bill would get the same reaction from the left now with what we know about him. Gore and Kerry are a different personalities, but you could bet that if they were running and did any of the above the left would be all over them too. They sure wouldn't get a pass just because they are white men.
The truth is that we are fed up and it has nothing to do with gender, nor with racism. To borrow your phrase, the accusations of sexism and racism are not based in reality. I think its code.
uponit7771
(90,339 posts)
BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)A big difference. With major consequences for a lot of people if we lose the WH and Congress is still controlled by the Republicans. Not saying you don't recognize it, but many, call it the Sarandon wing for ID purposes, don't seem to realize it, or care. That's how they earn their label.
The most vulnerable Americans are not white and they don't enjoy the barest economic security. What could happen if our so-called Third Way corporatist bought-and-paid for candidate lost to Trump? How about drug tests for food stamp recipients? That's a conservative wet dream that is constantly proposed in the House. Say we manage to block that in the Senate, but only at the cost of gutting the program, because, when you have no leverage, that's what happens; you're in the damage control business. Similar scenarios would play out across the safety net, and that's just one leg of the stool. The other two being regulation and national security.
But let's stick with food stamps. Millions of Americans made more hungry, disproportionately nonwhite. How would the cause of social and economic justice be served by not doing your damnedest to elect Hillary Clinton, which Bernie Sanders himself will do? Whose hands will you be playing into?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)That's not a good reason to avoid those issues either. It's the perennial excuse that has been used for decades not to fight back. The division of "social" and "economic" justice is just a new variation of it.
A lot of us trulybelieves that Sanders had the better chance to give the GOP candidate a run for the money. And, if not Bernie himself, his MESSAGE and GOALS INCLUDING the Social Justice aspect are a lot stronger weapon against the GOP than tepid economic corporate "centrism."
Reasonable people can disagree about the DEGREE of economic populism that is appropriate. But to artificially separate out that from racial and gender justice is a Red Herring.
RFegarding your example of Food stamps...Instead of the argument you present (which is valid) I would say there also is a need to focus on reducing the NEED for food stamps, by fighting a system that is marginalizing more and more people -- including POC and whites. It's not like Corporate America is selectively downsizing and outsourcing based on the racial composition of their workers. They DON'T CARE. That affects everyone outside of the Elite Yuppie Bubble (and more elite yuppies will be affected too as it continues.)
ancianita
(36,055 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)That's a giant obvious....We all base our opinions on our beliefs.
Yeah "had"....So suddenly the immediate past magically disappears?
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)I would suggest an edit: "But it's ridiculous to say that that addressing the obscene overall concentration of Wealth and Power that has been allowed to occur since 1980 is just a "white privileged progressive" concern. That's playing right into the hands of the GOP and Big Money and Big Power as represented by the DLC."
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)may I ask, why on earth would you think this post would be disallowed after the "clampdown" as you term it? You have not attacked any Democrat or broad brush attacked any group of people. I think it's a little bit martyr-ish to make a big song and dance about getting it in under the wire before "such things are not allowed here". What you're suggesting, a complete lack of disagreement, has never happened on DU before and I highly doubt it will happen now.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Been here since 2001, and have never felt like reasonable criticism was being suppressed on DU....But this year, I don't know. There are so many people going "tick tock" two more days.....
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)I haven't ticked or tocked anyone. As Skinner suggested in an ATA post, some of those people are likely to be very disappointed.
I have also been here since summer of 2001 (under another name; yes Skinner knows; yes I remember you!), and past behaviour predicts future behaviour. Skinner has no interest in making this an echo chamber.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Mine probably looks different than others, because I now have 40 something people on ignore. Me, someone who didn't use the ignore function at all until this primary season. So between that and the words that I've designated to "hide" threads, I don't see a lot of the worst.
Yet. Still. This, the last day, still the front page is dominated by Sanders hate and Sanders supporters hate.
DU taught me to dislike and distrust the party. This primary season, DU has taught me to distrust and dislike too many fellow Democrats. Somehow the entire thing has backfired...or not. Perhaps the Orwellian labeling of "liberal," and, in earlier years, "left-wing," has been phenomenally successful in helping to marginalize, and now demonize, the left-wing of the party, to help accelerate the purging so that it's all neo-liberal, all of the time. 
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)help the wounds scab over but will never be healed. Maybe you won't see this because I am one you ignore.
We live in completely different universes but our fates are intertwined.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)that she will fight for the right and prosperity of EVERY American, even the ones who hate her.
Beowulf
(761 posts)I believe very few of them. She's an expert at false sincerity.
All this denial "nobody said" rings false. Since he declared he and his followers have been called racist and mysogynist and motivated by white privilege. Daily.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)Beowulf
(761 posts)When she says it and does it when she doesn't want my vote, I might soften my stance.
From where do all these pronouncements come? The Clintons have never done anything that didn't serve their political/economic interests.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)All the worst stuff you believe about Hillary Clinton originated in some Republican's mouth. Yes, she's made mistakes. But no, she's not a lying devil.
She's gonna be president, so I guess we can just wait and see.
Beowulf
(761 posts)
lostnfound
(16,179 posts)Lyric
(12,675 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)And while I can clearly see and feel the hate, I don't think they spring from the same sources.
I don't have you on ignore. It hasn't been my practice to ignore those I disagree with. Just to ignore those who seem to be the most filled with hate.
I don't do hate. I don't hate Clinton, although she lost my respect in the 90s. I do think she's a train wreck for the party and the nation.
I don't hate Trump. That would make me like him. I have no interest in being a mirror image of what I don't want to be.
I don't hate people. I do disagree with them, and there are some who I don't respect on a variety of levels. I work hard to maintain a foundation of respect for someone as a human being, beneath all the rest.
Believe it or not, the people who know me in real life don't "get" my ability to refrain from judging others. I try to tell them that it's not that I can't, or don't; it's that I've spent decades trying to become a better person, to work on myself instead of judging others, to stay true to myself.
I can be pulled off that path by anger, so I try to process anger and move on.
What I have utterly failed in, though; what I'm still working on? Forgiveness. I have a very, very difficult time forgiving those who hurt or betray me or mine. That's a political problem. While I can obviously not support Republicans, especially Trump, I don't have to try to forgive them. I always knew they were what I was working to oppose.
Democrats? The neo-liberal take-over of the party, and the rank and file that have, at the least, allowed it, and at the worst, worked for it? That's a betrayal that I can't, at this point, forgive. It hurts me and mine. I don't forget, at all, and I have not found a way to forgive. I don't know that I ever will, especially when some continue that betrayal with every breath they take and word they speak.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Betrayal is usually either a result of weakness on their part or a broken spirit that leads someone to grasp at something they want without considering the long term consequences. I think you can only really feel sadness and pity for such people.
But feeling sadness and pity doesn't mean I have to allow them to bully me or to further abuse me or mine.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)
Miles Archer
(18,837 posts)A month ago I had FOUR people on ignore. I haven't counted, but I think I'm up to 50. I just voted another "Bernie Is A Sore Loser" swine off the island.
I've been hiding threads as well.
And yeah, the "Call it, Skinner" weasels are getting in one last round before the gate comes down.
Tomorrow might be a good day to go on a DU sabbatical, because what today's threads are telling me is that the anti-Sanders people will be out in full force, along with the sore winners, because they haven't red the rules, or they simply don't give a crap.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)auntpurl
(4,311 posts)Turned out 2/3 were either FFR or PPR, and the other 1/3 WITHOUT EXCEPTION had yellow transparency pages. I think I picked the right people to ignore!
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)We have said that Bernie failed to build a large enough coalition that includes women and minorities and clearly reflects our concerns. Race and gender issues were always clearly subsumed under class in his campaign, and it did not help that his supporters and his campaign disparaged the votes of women and minorities when they chose Hillary over him: that just reinforced the impression that there is no real place for women and minorities in Bernie's revolution except if they subsume their concerns under the concerns of white males. Fair or not, that has been the impression, and Bernie did nothing to counter that.
This tendency to ignore the realities and concerns of women and minorities is now seen most clearly in the BoB phenomenon. It is white male privilege that allows one to be unconcerned with the possibility of a Trump presidency. Women and minorities do not have such luxury.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)What are these policy prescriptions that elevated Clinton? Listening tours?
My impression is that some have strong antipathy to the concept as they economically like things as they are or want even more conservative positions while others don't disagree in principle are so worried the air might be sucked out of the room where they are focused so the attention chafes.
I'm a minority I've had that service pistol pointed at my head and pushing the drug war and militarizing the police didn't seem helpful in that moment, I don't think neoliberalism advances my interests at all.
In fact, I see it as working against me and attempting to leverage my rights via hostage crisis to perpetuate the fleecing and hollowing out of our futures.
No, you folks sewed fear and distrust to maintain "the firewall" using lies and misrepresentation from jump or even before with phony, baseless concerns because you had an overriding desire to push back hard on liberal policies be they economic, environmental, peace, the just us system, civil liberties, education, or what have you.
If it isn't nailed down to a demographic then not only is there no interest but there is seemingly genuine antipathy and this black man is not buying the bullshit. I saw what you all did and I resent it very much. I don't see solidarity at all, just dismissive snark, outright lies, dirty dealing, fear mongering, disregard or lack of principles, and general classholism.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)And Hillary supporters obviously are concerned about that as well, even if we don't buy Bernie's solutions to class problems.
The reality is that Bernie did not convince enough minority voters to support him. The progressive movement in this country has to be a coalition of ethnic minorities, women, and white men of conscience, and it has to address economic disparities as well as issues like racism and sexism. That is the only way to move things forward.
The accusation that Hillary supporters have used race and gender as divisive tactics sounds awfully like the Republican accusation that Democrats are the real racists and sexists for daring to bring up issues of race and gender. Which is a ridiculous argument, obviously.
All in it together
(275 posts)Thanks for your clear thoughts and words, I agree.
And just a few are allowed to rule even our party.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Had Bernie not gotten taken to the wood shed in the South you would not be saying what you did.
Bernie's campaign was the repeat of what he had been saying for years on Thom Hartman and else where. He never talked about social justice except for the idea that economic justice would solve social justice issues. Just give minorities education and jobs and social justice will prevail.
Bernie and you were taught a lesson by minorities that you now act as if you knew all along.
I would think a little humility instead of the brashness that has so been your thing here on DU for months would be in order but I guess it won't be coming.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)The pedestal you think you stand on right now is on shaky ground. ONLY time will make you understand.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Person who will not give in to Wall Street and War Inc.
From: We Should Call Brocialism What It Is — White Populism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512187323
MisterP
(23,730 posts)probably a close analogy would be the reason why LA hasn't had a real rail network until May 20: the lilywhite hoods wanted to keep out rail, so they poured millions into funding nonwhite protest to keep out the, uh, nonwhites
so anti-rail deployed all the usual tactics of righteous anger and fed-up militancy, the city gave them a 10-year consent decree, and Santa Monica's dumbest residents got their way again
Octafish
(55,745 posts)But LA gets:
In all seriousness: Your town has a special class of "native Californians" who speak of native Americans as they do those from the less liquid demographic strata. Here in Detroit, they moved to the suburbs. Now that their jobs are disappearing, a quiet if slow-motion panic is setting in among them. They don't realize their own greed has brought us to this state.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)the misogyny which was on display most days...and in some of your posts as well ( Hillary should have stayed in the Senate)...and of course the fact that many so-called BOB would help Trump by not voting, useless writing in of Sanders, or voting for green traitors. I thought better of most of you...very sad for me. Also, I started with a great deal of respect for Bernie...voted for him in Ohio to pull the party left. Now I despise him and want nothing to do with him.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)....don't hand me that crap that the OP you referred to was about gender. I used a poor choice of words in one part of it , but so f'ing what? Do we all shave to carry around a "politically correct handbook" every time we write or say anything about Clinton for the next four years?
The "BOB" contingent is a seperate matter. I happen to agree with you on that -- although I am much more sympathetic as to why many people feel that way.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)Maybe you did not realize that...but many of us women have been patted on the head and told to let the boys handle...stay where we are...etc. Your post was sexist. It just was. But it is over...so let's not worry about it anymore. Despite what I believe was misogyny all around, Hillary still won. And that is in addition to a plus for the country... is a win for Women's rights.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Last I know, he is a male.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)"The rich screwed you, what are you going to do about it!?" in various forms. You don't move enough people just by being angry and pointing out how everything sucks; you move some, maybe even a lot but not enough. Being angry all the time carried Trump further than Sanders because the conservative base is laregly a monolithic group of knuckleheads.
"Big banks are yuuuge!" doesn't really resonate with much of the African-American community, among others.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)The old "Are you really better off than you were 8 years ago?" or whatever that quote was. People who are generally doing pretty well and think the country is moving in the right direction voted for Hillary. People who think the system is broken and needs a major overhaul (/burning the whole thing down) voted for Bernie, or Trump (not comparing the two groups of supporters in any other way!).
Apparently more people are in the former group than the latter. And to get very specific, people who would be thrilled to vote for a 3rd Obama term voted for Hillary.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)It's not that more people are better off, just that more people who were convinced to take part in the political system may have been better off. There's still a vast number of struggling people in the country who wouldn't even think about going out to vote in a political primary. Hell, many of them didn't even know there was one happening, or indeed care.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)the Clintons and the DLC arived on the scene and wedded the party to Wall Street and Big Business and trhe economic elites.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2187599
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Its good commentary and discussion even if we all dont agree with all of it.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)We're getting an odd sort of defense of the current manifestation of liberalism. It holds that examination of economic inequality is conducted only by entitled class warriors who call themselves progressive. "If you weren't so entitled, you would confine the discussion to racism and gun control." Or whatever the two or three suitable topics are close to the heart of the speaker. But this is a natural consequence of single issue politics.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)HRC won with minority and women and working class voters.
So it's their fault?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I am citing her campaign and more vociferous supporters for being misleading and mischaracterizing the framework of sanders campaign, and what he is pushing for.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)Sanders pushed for only a few things which he talked about over and over. He called abortion rights a distraction ...had I heard that before I would not have voted for him in Ohio. I knew he would not win Ohio and wanted to push the party left...(silly me). I always intended to vote for Hillary in the GE.
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)his remarks *after the fact*. Bernie Sanders was a co-sponsor of the 1993 Freedom of Choice bill, when many "pro-life" Democrats and others refused to sign on and back during the dangerous hayday of Operation Rescue and Eric Rudolph's terrorism. Does that sound like a man who believes that reproductive rights are a distraction?
http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-full-transcript-rachel-maddow-interview-442491
Here is what he actually said:
MADDOW: After, uh, the word spread that Donald Trump had made those remarks today about abortion, that a woman needs to be punished, uh, if she seeks an abortion and abortion should be banned, you said today that was shameful.
What is shameful about it?
SANDERS: Well, I think it is -- shameful is probably understating that position. First of all, to me, and I think to most Americans, women have the right to control their own bodies and they have the right to make those personal decisions themselves.
But to punish a woman for having an abortion is beyond comprehension. I -- I just -- you know, one would say what is in Donald Trump's mind except we're tired of saying that?
I don't know what world this person lives in. So obviously, from my perspective, and if elected president, I will do everybody that I can to allow women to make that choice and have access to clinics all over this country so that if they choose to have an abortion, they will be able to do so.
The idea of punishing a woman, that is just, you know, beyond comprehension.
MADDOW: And Mr. Trump has made -- is making headlines on -- on this issue today, obviously, because of what he said. It's sort of, you know, taken the media day by storm.
Um, that said, I think there may be a case to be made -- and I'd love your -- just your response to this, your perspective on this, uh, that his opponent, Senator Ted Cruz, is more extreme on this issue. And I say that, in part, because one of his national co-chairs on his Pro-Lifers for Cruz coalition, is a man named Troy Newman, who once wrote a book saying that abortion providers should be executed.
Is Ted Cruz even further out on this issue than Donald Trump is?
SANDERS: Well, you -- you know, you're living in crazy world there. And that is why, uh, you know, the Republican Party, if they continue in this direction, will be, as I mentioned a moment ago, a fringe party.
Uh, look, they have nothing to say. All they can appeal is to a small number of people who feel very rabid, very rabid about a particular issue, whether it's abortion or maybe whether it's gay marriage. That is their constituency. They have nothing of substance.
You know, you mentioned a moment ago, Rachel, that the media is paying attention to Donald Trump.
Duh?
No kidding. Once again, every stupid remark will be broadcast, you know, for the next five days.
But what is Donald Trump's position on raising the minimum wage?
Well, he doesn't think so.
What is Donald Trump's position on wages in America?
Well, he said in a Republican debate he thinks wages are too high.
What's Donald Trump's position on taxes?
Well, he wants to give billionaire families like himself hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks.
What is Donald Trump's position on climate change?
Oh, he thinks it's a hoax perpetrated, shock of all shock, by the Chinese. You know, on and on it goes.
But because media is what media is today, any stupid, absurd remark made by Donald Trump becomes the story of the week. Maybe, just maybe, we might want to have a serious discussion about the serious issues facing America. Donald Trump will not look quite so interesting in that context.
MADDOW: Are you suggesting, though, that the media shouldn't be focusing on his call to potentially jail women who have abortions? Because that's another stupid --
SANDERS: I am saying that every day he comes up with another stupid remark, absurd remark, of course it should be mentioned. But so should Trump's overall positions. How much talk do we hear about climate change, Rachel? And Trump? Any?
MADDOW: He said that he cares more about nuclear climate change, which is a term that he's invented.
SANDERS: Nuclear climate change?
MADDOW: That's just what he comes up with when he's asked on the subject.
SANDERS: All that I'm saying is that Trump is nobody's fool. He knows how to manipulate the media and you say an absurd thing and the media is all over it. And my concern is that today in America, you've got millions of people who are struggling economically. They want to know how we're going to expand the middle class. Overwhelmingly, people think we should raise the minimum wage. Vast majority of people think climate change is real and a threat to our planet. They want to do something about that. What do we do? Vast majority of the people think the wealthiest people in this country should start paying their fair share of taxes. But if we don't discuss those issues, it creates the climate for people like Donald Trump to do much better than he really has a right to do.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)It doesn't These lines alone clearly demonstrate that the abortion issue is not that important to him. He sure dismisses the abortion issue quickly.
"MADDOW: Are you suggesting, though, that the media shouldn't be focusing on his call to potentially jail women who have abortions? Because that's another stupid --
SANDERS: I am saying that every day he comes up with another stupid remark, absurd remark, of course it should be mentioned. But so should Trump's overall positions. How much talk do we hear about climate change, Rachel?... "
BumRushDaShow
(128,979 posts)after listing concerns of the chronically ignored core of the Democratic party, establishes why BS lost. Calling the party constituency "Little Tents" not "willing to work together" adds insult to injury. For others to define and minimize what is the most impactful to certain communities, exactly establishes the problem of that type of messaging. "Economics" is irrelevant to even the wealthiest people of color, women, and LGBTQ, and why certain aspects of these groups cannot continue to be shunted aside.
The abuse is systemic and no manner of locking up every "bankster" is going to begin to address the problem. The myth that "all boats rise" inherently assumes that they do so "evenly" and are also doing so from the same depth levels... And this sentiment also misses the fact that for centuries, some will plot to sink another's boat so that theirs' has an opportunity to rise higher thanks to less competition.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But that doesn't mean it has to be separated from the fight for economic justice as well.
Economics is not the ONLY sign and cause of racism. Economic justice is not the only cure for racism.
But it sure does make a difference in people's overall quality of life for everyone -- and economic pressures exacerbate racism.
Saying it is not possible or desirable to address both at the same time is counterproductive to both goals. They are not mutually exclusive. They are, in fact, related.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Off of a script. The still are. You really don't get how fucked up it was for political newbies to be lecturing life long activists and accusing them
Of being trolls. You guys fucked up. Too many did not care about sexism or racism and you gave them cover and insulted us deeply.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)A lot of Clinton supporters with no context of history beyond last week also "lectured" Sanders supporters too.
And attacks beget attacks. I myself have become more socially conservative in terms of expression because of the attacks on Sanders and his supporters.
When I can't say that I believe a person who could have been a really good Senator did not have the rare combination of gifts required of a President without being accused of being a sexist....well that's gone way too far in gender "sensitivity."
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)"Know their place". It's mind blowing that someone who calls themselves progressive could say shit like that with a straight face. You hated her ambition, and that's all too common a reaction.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I already said it was a bad choice of words. But you are focused on style rather than substance of that, and ijn the process totally twisting the intent of what I said.
I have always tried to avoid sexist language and behavior., But I'm human, and I am not going to consult a handbook of "Phrases that Some People Consider Acceptable and Gender Neutral" every time I express myself for the next 8 years.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Few the past few months. It doesn't matter that you're not consciously doing it. Sexism
Is more often coming from unconscious biases and I'm sure you didn't realize what an old school sexist you sounded like until more than a dozen people explained it to you. But even then you doubled down and refused to accept you could be showing any bias. And you actually enjoyed baiting feminists. You're just pissed people noticed your dog whistles.
BumRushDaShow
(128,979 posts)The separation is baked into the Constitution of the United States of America. It was a follow-on to the Declaration of Independence's "all men are created equal" bit - while at the same time it didn't apply to "some men" and their families with the wrong nationality, who toiled to grow and prepare the food, and empty the shit out of the chamber pots of the authors, without compensation.
So THAT is the perspective that we must start from. And THAT is because ever since the damn thing was signed in 1787, it has been a nightmarish struggle to wrest RIGHTS that human beings should be entitled to, from the so-called "founders", their progeny, and their kin, who considered us animals and other chattel.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But that is not contrary to the parallel struggle to ensure that every person actually does have a right to materially survive, and advance in life.
A job removed from the US to a sweatshop overseas to satisfy the corporate bottom line is a job that could be lost by a white or a POC or a male or female.
I prefer to deal with those inequities within "we're all in this together" approach, and "in unity there is strength." That doesn't mean that there may not be differences that have to be addressed --but ultimately they all go together under the larger umbrella of true social justice.
BumRushDaShow
(128,979 posts)differs from mine. If one defines "material" as "money" (and the trappings of it), then this is where one constituency will split off from others that don't necessarily cling to the belief that "money buys happiness" and "well-being". And this should not be construed to mean that it won't help. It most certainly will. But it is not necessarily the "be-all end-all" of many of our lives in a cultural sense, and shouldn't be pushed as the "solution" for all of our problems.
THIS is what folks refuse to "get".
I.e., there is quite a bit of objectification that occurs among certain groups in this country that runs counter to those who look at and live their lives more subjectively. And these different cultural worldviews and insistence on there being a "universal" one defined by one group for others, is what tends to cause all sorts of conflict within the Democratic Party.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)the right not to DIE OR SUFFER NEEDLESSLY because of insufficient and inadequate and unaffordable health care. The right to be able to feed yourself. the right to feed your kids, and let themjk have a decent childhood free of the misery of poverty. The right not to have to sleep on the streets. The opportunity to have a reasonably comfortable life, rather than living like a serf if you have a job...The right for young people to have alternatives to crime and drugs.
And, yes,the right to make positive contributions to society. And having avenues of opportunity available to advance as much as your ambition and talents will take you, as long you you are not abusing others in the process.
BumRushDaShow
(128,979 posts)NONE of this will happen with the "solutions" that have been proffered because of that pesky other thing going on that separates out some folks from others because of their identity.
For example, you can have "single payer" healthcare all you want, but when a doctor refuses to TREAT patients equally - denying medicines to one group (e.g. the recent reports about pain management), then what good is the healthcare system?
For another example - "the right to feed yourself", something that becomes irrelevant when you live in a "food desert" with no large grocery store with healthy choices. And even then, you are denigrated for food choices after generational patterns had already been established, blaming the victims for past oppressive situations when the "solution" didn't work fast enough to dismiss the problem and mark it "solved", so you can go on to something else.
Again, the perspectives that have been voiced are from "the other side" and cannot be summarily dismissed. "Economics" ain't the answer when human nature will always produce those who crave money and and act with greed. And you cannot lock up everyone who you think fits those traits.
In many cases, human nature dictates that "likes" tend to be with "likes", who may shun those not like them but not realize they are doing such.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)If supermarket chains (or independents) thought there was a buck to be made by having an outlet in a poor neighborhood, they'd find their way around any racism and stereotype-based fear they may have. They don't care who is keeping the cash registers jingling.
As for healthy choices -- that's a problem for everyone. I'm a white guy, and I find it difficult to find healthy food choices that are affordable because of how the system is rigged against natural, unprocessed foods. Affluent yuppies, regardless of color, can go to their Whole Foods outlet or whatever.
As for Bernie...Here's a video from 2014, before he entered the race
and ......
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-agriculture/
So what has Bernie done about it?
Bernie has been a staunch advocate for the poor and food insecure, sponsoring and supporting several pieces of legislation to improve nutrition for all Americans — children, in particular. The Wise Investment in our Children Act of 2015 (WIC Act) was passed in order to expand the benefits of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to a greater number of women, infants, and children.
He supported The Summer Meals Act of 2014 and the Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013, which improves the nutrition of future generations by providing grants to schools for local produce, increasing education about nutrition and agriculture, improving low-income health programs, and encouraging research-based agricultural practice.
Bernie invested in future nutrition and family farms through his support of the Growing Safe Food Act of 2009, which focuses on educating farmers about safe, sustainable, and efficient farming practices.
He also supports the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, which would improve access to healthy foods in underserved areas and revitalize low-income communities by providing loans and grants to food retailers to open in underserved, urban, suburban, and rural areas.
As for healthcare -- what you point out is not contrary to a single payer or public option. That has more to do with the willingness to develop and enforce non-discriminatory policies. And a public program is more likely to enforce it -- if the politicians are willing to stand up to private interests.
BumRushDaShow
(128,979 posts)I offered you reasons why many within the Democratic constituency reject the "economics" argument because the "economics" piece won't address WHY a supermarket chain refuses to locate in certain areas - even if subsidized (including pervasive and ingrained assumptions of crime, which then feeds into a specific narrative and pushes other businesses away, resulting in a self-fulfilling prophesy of despair). Why? Because they need to "turn a profit".
None of this addresses redlining (somewhat sad but perhaps a bit humorous and often true image below) -
It doesn't address the "white flight" when minorities attempt to move into areas with more access to better-funded schools or stores, along with more resources to maintain the area's infrastructure, which results in the businesses moving out eventually leaving a wasteland behind. And it doesn't address the pervasive problem of certain groups getting loans both for housing or for businesses - despite the oft-stated disclaimer "Equal Opportunity Lender", etc.
It doesn't address people being profiled in person and even on the phone based on your voice cadence, and the disparate treatment that occurs that impacts OUR economics outside of a "bankster".
The issue for many of us is that the "rigged" system is "rigged" on a whole other level that doesn't get talked about or addressed outside of paternalistic restating of "the problems", because none of this has anything to do with these nebulous "banksters". It has to do with plain old regular PEOPLE. And the result is that many of us always end up on the wrong side of the equation.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I agree with you 100 percent. And government policy cannot change people's hearts (or lack of same).
But that is no reason to also dismiss the importance of how the economic system is screwing people of all races creeds and colors -- especially those who get the short end of the stick otherwise.
There is no reason to put up with (and even support) one form of oppression just because otehr forms of oppression also exist. They are related, in terms of squeezing people from more than one direction.
democrank
(11,094 posts)This primary race helped me realize that I appreciate and respect true Progressive leaders more than I ever have before. And, after five decades of Democratic Party activism, I have never been so distanced from our party`s Corporate Wing.
Thank you, Bernie Sanders. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Not as if we haven't heard this shit, and been told to stay in our place by better men than you before.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)But it doesn't help anyone in the real world...no matter how much I want single payer and you want single payer...with this Congress it is not happening and to attempt it is a waste of time.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Talk about "lecturing"
YouDig
(2,280 posts)We can address both economic and social issues at the same time. Nobody says otherwise. Especially not Hillary, that's exactly what she wants to do.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)That is a reasonable cause of debate and disagreement. It's frankly what the primary should have been about.
What I am referring to is the false perception that has been created that one can only address one or the other. That is a false dichotomy that was created for political marketing purposes.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)And I don't think anyone, on either side, created a perception that we can only address one or the other. What happened was that Bernie people accused Hillary of being weak on economic issues and Hillary people accused Bernie of being weak on social issues. That's politics. I don't recall anyone saying "we can't do both."
Armstead
(47,803 posts)You're correct in that such differences are the fodder for politics. No problem with that.
But
1)Sanders was given a bum rap about not being concerned about social issues. I won't rehash history, but it totally contradicts your thesis that he is one-dimensional and apathetic about racial and other social issues.
2)A lot of the posts here (and expressed elsewhere) stated that economic issues were a luxury until the problem of racism was solved.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And they were here, way too often.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)And it is definitely not "my thesis" that Sanders is one-dimensional about racial and other social issues. My thesis is that both candidates are good on both economic and social issues.
OK, yeah, Hillary's campaign tried to give Sanders a bum rap on social issues. And at the same time Sanders's campaign tried to give Hillary a bum rap on economic issues. That's predictable that that would happen. Hillary did give those Wall Street speeches, Bernie did make those gun votes, Hillary does have longer-standing ties with women and minority communities, Bernie has always been against NAFTA and other free trade agreements, and so on.
I don't really see foul play, I see campaigning.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)There. I had to say the truth.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)PFFFFFFTTTT. 
Armstead
(47,803 posts) Hydra
(14,459 posts)At the beginning of the Primary, Team Hill declared that nothing would be done about income inequality- they were depending on big money to win, so that would not be addressed.
Ironically, they basically also said social justice would not be addressed either. They hinted that they would do something, but when BLM pressed them on the issue, Team Hill stabbed them in the back.
So if they aren't going to help increase economic, legal or social equality...what are they planning on doing? And why should we support their rallying cry of: "No we can't! And we don't care!"?
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)One of the best EVER.
imo.
Gothmog
(145,231 posts)The OP is simply wrong and ignores the facts. There are valid reasons why many groups did not support Sanders that are based in reality and not racism. Sanders is a weak candidate who is running on an unrealistic platform. I like Sanders but I strongly felt that Sanders is not electable and that his platform would kill down ballot candidates.
Sanders did poorly with other groups for some very valid reasons. There is a vast difference in how Sanders supporters and Sanders view President Obama and how other Democrats view President Obama. I admit that I am impressed with the amount accomplished by President Obama in face of the stiff GOP opposition to every one of his proposals and I personally believe that President Obama has been a great President. It seems that this view colors who I am supporting in the primary http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-sanders-obama_us_56aa378de4b05e4e3703753a?utm_hp_ref=politics
On one side of this divide are activists and intellectuals who are ambivalent, disappointed or flat-out frustrated with what Obama has gotten done. They acknowledge what they consider modest achievements -- like helping some of the uninsured and preventing the Great Recession from becoming another Great Depression. But they are convinced that the president could have accomplished much more if only he’d fought harder for his agenda and been less quick to compromise.
They dwell on the opportunities missed, like the lack of a public option in health care reform or the failure to break up the big banks. They want those things now -- and more. In Sanders, they are hearing a candidate who thinks the same way.
On the other side are partisans and thinkers who consider Obama's achievements substantial, even historic. They acknowledge that his victories were partial and his legislation flawed. This group recognizes that there are still millions of people struggling to find good jobs or pay their medical bills, and that the planet is still on a path to catastrophically high temperatures. But they see in the last seven years major advances in the liberal crusade to bolster economic security for the poor and middle class. They think the progress on climate change is real, and likely to beget more in the future.
In addition, many of the groups who rejected sanders did so because they are practical and not due to racism. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/09/bernie_sanders_presidential_campaign_what_would_it_take_for_the_vermont.html
It seems that many of the Sanders supporters hold a different view of President Obama and sanders electablity which is also a leading reason why Sanders is not exciting African American voters. Again, it may be difficult for Sanders to appeal to African American voters when one of the premises of his campaign is that Sanders does not think that President Obama is a progressive or a good POTUS.
Racism had nothing to do with the views of the groups who rejected Sanders and it is sad that the OP wants to attribute Sanders failures to make inroads with certain groups on racism
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I am not myopic enough to not understand that people might not have wanted to support Sanders for any number of reasonable reasons....The belief that he goes too far, a dislike of his personality, active support of Clinton, etc.
That's fine. That's politics.
But this is a larger rift and level of mischaracterization. Rather than "I don;t believe he is the best candidate" or "I prefer a more moderate approach to economic issues" it was a false dichotomy that Sanders does not care about social justice -- even that he is conservative and somewhat racist -- and in a Larger sense, that division between core economic issues and race and gender.
As I have said many times, they are not mutually exclusine, and we have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Gothmog
(145,231 posts)Sanders was primarily an one issue candidate and that issue was not appealing to many groups in the Democratic base. There were a host of reasons why Sanders failed to appeal to various groups that have nothing to do with race or concerns about social justice. Again, I like Sanders but I never felt that he was electable and felt that Sanders would be destroyed by the GOP in a general election contest. Other groups had different reasons including the fact that Sanders attacks on President Obama and his desire to reject the Obama legacy. None of these reasons had any basis in race or concerns about Sanders' positions on social justice. I never felt that Sanders was racist but it was my opinion that Sanders was a little tone deaf on the concerns of other key groups in the base. I admit that I was upset when Sanders supporters simply refused to accept the fact that key groups of the Democratic base were not buying his positions for valid reasons that had nothing to do with race.
The Harvard study cited on another thread showed that Sanders got very very favorable press coverage and the Clinton campaign was careful to never go negative on Sanders and treated Sanders with kid gloves. Sanders did far better than expected because there was never a need for the Clinton campaign to go negative on Sanders. The GOP did their best to help Sanders and not attack him while running negative ads against Clinton. I am not aware of any real negative ads or attacks being run against Sanders or people claiming that Sanders is a racist. Again, many Sanders supporters caused some hard feelings by lecturing various groups as to why these groups were wrong for not supporting Sanders. Being tone deaf is not being racist.
Sanders did not match or appeal to key groups of the Democratic base for reasons other than race. Sanders appealed to a specific segment of the Democratic base and that is fine. However, it is not racism that cause other segments of the Sanders base to reject Sanders.
As a Jew, I also found the claims that Sanders' faith played a role in the race offensive. Sanders actually did somewhat poorly among Jewish voters from what I can see and at my Temple there were very few Sanders supporters. Jewish voters over 40 in particular did not support Sanders from the polling that I have seen and you would not believe some of the complaints I heard at various events at the Temple about Sanders helping Trump (who really scares many Jewish voters).
Again, I strongly disagree with the premise of your OP.
emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)In thread after thread.
(Before that a troll wrote a similar thread saying 'social issues don't matter' which was
rec'ed up like hell.)
In addition, WillyT posted and doubled down on his racist and homophobic 'Stockholm Syndrome' OP.
Again, rec'd up into the stratosphere.
Here's my point:
Everyone who rec'd those threads either actively or passively endorsed the false dichotomy between economic and social issues as well as the racism and homophobia promoted in Stockholm Syndrome.
Since he was allegedly a Sanders supporter, far too many people here supported and coddled a racist homophobic troll who's main contribution to the site was separating economic vs social issues.
I will never understand why people did that rather than condemning him and pushing back.
As Bluenorthwest said, Willy was not a Sanders 'supporter', he was a Sanders detractor. In otherwords what Willy posted detracted from Bernie's message and policies.
Yet the recs kept coming. And people kept coddling and protecting him.
I think you really need to take this into acct into your recent history of DU.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I've probably contributed to it inadvertantly myself in the heat of the moment.
But the whole framework was not created by that poster, and I doubt that everyone who recommended some of his threads were intentionally reinforcing that division.
Some of it is the result of defensiveness. When the primaries started, for example, I was totally prepared for the "ponies" crap. But when Sanders was accused from the start as "having a problem with" some minority group or other -- who had never even heard of him before -- my blood started boiling. And all of the subsequent claims about "privileged white progressives" hammered endlessly, it kept boiling.
This primary aside, it added a detremental rift that will make it difficult to achieve unity on many issues in the future.
emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)WillyT is just an example.
As to the "Sanders is not connecting with minority voters", most of those early posts were constructive criticism in that they offered suggestions as to how Bernie could improve his outreach to minority voters.
Then I saw those posts twisted into "SO YOU ARE SAYING BERNIE IS A RACIST!" when that was not what the poster said at all.
This to me is one of the problems with modern DU. Willful misinterpretation, shoving words into other poster's mouth, ignoring the actual content of post.
I do recognize that at some point unscrupulous HRC posters did run with the Sanders is a racist meme.
To me those handful of posters are the same as the handful of posters like WillyT.
While I've got you, what makes you think DU is going to "clamp down" discussions of economic inequality during GE season?
You and I have both been around for several DU shifts from primary wars to GE mode. I've never gotten the sense that DU shuts down thoughtful discussion during GE season in the past.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)"You and I have both been around for several DU shifts from primary wars to GE mode. I've never gotten the sense that DU shuts down thoughtful discussion during GE season in the past."
As Skinner said, GE mode essentially means no more destructive criticism of HRC (and Bernie)
In no way in my mind does that mean people can't talk about issues like economic inequality. Or constructively criticize HRC that she's not going far enough on issues like economic inequality.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)find out, as I personally will miss yr posts if you don't.
stranger81
(2,345 posts)Like this "constructively critical" post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026737025
The disingenuousness here is so thick it burns.
emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)So again, enough shoving words into other posters mouths.
stranger81
(2,345 posts)Sorry.
emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)did run with the Sanders is a racist meme."
So yes you did put words in my mouth.
I am a Sanders supporter. However I don't rec homophobic racist posts and I don't rec posts that argue that social issues 'don't matter.'
That egregious shit is against every thing Bernie stands for.
stranger81
(2,345 posts)About two weeks after Bernie threw his hat into the ring. This shit has been thrown at him the entire time he's been in the race.
And just for the record, you won't see me recommending any of the vile posts you describe, either. But pretending that the Sanders campaign wasn't called racist from the very beginning is just that -- pretending.
emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)I followed the arguments. Most early posters stuck with constructive criticism, IMHO.
Then assholes did what assholes do. I don't think we disagree about that.
Number23
(24,544 posts)as a result. If someone rec'd either of those idiotic, racist and deliberately inflammatory posts (especially the second Stockholm Syndrome post which was WillyT blatantly giving minority posters here the finger) and if they'd posted even ONCE in the AA group, I blocked them. ANYONE who rec'd those posts was obviously no ally or friend to black people. And they could not have made that more obvious.
This OP also seems to have a bit of history with some derogatory and condescending posts to minority groups (women) which is concerning and perhaps what you were alluding to at the end of your post.
ancianita
(36,055 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Since she's not remotely a progressive...
ancianita
(36,055 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)"Anything to win."
ancianita
(36,055 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)No one said you cannot be for both social and economic justice
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... contributed to the friction here, and which prevented Bernie from defeating Hillary.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)The whole "privileged white progressive Berniebro" crap says they are mutually exclusive....
Never mind all the women and POC and older somewhat moderate people who supported Sanders but were not considered part of his constituency in the memes
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Or seem to imply that blacks are less informed are racist.
That does not mean people cannot prioritize both economic and social justice. It just means a lot of sanders supporters didn't.
People who say that they aren't going to vote for either candidate now, are def coming from an amazingly over privileged space. and a lot of these bros deserve all the criticism in the world.
None of these arguments at all mean that one cannot be equally passionate about both economic and social justice
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Policy schmolicy. I can see that she's a woman, and that's what's next on my presidential scavenger hunt scorecard.
If Republicans are against minorities, we should be against the majority... or at least the men. Give them credit for knowing *that* much about elections.
But it's worse than that... we criticize republicans for voting against their own self interests, then do the exact damn thing. "Raising the minimum wage? Swearing off war as a tool of foreign policy? Free college? Why should I support free stuff for those unworthy folks? My child is doing fine. She's in college to get a big income in a comfortable office because my 2%-er income can afford it, and she's a girl so why should I worry about a military draft?"
Maybe it's not the same thing. Maybe it's co-opting the democratic party for their own capitalist-class interests.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)Oh no wait. They didn't. They voted overwhelmingly for Hillary. I'm sure they'd be thrilled to know they are now part of the 2%.
Wednesdays
(17,374 posts)in the long run, such non-progressive policies actually foster racism and sexism.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)snot
(10,524 posts)snot
(10,524 posts)I believe the 1% are as racist and sexist as any other economic class; but even if they weren't, it is in their interest to use race, gender, and religion to keep us divided; and they are succeeding.
pengu
(462 posts)I'm about to logout for the final time. Thanks to all you Bernie folks fighting the good fight. I no longer think the future of progressive politics is with a Democratic party that is openly hostile towards progressives. I have no intention of contributing to the echo chamber that pretends Clinton is anything but a center right hawk.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Now in the Clinton-Trump GE they can continue to campaign by just hurling insults back and forth, and lofty rhetoric with no specifics on policy. In other words, same as always.
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)that have always been used to create a wedge or rift between groups of people, to prevent them from uniting under other issues. Instead of bargaining or instructing or educating people toward unifying approaches to society, the PTB would rather feed the hate and divisiveness to serve themselves.
This explains how hate radio idiot personalities get funded, and why there is a Trump running for president. The Wheel of Fortune Wedge Issues have enough to carve the country up into tiny little isolated pieces---if we allow ourselves to be manipulated.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)And it that endeavor, it failed.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)At 40% of the electorate, it is conceivable that they could say sayonara to both traditional parties and give their votes to the Libertarians or Green Party. That alone could cause serious trouble for both the GOP and Dems.
ymetca
(1,182 posts)..with all that implies.
"It takes a village..."
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)It has been a terrible thing to watch unfold. The progressive DU I used to know is no more. How disheartening to watch all the Conservadems flock here to spin for Hillary, the voice of the oligarchy. I'm not going to enable the rightward slide of the Democratic Party and the corrupt crooks like DWS.
Good luck to all. We shall need it.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)THANKS for putting into words, even IF there are so MANY deaf ears that it falls upon!
I STAND WITH YOU!
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)Neither does Jesse Jackson, apparently. He couldn't be bothered to endorse and vocally support Bernie, one of the three white officeholders who endorsed him for both his presidential runs.
I voted for Jesse Jackson twice, in '84 and '88. I'm disappointed he was a no-show in 2016. He should have been out there defending Bernie against charges that he is a racist, or a newbie to the cause of civil rights.
So much disdain by black people toward 'white progs' on Twitter has really been a wake-up call for me, for several months now. So much gleefulness that the white guy from the white state has been taught a lesson, and white progs given a good slap. When did white progressives become the enemy?
So much contempt for Occupy Wall Street and their outrage over millions of homes stolen by banks via mortgage fraud, dismissed as 'white people's problems.' Ditto for people upset about drowning in student loan debt -- just 'white people's problems.'
Leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus completely mischaracterized Bernie's record of support for civil rights. It's fine to endorse a different candidate, but to call Bernie a 'new friend' when he has a 20+year history of 100% ratings from the NAACP is real deceit.
A few tweets from Bernie supporters providing links to his civil rights record are described as attacks, as if whites aren't allowed to converse with blacks on Twitter. All nasty comments about Hillary are attributed to Bernie fans, when a mere 30 seconds of reading the profile of the tweeter shows it's from a Trump supporter. People can write articles about the tweets they've received, completely mis-attributing the source, and get them published in the Washington Post.
The Hillary Democratic Party will make sure that the banksters steal homes from brown, black and white people equally. That's all they stand for, now.
I'm gloomy and depressed. We can only make progress if we can find a way to work together and fight for progress for everyone. I don't see it happening today.
jamese777
(546 posts)Response to Armstead (Original post)
Post removed
SheenaR
(2,052 posts)Freakin Amen
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)
TheFarseer
(9,322 posts)No no no. It's exactly the opposite. It's a privileged position to believe we can roll with the status quo + a dash of political correctness.
brooklynite
(94,559 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)whether on DU or not is beside the point.
But if 43 percent of the people you need to support your candidate decide their "whining" isn't welcome, than you will be doing much more than whining in November
azmom
(5,208 posts)Society. The 99% will never succeed until we can get a handle on it.
It's not like Hillary's campaign invented it, but they sure used it against us. I would add bigotry to that too because we POC are guilty of it too. There is hate and resentment towards the white community. It's all very very ugly and it was used masterly against us.
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)Yes! This meme was pushed from *VERY* early days in the campaign. I remember distinctly hearing this message in various forms quite often, and frankly being confused by it.
I now think it was a plan hatched at high levels and spread by paid "team members" (some of which may post here) The goal: divide the identity crowd from the blue collar crowd, then conquer. I must say it worked beautifully(if your for Hillary)
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)KICK!
Avalux
(35,015 posts)Bringing such things up is like walking into a lion's den so thank you. Divide and conquer is the name of the game regardless of party; even if that division is portrayed as righteousness.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)it's just a way of locking out reality
jonestonesusa
(880 posts)One would think that the relationships between economic and racial injustices would be obvious, nearly 500 years since the start of the Transatlantic slave trade, but common sense ain't so common in this campaign season.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Is now a legitimized strategy in the Democractic party as well as the GOP. It was transparent and obvious and yet it worked.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)... I believe was described by P.T. Barnum in that you'll be able to find suckers all over this place, or something like that. The number of people who don't devote time to read or learn in their adult years is astounding.
The recs on this thread say that you do.
K& Fucking R
tom-servo
(185 posts)... is that a Hillary Clinton win is a direct statement against sexism in a way that a Bernie Sanders win isn't even though he tirelessly fights sexism. So in a simplistic way the election does make you assess your priorities. is having the first woman president more important that making a strong statement about economic injustice and the power of money in politics? It's a simplistic way of looking at it, but there is some truth to it.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)tom-servo
(185 posts)anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)We can indeed walk and chew gum at the same time, but the Sanders campaign has opted to do only one of those in practice. As evidence, I point to how little Sanders' stump speech has evolved over the campaign. It's good to be focused, but not to the point of inflexibility.
Myself, I come from a democratic socialist country, so you'd think I should be an automatic of supporter of Sanders, right? And indeed, I share a great many of his goals and agree with many of his general policy prescriptions. But I also recognize that a) democratic socialism imposes a much higher tax burden than Americans are used to paying, and relatively few Americans seem willing to accept that price tab, and b0 while there's a lot of things I like about democratic socialism is has a lot of faults as well, and is far from being the social panacea that its supporters claim to be.
Sanders' pitch seems to be 'if we fix the economic system, everything else will fall into place.' It won't and his failure to recognize or acknowledge that (as well as some other factors) is why I don't take his candidacy that seriously any more.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It's less a matter of instituting a European style democratic socialst state than restoring some balance and at least reviving a commitment to goals like Medicare, Medicaid, SS, ewducational acces, etc. And bringing back regulation of business and some degree of anti-trust to prevent the Monopoly Capitalism that not inflicts our society.
A good start would be to roll back some of the Pirate Capitalism that has taken over the economy, society and government since 1980. The GOP is responsible for some of that, but the Democrats have been complicit and have not fought back to any meaningful extent.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,361 posts)
Thanks for the thread, Armstead.
