2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhile I support the overall BLM movement, the group's so-called "representatives" have lost me.
Last edited Wed Aug 5, 2015, 03:16 AM - Edit history (10)
First, I'll start off by saying that I'm not white. I don't have white privilege. I am a person of color, have experienced racism on the basis of my skin color, and know what it's like to be a minority in America. I think systemic and institutionalized racism is a huge, huge problem, and I absolutely support the overall #BlackLivesMatter movement, the great activism they have done to highlight institutional racism and police brutality, etc., and I feel that phrase is necessary to highlight how structurally, black lives are truly uniquely devalued in America and black folk are in a state of emergency. On the work they do on the issues, they are great. I support using the hashtag, am in solidarity with them, and support the movement at large.
But I'm very disappointed by the so-called "representatives" of BLM and some of "founders" and "leaders." I thought that BLM was a broad, grassroots, decentralized, bottom-up movement with no real leadership, but apparently there is some kind of hierarchy? And I'm not liking what I've been seeing from the group's leadership and representatives, especially with regards to their views on the 2016 Democratic Party primary.
I'm very disappointed by what I've seen from representatives of the #BlackLivesMatter movement. A representative of BLM was on MSNBC, in which he praised Hillary Clinton's recent statements on systemic racism, and how it's not a symptom of economic oppression, but blasted Bernie Sanders for being a class reductionist. Moreover, he felt that Bernie has been merely pandering to PoC lately when he started talking more about race in his speeches after the Netroots conference, and that Bernie's basically a phony in trying to connect with racial minorities. It seems that BLM feels that Hillary is truly the "best" candidate for them on racial justice issues.
He pointed to how Hillary Clinton has over 80% of the African-American vote behind her in the primary as evidence that people of color are rejecting Sanders' view that racism is a mere outgrowth of casino capitalism rather than a separate problem, and praised Hillary for connecting with people of color, understanding the needs of minorities, framing the issues in a way that resonated with the black community, and talked about mass incarceration and immigration reform early on, whereas Bernie only talked about class so far. Moreover, he said Bernie Sanders only appeals to well to do "white progressives," whereas Hillary Clinton is more cognizant about the problems of institutional racism in this country, and that he feels most African-Americans (and racial minorities) feel the same, and that #BlackLivesMatter activists would probably like Hillary the most.
Did that BLM representative completely miss what Bernie said in his Urban League speech? Or his speech to the SCLC? Or this interview?
Here's Bernie speaking today on anti-black racism, law enforcement reform, and criminal justice reform. He explicitly expresses his views about structural racism, and acknowledges the harsh reality that economic reforms will not end all of the institutional factors perpetuating racism. Here, he highlights the destructive nature of mass incarceration, jailing people for non-violent crimes (such as drug use), addressing mandatory minimums, police militarization, and aggressive policing against people of color in which they are harassed or shot. He explicitly and bluntly states that he doubts that if a middle-class white women were pulled over for a minor traffic violation, she would be treated the same way as Sandra Bland. Bernie understands structural white privilege independent of economics. He's talked about systemic racism independent of economics way before the Netroots event too.
At the SCLC, Sanders called for the demilitarization of police forces, widespread use of body cameras by law enforcement, an end to the reliance on privately run prisons and to the over-incarceration of nonviolent offenders. Moreover, Sanders has called for decriminalizing and possibly legalizing marijuana, easing the War on Drugs, which he says has disproportionately affected PoC.
I hope that this will dispel the unfounded critiques of Bernie Sanders that he is tone-deaf or has a blind-spot on race, and that he merely views racism as a symptom of broader economic inequality. He's not a class-reductionist. His progressivism is absolutely intersectional. He fully acknowledges that systemic, institutionalized racism is a huge problem in its own right, but further argues that racial justice must be melded with economic justice to truly uplift marginalized communities of color. Both are extremely important and relevant, and we can't have one without the other.
This should reveal to anyone who thinks Bernie's not listening that he is. And for those with any glimmer of a doubt they need to research his record. He may come from a largely white state, but his heart is with workers of every race and gender. He's been consistent in his views on Civil Rights for over 50 years.
Bernie Sanders is absolutely correct that institutional racism and economic inequality are "parallel problems." Systemic racism and economic inequality are definitely distinct issues, but they are parallel, inextricably intertwined problems that feed off of each other. We cannot address one without the other. Martin Luther King Jr. articulated this very well, saying, Now our struggle is for genuine equality, which means economic equality. For we know that it isnt enough to integrate lunch counters. What does it profit a man to be able to eat at an integrated lunch counter if he doesnt earn enough money to buy a hamburger and a cup of coffee?
Martin Luther King Jr. argued that the current economic system was rigged, and that we should move toward a "democratic socialism." In the weeks leading up to his assassination, MLK Jr. made it clear that economic issues became the central focus of his advocacy. MLK Jr. gave an excellent speech about the "other America," and was about to launch a "Poor People's Campaign," seeking to completely eradicate poverty for everyone, not only for blacks, but also for latinos, native americans, and poor appalachian whites. MLK Jr. hit the nail on the head when he said, "This country has socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor. MLK Jr. advocated for a government jobs guarantee and a guaranteed minimum income (or basic income). When poverty, economic inequality, low social mobility, poorly funded schools, city zoning regulations, poor healthcare, unemployment, lack of affordable housing, and predatory lending disproportionately marginalize people of color, when the youth African-American unemployment rate is 51%, of course economics matter a lot if we're aiming to uplift PoC. When you poll PoC on what issues they care about most, the economy and jobs are almost always at top.
It is largely useless to address systemic anti-black racism without taking on economic inequality. Similarly, it is useless to address economic inequality without addressing anti-black structural racism. Making college tuition-free won't change the fact employers both consciously and unconsciously discriminate against people with "black-sounding" names, even if they are equally qualified as whites. And Sandra Bland had a college degree, yet she still was assaulted by a cop. Economic reforms won't stop racial profiling by police in stop-and-frisk, or police being 21 times more likely to kill black teens than white teens. It won't change the fact that whites and blacks use drugs at the same rates, but blacks are arrested 4-6 times as much. You have gerrymandering that creates majority-minority districts, racist Voter ID laws, the discrepancy between crack cocaine and power cocaine sentencing, the school to prison pipeline, and understaffed voting stations in black neighborhoods.
Economics alone won't fix segregated schooling and housing. We need booth economic and racial justice, and it is important for progressives to not view these issues as mutually exclusive, but intimately intertwined. A particularly grotesque example of racism and unfettered capitalism mixing is the existence of private, for-profit prisons. Or the fact that one of the reasons white people have more wealth than African-Americans is that we lived in an openly white supremacist society under slavery and Jim Crow that allowed for wealth accumulation for whites, but not for blacks, meaning their starting line was way behind whites.
There are definitely cases of institutional racism independent of economics, however. For example, upper-middle class or even wealthy blacks being followed around and monitored in stores. White people and nonblack people of color clutching their purses when black people (regardless of socioeconomic background) enter an elevator. I mean Trayvon Martin was in a gated community, yet people took him to be a thug for wearing a hoodie. We've also seen rich black people being arrested by police right outside their homes. Also, another example of racism and class feeding off one another: if you are a "successful" black person, you are considered an outlier, an exception to the rule. And you become the "sole" representative of your race in various spaces. Also, you see internalized racism in some PoC communities, where focusing on school makes you someone who is "acting white." It's pretty ugly.
But we can't reduce everything to politics of identity. Economic inequality, in my view, is the most destructive force in our society, and it's something that cuts across race, sex, gender identity, etc. If you poll PoC on what issues they prioritize, jobs, the economy, healthcare, etc., top the list. The vast majority of our problems do boil down to $$$, and I think socioeconomic class is among the strongest determinants of our qualify of life (definitely stronger than race in my view). From an intersectional perspective, having grown up in a upper-middle class family despite being a PoC, I felt myself way more privileged overall at college compared to white people whose families didn't have a lot of money. I felt I had a lot more resources and opportunities than them. Similarly, I'd wager that overall, LeBron James' daughter has a much higher quality of life than an impoverished white boy growing up in Appalachia.
Systemic racism is an important issue, and I hope BLM can find better leadership to pursue the cause. Code Pink slamming Condi is one thing, same with AIDS activists condemning Reagan, but this group taking their frustrations out on Bernie Sanders is BULLSHIT.
Bernie, who was a Civil Rights Activist in the 1960s to fight anti-black oppression. Bernie, who marched with MLK in 1963 and witnessed his "I Had a Dream" speech at the "March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom." Bernie who was a student organizer for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). Bernie who coordinated sit-ins against racially segregated housing at the University of Chicago. Bernie who got arrested for civil disobedience, protesting racially segregated schools in Chicago.
Bernie who publicly denounced police brutality. Bernie who backed Jesse Jackson's 1988 run for POTUS, who opposed the tough on crime policies of the 1990s, who opposed the 1996 welfare reform that marginalized poor women of color. Who continues to oppose mass incarceration, the war on drugs, police militarization, police brutality, the death penalty, etc. He wants to stop incarcerating people and building more jails, he wants to build more schools. He wants to stop locking up people for non-violent crimes, and wants to look at our drug laws. He wants to put body cameras on police. He opposes mandatory minimums. He supports community policing. I assume he's against three-strikes laws, stop-and-frisk. He voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. He supports rehabilitation over punitive measures. He wants to lower recidivism. He's against putting hundreds of thousands of cops on the street. He wants to decriminalize marijuana consumption, and is looking at legalization.
He was the first POTUS to say Sandra Bland's name, and directly addressed systemic racism, and acknowledged that beyond economic reforms, more had to be done to specifically address institutional factors behind anti-black racism. He condemned the Sandra Bland video, talked about how police harass, assault, and kill people of color. He's in the right on the issue.
The real enemies are pro-tough on crime Democrats like Dianne Feinstein and establishment Republicans, not Bernie, the most progressive member in the U.S. Congress.
I just dislike how some BLM "leaders" and "representatives" argue that when Bernie talks about tuition-free college, it's not important to their cause or issues. Like economic populism won't help poor PoC the most.
Look, there are instances of institutionalized racism independent of class. Our society is structured on systemic white privilege, cis-heteropatriarchy, unfettered capitalism, and other overlapping systems of oppression (kyriarchy).
Having said that, from an intersectional perspective, if you eliminate class-based oppression, you do blunt most of the suffering that plagues the African-American community. The catalyst for Baltimore was police brutality, but tell me that it wasn't important that the area had high levels of unemployment, poverty, poor education resources, low opportunities for upward mobility, and other class-related problems. Tell me that city zoning laws, property-tax financed public schools, single-parent homes, etc., aren't important in upward mobility. Tell me that healthcare, a lack of networking and connections, and avenues to college aren't extremely important. When the youth african american unemployment rate is 51%, tell me that that's not important. Affordable housing, minimum wages, jobs, education, etc., of course these are important, given that poverty causes more crime. With less crime, it'll be easier to call out cops for excessive use of force.
Class-based oppression intersects with racism to exacerbate racism. Much of racism is fundamentally rooted in unfettered capitalism, although there is racism independent of economics as well.
If we ended stop-and-frisk, put body cameras on police, legalized marijuana, addressed the discrepancies between crack and power cocaine in sentencing, the school to prison pipeline, the death penalty, mandatory minimum sentencing, broken window policing, mass incarceration, put in place civilian review boards, etc., then African-Americans would still face a horrible material situation and an overall low quality of life due to economic injustice. They could still suffer from predatory lending and wealth and income inequality (which affects them much more than whites). In my view, overall, economics is the driving factor behind the suffering of African-Americans, and in addition to economic injustice, we need to address police brutality, the drug war, societal attitudes about racism, white supremacist groups, and so on. Just that once you get rid of poverty, a lot of the issues that African-Americans face is more subtle than blatant.
My main problem is that some on the radical identity politics left claim that talking about college or healthcare isn't important to African-Americans or latinos when it definitely is. Jesse Jackson and MLK also focused on poverty reduction as a practical, material way to alleviate the suffering of African-Americans. I still think Bernie can and should make economic populism the central theme of his campaign. But he can tweak his message to show how it affects PoC more, and the unique economic challenges they face. While also stressing the non-economic racism faced by PoC. The BlackLivesMatter "representatives" and "leaders" in turn have to realize that Bernie isn't ignoring or sidelining them when he's talking about economic issues.
Like Bernie was saying in Iowa the other day, we can't divide ourselves by gender, sexuality, and race. That's exactly what the Republicans want: to divide and conquer, exploiting the economic frustrations of the white working and middle class to drive a wedge between races, channeling those frustrations into bigotry and resentment. In contrast, Bernie the ideology that all poor and working class people, regardless of race, should unite in a broad movement. And he says the problems in society can be traced to the billionaire class' stranglehold on government. It is a populism based on economic class, and I think it is a workable leftism that unites the working class, builds class solidarity, and does what the moneyed interests and Republicans have feared for so long: have working class whites, blacks, latinos, native americans, asians, etc. join together to topple the top 0.01%, while also addressing the real and unique problems facing various demographic groups (immigration for latinos, police brutality for blacks, etc.)
I don't know why BlackLivesMatter apparently has a so-called "favorable" view of Hillary Clinton. I'm just a bit confused. Throughout her political career, Hillary has held policy positions anathema to the black community. She supported the 1994 crime bill. She supported building more prisons, putting hundreds of thousands of more cops on the street, three-strikes policies, mandatory minimums, zero tolerance policies, and criminalizing marijuana. She supported expanding the War on Drugs throughout the 1990s and 2000s (including in her 2008 run). She opposed reforming the discrepancy in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine. She attacked Obama in 2008 for being "soft-on-crime" for opposing mandatory minimums. Hillary supported the 1996 welfare reforms that marginalized and demonized single women of color. She engaged in racist dog whistle politics in the 2008 primaries against Obama. She's been a consistent supporter of the death penalty which disproportionately marginalizes PoC. Clinton also said "All Lives Matter" instead of "Black Lives Matter" at a historical black church. She hasn't apologized or publicly expressed her regret for saying "All Lives Matter." Also, she's been getting money from the prison-industrial complex and for-profit private prisons, and hasn't returned the money. Hillary is a politician who actually said in 2008 that she represented hard-working WHITE people (specifically mentioned her support among white people vs Barack Obama in the primaries).
If you're going to blast Bernie Sanders with #BernieSoBlack, #RedefineProgressive, why hasn't Hillary been subject to the same scrutiny as Bernie? I'd honestly be okay with #BLM's leadership and representatives if they were equally harsh to all the candidates, but they definitely aren't. They are selectively choosing which candidates to scrutinize and attack. Hillary has managed to play it safe and stay above the fray.
In 2008, HRC opposed giving undocumented immigrants diver's licenses, and favored a pathway to legal status over citizenship. In 2014, she felt that the central american refugee children should be sent home, when Bernie supported allowing them to stay. So again, I'm confused why she has high support among latinos.
In contrast, here's 20 ways Bernie stood up for civil and minority rights throughout his career (not just focusing on economic issues): http://www.salon.com/2015/07/22/20_examples_of_bernie_sanders_powerful_record_on_civil_and_human_rights_partner/
It's weird to me, because Bernie Sanders is saying everything the BLM wanted him to, talking about systemic racism as a problem in its own right. His record has always been there for 50 years, and he's always been absolutely solid on the legislation he sponsored and the policy views he had, he just had some troubling framing race-related problems in his campaign speeches and address. He's definitely learned, improved, and his talking more about institutional racism very directly as a distinct problem. Yet the BlackLivesMatter "leaders" and "representatives" are still playing mental gymnastics to paint him as a "phony" while portraying Hillary Clinton as a genuine warrior for social and racial justice. They want to keep this narrative going that Bernie is an old white guy from Vermont who is tone-deaf on race, and only has positions that appeal to well-to-do white progressives, not people of color.
Here's a CNN article called, "How Hillary Clinton will go after Bernie Sanders on race." Here's the link: http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-race/
Hillary's strategy is to essentially marginalize Bernie, by saying that he thinks racism is merely a symptom of economic inequality. It almost sounds like Hillary, her campaign, and BLM's "representatives" are reading off of the same script!
The article completely misrepresents Bernie's record, again perpetuating the myth that he only views racism as a symptom of economic inequality (he doesn't, he thinks they are "parallel problems," and always has). And even THEN, even after Bernie started being more outspoken about systemic racism, people on MSNBC and CNN say "Bernie has a lot to learn. The BlackLivesMatter folk are young people who see the world through a race-based lens, where Bernie has always seen it through a class-based lens. Although Bernie is talking more about race now, he often still does talk about the economy and defends his class-based approach, showing that he is still somewhat tone-deaf on race, and has a long way to go and has a lot to learn. The BLM really want him to drop the economic stuff and understand racism as its own issue."
BUT THAT IS MISSING THE POINT. The BLACKLIVESMATTER "representatives" and "leaders" are MISSING THE POINT. It's incredibly STUPID to view the world through only a class-based lens. Moreover, it is incredibly stupid to view the world through only a race-based lens. There are overlapping systems of oppression, and while institutional racism and economic oppression are distinct problems, they do overlap, reinforce each other, and feed off of each other, hitting poor people of color the most.
As I said, it's stupid to say that "I am not sure that Bernie Sanders grasps the gravity of the specific pain that is felt by the black lives matter voter." Or to feel insulted, blindsided, or marginalized when Bernie Sanders talks about economics. Or to think that economic issues aren't important to PoC (African-American voters list the jobs and economy as the most important issues to them on opinion polls). We can't address racism without addressing economic oppression, and we can't truly fix economic oppression without addressing racism. Both of these issues are very relevant to people of color, and just as we can't be class-reductionists, we can't be identity politics reductionists. The #BlackLivesMatter "representatives" have a very knee-jerk reaction whenever Bernie brings up that the youth African-American unemployment rate is 51%, but that is still extremely important to PoC and black people at large, and rather than being impulsive and saying Bernie is "tone-deaf" on race because he doesn't always talk 100% about systemic racism independent of class (and he absolutely shouldn't), maybe the BLM "representatives" should actually listen and think about what Bernie is saying, and how his agenda is relevant to their marginalized communities.
Bernie isn't just merely "defending" his class-based approach in the face of "criticism," he's not talking about class for the sake of it. Bernie's not someone who is getting "defensive;" there's a deliberate reason why Bernie isn't exclusively talking about race, and that doesn't make him tone-deaf, or someone who still "has a lot to learn" or has to "do his homework." Demanding that Bernie completely abandons his focus on economic policy to adopt an exclusive focus on race-related issues is ridiculous: he should focus on both issues as parallel problems, as he is doing now.
Bernie's talking about real economic issues that are contributing significantly to the plight of PoC in America. His policies: raising the minimum wage, providing single-payer (Medicare-for-All) healthcare, promoting affordable housing, promoting worker cooperatives, defending and expanding the social safety net, making public colleges tuition free, pay equity for women, regulating Wall Street and reinstating Glass-Steagall, overturning Citizens United, eliminating childhood poverty, and investing in infrastructure to create 13 million new jobs, and opposing bad trade deals...all of these are VERY relevant to the lives of PoC, and of course Bernie should talk about them when talking about the impact of racism. Economic oppression disproportionately affects PoC, so talking about the economy is a priority to uplift marginalized communities of color (again on opinion polls, PoC value the economy and jobs as their top issues). PoC (blacks, latinos, southeast asians, native americans, etc.) have disproportionately high rates of poverty, inequality, low upward mobility, poor healthcare, access to a good education, and opportunities for success.
Bernie should talk about these issues, in addition to talking about institutional racism as a parallel problem.
Hillary Clinton may be speaking on institutional racism, mass incarceration, and immigration now, but she certainly wasn't in the past. And even if she's solid on racial issues now, she still supports the traditional, neoliberal, establishment Democrat Third-Way centrist policies. She's the quintessential DLC Wall Street corporate Democrat. She's not advocating for a $15 national minimum wage, she's opposed to single-payer Medicare-for-All healthcare, and she opposes reinstating Glass-Steagall to break up the big banks. She's iffy on the Keystone XL pipeline and the TPP. She doesn't support tuition free public college, or raising progressive income taxes significantly on the rich to invest in infrastructure. She's against taxing capital gains as ordinary income, unlike Bernie. Her policies, therefore, are cookie cutter, and will not only be insufficient to uplift the American public at large, but will be disproportionately harmful to people of color relative to working class whites. Bernie's agenda is the best for working class, middle class, and poor Americans of all racial backgrounds, but especially for working class PoC.
Bernie listened to what the Netroots protesters had to say, incorporated their concerns into his speeches, messages, and agendas. And maybe the "BLM" representatives should now actually pay attention to what he's saying, not immediately jump to conclusions and assume negative intent, not immediately say he's tone deaf on race, actually learn about MLK Jr.'s economic advocacy for poor people of all races toward the end of his life, and learn class and race intersect with each other. And I hope they do so, and stop smearing him, misrepresenting him and his record and agenda, and be consistent in their criticism against all the Democratic Primary candidates (including tackling Hillary Clinton's race record).
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Eloquent !!!!!
gobears10
(310 posts)turns out I was right :/
Number23
(24,544 posts)Like Bernie was saying in Iowa the other day, we can't divide ourselves by gender, sexuality, and race.
I don't think that's what he said, but if he did, thank you for unwittingly and so beautifully highlighting why Sanders is losing in every single solitary demographic within the Dem party base.
Anybody, let alone a "person of color" that calls black activists "identity politics reductionists" whatever the fuck that's even SUPPOSED to mean isn't worth the time or effort to read their screeds.
You'll fit in beautifully on DU, I'll definitely give you that.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)All kinds of people seem to be "fitting in beautifully on DU" for a while now.
And the ones who ARE "fitting in beautifully" pretty much says it all about what this site has become.
Number23
(24,544 posts)"And the ones who ARE "fitting in beautifully" pretty much says it all about what this site has become."
People are actually accusing #BLM of being "Hillary agents," "Koch funded right wingers," and "infiltrators and disruptors" of the Dem party. They also accuse them and the people who support them of being "race naggers," "thugs" and everything but a child of God.
And what's so fucking gobsmacking (is that even a word??) about all of this is that the ones who bray the loudest and the longest with these bullshit memes are also the SAME PEOPLE bemoaning how "right wing" DU and the Dem party are right now. Let that sink in for a second. The same folks who are SCREAMING IN RAGE that black activists are drawing attention to their causes (and who also call any discussion of racism, homophobia or sexism "distractions" are the same ones that talk about how "right wing" the party is now. What in the EVER LOVING fuck?
I mean, I get it. These are the last gasps of a dying group. Who've never had large numbers to begin with and seem to be shrinking by the year. They are watching their place at the top of the Democratic pecking order get chipped to almost nothing. But for some reason, I can't muster up a DROP of sympathy for these folks, particularly as they proclaim my issues to be unimportant distractions that take away from the "real" issues.
George II
(67,782 posts)Raine1967
(11,589 posts)I cannot believe that this STILL has to be said over and over and over again.
It's almost like people don't want to listen
. Or maybe, just maybe they don't want to hear.
Maybe it is both. I see a lot of both out there in the real world too.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)All he has ever said is that you can't really fight it and support Wall Street economic values at the same time. You can't end hate AND defend greed.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)what I said or what the person I responded to said.
So, ok. Don't know anyone who has said that. But ok.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)blind eyes are creating a scenario of the blind, leading the blind. I won't give up on O'M as a candidate in this field. Not saying he has my vote, but the things he says are pretty succinct and relevant also to the current social and racial affairs of this divided nation. I'm damn sure not ready to pick one of those other two yet either. Somebody has to get REAL, sooner or later....I'll wait and see. Plus..1000 on the "over and over again".
mcar
(42,307 posts)for every sentient being on this planet. Thank you Number23.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)These are the last gasps of a dying group. Who've never had large numbers to begin with and seem to be shrinking by the year. They are watching their place at the top of the Democratic pecking order get chipped to almost nothing. But for some reason, I can't muster up a DROP of sympathy for these folks, particularly as they proclaim my issues to be unimportant distractions that take away from the "real" issues.
And what do you mean "at the top of the Democratic pecking order". Since when are POC issues at the top of the democratic pecking order?
It's really good to know the truth...that you cannot muster a DROP of sympathy for the lost lives of POC.
Number23
(24,544 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)This thread is hard to follow. I'm not sure what you are defending.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)I was appalled and horrified when this shit started here, and it's steadily gotten worse.
"Particularly as they proclaim my issues to be unimportant distractions that take away from the 'real' issues."
That's the problem DU has had, right there.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)as usual....damn, you're right...and the one you're responding to, well.......thank you for a sane analysis....of this OP and many responders lapping up the BS of this OP, because the leadership of #BlackLivesMatter still and will always matter to many, many people. Even if, as it seems, black lives do not matter to many of them, haven't every, really!!! The disruptive tactic of this OP is classic. Sow dissension and doubt, let it seep into the crowd, see if friction and suspicion starts, then go about dismantling the "threat" by agitating that suspicion and doubt with lies and subterfuge. Cointelpro is the modern blueprint. OWS fell victim to this ploy. Seen it happen, many many times.
Number23
(24,544 posts)the black folks that do support her turn on her, it won't be because non-blacks have shit on and slimed one of the most electrifying and relevant social movements out right now that directly speaks to one of the most pressing issues to black people. I don't give a flying fuck how "brown" you are. Shitting on #BLM is not a winning formula for any Democrat or liberal.
OWS fell victim to this ploy.
I think a big part of OWS spectacular failure is that the same crowd that's crapping all over #BLM were some of the biggest champions of OWS. With people like that on your side, you're doomed to fail and fail big. And that's exactly what happened.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)exactly the type of sowing of dissension and suspicion by the so called liberal and progressives doomed that group very early. We, on the other hand, know of the Hoover Cointelpro blueprint for destroying movements of people fed up with the bullshit, the killings and imprisoning of Black leaders covering the full spectrum of ideologies. We even understand their 21st century attempts at using domestic terror tactics in the killings and murdering/summary executions of POC to try to cower a whole race of people fed up with this stupid and ignorant attempt to assert white dominance and control at the behest of their masters.
That's why when the usual suspects and some new whiners come along with their transparently slick and sly treatise supposedly from a POC I can easily call BS, because they really can be picked out very easily and marginalized as someone I don't need in my foxhole, on my back. EVER.
jalan48
(13,862 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)That's what we're discussing here. Glad you caught on so quickly.
jalan48
(13,862 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)to get interesting.
jalan48
(13,862 posts)murielm99
(30,736 posts)after that MSNBC program. It happened sooner than I expected.
Support the Independent or else! If you support anyone else, you do not have a mind of your own! You are a republican, or worse! (Is there worse)?
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)on the program?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)All I see is a poc who supports Bernie Sanders speaking their mind.
Are they not allowed to have a mind of their own?
7962
(11,841 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Everyone on DU gets one vote and one voice, no one should be told to sit down and shut up.
Not women, not minorities, not anyone.
romanic
(2,841 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)It's fucking offensive. It's using an asian to prove black people are bad. He is not black and knows nothing about the black experience. His group is not suffering the tacial abuse and trauma that we are, so he can say all that crap and you guys cheer and we look at this and say, oh hell no! Their have their tokens, their Don Lemons and Uncle Ruckus', so they don't need us anyway.
My bad. I said I wasn't going to bother telling any of you that you were making things worse anymore. I totally give the fuck up.
Cha
(297,180 posts)do is shake my head.
Fortunately #BlackLivesMatter's Representatives have Many People behind them who do have compassion and empathy and aren't judging them for the way they feel.
They'll be fine without the OP and all those who rec the ****** thread.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I feel bad because so many of his supoorters are good people who are trying very hard. Like I feel with Obama. I'm not sure all of the worst ones actually support Bernie. Starting to thunk they are just trying to cause more trouble for him and his supporters.
Number23
(24,544 posts)or have the honor of being the only poc banned from the AA forum. And all their white friends.
A rousing, proud and ever so memorable moment for DU!!!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Sans the luxury of living within the history of slavery in America.
I think everyone who is not black should listen in hushed silence. BLM is speaking about life and death, right and wrong, and the deepest values.
For others it is more than likely they'll be unable to comprehend, and with no disrespect to the OP or his supporters, this discussion is unworthy.
I just see it as logical to listen before one speaks on as sacred a subject as life and death...
BTW, just finished hearing 'Paul Mooney - Analyzing White America - Full Version.' I see why you like him. He didn't miss a thing, especially about 'training' everything.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Look how easy they fall for it. Smh.
Yeah, I wish Paul Mooney was right here to tell them something reflective. They need to see how they look.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... if you don't support BS you are a corporatist-supporting, war-loving, status quo-embracing, mindless low-info voter who hates hard-working Americans, the poor and minorities, while being a water-carrier for the 1%.
Welcome to DemocraticUnderground, where supporting the candidate the vast majority of your fellow Democrats support is tantamount to treason!
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)I keep hearing if you don't support hillary you're a sexist, racist, andro/white centric, insensative, un-listening pie-in-the-sky undemocratic plant meant only to weaken Hillary.
I think the people we're hearing that from are wrong on both counts. I think some of us however let our snap judgements and the passion of the season take us away.
When we let any criticism of a person or faction within our own community reduce the weight of someone's, on the whole, valid and backed up at points perspective, we make a gross error (I think I actually got that from you last election cycle) in judgement.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)~ Bain's Bane
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025216329#post457
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It doesn't matter what his party registration is when he's more progressive than HRC.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)He isn't into party building. He's trying for 4 years as POTUS and then walks away. Meanwhile the Democratoic party has an Independent at is head and is in disarray for lack of unity and party building and strategies. No thanks.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)confirmation that Bernie supporters insult.
Thanks.
Gop doesn't care in Dems implode, Bernie supporters don't care if the party implodes....who benefits?
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Bernie Sanders is going to destroy the Democratic Party by winning the nomination? That's just weak sauce.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)with a Democrat at the head.
Building a large-scale left-progressive movement will build our party.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)as a slur. Just keep denying it but it's clear when you keep repeating it over and over. You are just trying to divide with that. Bernie is a better Dem than 99% of those in the party because he stands for REAL Dem values, he hasn't thrown them out to appease TPTB.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)"Bernie's running as an Independent" was the meme of the month back in April, they need to come up with some new material.
murielm99
(30,736 posts)and that is simply a fact. He is not a Democrat.
Don't tell me that I am using that as a slur. You cannot read my mind.
7962
(11,841 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)He doesn't want to party build the Dem Party
It clearly not a big deal for many Bernie supporters on DU...it's a big deal for me.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)You just don't want to believe the facts.
Bernie is a better Dem than all the other candidates as far as his record and his policy stances.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)The fact that you keep repeating it makes it obvious you mean it as a slur. He's not running as an Independent. Period. You know that yet you keep saying he is.
The fact is that in Vermont there is no party registration for individuals, so one is whatever they claim to be. He is running as a Democrat so that's what he is. You can check for yourself on the Vermont SOS website. Or search my posts where I explained it to someone else who just wouldn't let it go.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Tell me, what was your inspiration for that maneuver?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Either he doesn't believe the poster actually has much melanin, or he simply wants to talk about the AA vote, and doesn't think Latino and Native American votes should be 'lumped in'. Given that the post is largely about the BLM movement, there's a certain logic to the second; if you're talking about BLM, you're talking AA, not all PoC.
JI7
(89,248 posts)Arguing positions and points even he.isn't making.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The TPP, indefinite detention, the Patriot Act, torture, Wall Street domination of our economy, etc. It appears that the Democratic Leadership believes that she can slip into the nomination if she just keeps a low profile. The rumor is that Goldman-Sachs will be her running mate.
not at all sure what about DU you're stuffing this piece into, but i have to say, it's snide and cynical responses like yours that keep me out of the comments section about 99% of the time.
this person poured his heart and soul into this piece; it is well-referenced and beautifully argued. he deserves at least respect and recognition for that much.
you can agree or disagree, but what is the point of getting downright nasty? because someone is saying something you don't want to hear?
you won't win anything with that kind of attitude - not respect or points or elections or even agreement - and even if you could, what would that really mean, to 'win' by shaming and bullying someone into submission?
i extend these sentiments generically to all the nasty commenters here, not just to you. i'm not black, but i sure don't know how to be any more sympathetic and horrified at the racism in this country than i already am. and still, i wish i could be more.
but i will tell you this: you get what you give. and if it's respect you're after, you'll do well to learn how to actually offer it, so perhaps you might even recognize when it smacks you in the face.
with a kiss.
Number23
(24,544 posts)It's something I long since stopped caring about.
As well as the opinions of people who clap like seals when someone denigrates a minority movement fighting for the right to not be killed because they are more worried about the "tone" of the people who object to such idiocy.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I think it has something to do with one issue voting.
And BLM does not represent all "black activists".... does it?
"Sanders is losing in every single solitary demographic within the Dem party base. "
Is he?
got any conclusive proof? 'Cause I mean, he can't be losing in the "Bernie Sanders supporters" demographic.
Here's a Daily Kos demographic layout from July;
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/10/1400974/-Bernie-Sanders-Breaks-20-in-a-National-Poll-for-the-First-Time-Gaining-Support-Across-Demographics
In some demographics he's not losing by much.... and of course he's ahead in the "Independents" column.
But he hasn't the name recognition Clinton has, of course. That can change.... especially if the Dems ever decide to have a debate.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Why would you even bother typing that?
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Because the "Sanders can't win" meme is stupid at this point in time.
Hillary is only on top because she's the only name people recognize this early.... before any debates or ad campaigns.
She lost the last primary and she can lose this one too.
It's still early to be so sure of everything.
Number23
(24,544 posts)arguing for the hell of arguing and don't even have the courtesy to argue about things I've actually said.
At no point have I said that Sanders can't win. I've said that he is losing every single demographic in the polls. And that's because he is.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)If you look at the Daily Kos article I linked to, you'd see under "Vote by party ID" it's
Ind:
Clinton : 35%
Sanders: 38%
and under "Vote by Age" it's very close with young voters
18 -29
Clinton: 45%
Sanders: 44%
So he's NOT losing "Every single demographic in the polls".
I also pointed out it's way early, and Hillary is riding on name recognition. There haven't even been any debates yet!
So I'm responding to you because you are not exactly right. And besides, you asked me a question.
But I won't respond to you any more, because...y'know....brick wall, coffee table... You seem to think the primaries are over when they haven't even begun. It's ridiculous. besides, you obviously cannot be bothered to read anything anybody else types, because your opinion is just so awesome, I suppose.
But keep pushing those right wing memes. The Repugs appreciate your help.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Even when trying to prove whatever it is you're trying to prove, all you can do is post polls that STILL SHOW HIM LOSING. That's because he is losing within EVERY SINGLE DEMOGRAPHIC within the Dem base. In your desperation to plug your ears and deny what's right in front of you, you're not doing ANYTHING but proving my freaking point.
Why don't you go and pester someone else? I have no idea what your posts are trying to achieve beyond being incredibly pointless and annoying.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Who said he was losing EVERY SINGLE DEMOGRAPHIC?
You are ridiculous....
Keep those RW memes coming!
Bye Bye...
Number23
(24,544 posts)Your responses make absolutely no sense and as as idiotic as they are pointless.
I will repeat, Bernie is losing EVERY SINGLE DEMOGRAPHIC within the Dem base as is born out in poll after poll including the ones YOU REFERRED TO as you hilariously tried to prove that I was wrong.
If you were actually refuting my point that would be one thing. You're not and are actually MAKING my point when you're not calling the truth "right wing talking points" which is so mindlessly stupid and ridiculous. Like I said, I honestly have no idea why you keep responding to me. Your posts have done nothing but prove you have no purpose or point beyond arguing inanely for the absolute hell of it and looking really dumb in the process.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)"They are identity politics reductionists." Could you point this out for me? Because, all I found was "They can't be identity politics reductionists."
(I find it distressing that the derision and divisiveness that the corporate megalomaniacs have worked long and hard to succor among the Hoi Polloi seems to be gaining a foothold in this forum, beyond the systemic racism I see here almost every day...)
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)HRC was also a fucking NO-SHOW at the Netroots event, then
waltzes into the national spotlight as the new darling of BLM.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)She had something else scheduled, and that was made known ahead of time. No-show implies she was scheduled to be there and didn't show up.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)It confuses a certain group of people here when you do so.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...the keynote speaker at an annual DEMOCRATIC Dinner, in a red state teetering on turning blue and also where she was first lady for more than a decade.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)she wouldn't be there as soon as she was invited.She hasn't been to Netroots since 2007.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)because it wasn't a priority enough for her to attend, yet
the candidates who did attend got thrashed,
especially Sanders.
The fact that attending was not a priority for Hillary is
never brought-up & is the elephant in the living room.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Cha
(297,180 posts)George http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=493902
Needa Moment
(56 posts)Mind you. Like this brainless all too used tactic flies past any of us anymore. Does she think everyone's just stuck in time? Speaking of living in a bubble....
Cha
(297,180 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)How is that confusing?
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)"No show" means someone made a commitment and didn't show up.I'll bet you knew that.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)whether as you described or as someone who declined or as whatever. They don't show up they are a no show. There doesn't have to be a prior commitment to being there to be a no show.
I've heard the term many times applied to people who no one knew if they were coming or not and then if they didn't they were a no show. That's all it means, that the person didn't show up.
Not sure why you have to say "I'll bet you knew that" as if I was trying to be cute or something. I mean really, Hillary supporters are so mean.
Report1212
(661 posts)Some are attention seeking egotists like in just about every movement, others have a deeper view. I know some who support Bernie big time. But of course the media tends to try to make these things simple
MisterP
(23,730 posts)maybe we'll see "Sanders needs to do more on the banks" and "Sanders supporters are ignoring the problems Wall Street causes" and "there's something ugly about Sanders supporters' reactions when we dare suggest Sanders could speak more about finance"
they wouldn't dare THAT (would they?)
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)Black Lives Matters (the group on TV and not the hashtag) doesn't appear to be holding Sec. Clinton equally to any kind of account.
They also are not engaging in seeking any response from a sitting US President and US Attorney General to address issues they have power over, like Federal supervision of out of control local police forces.
Why would they focus on political campaigns for an office that doesn't begin (if it is even won by a Dem) until 2017?
gobears10
(310 posts)The overall movement and message are extremely important. The hashtag is necessary to highlight police brutality. The genuine grassroots activists, PoC activists, etc., are fighting the good fight, and we should help them, honor them for their amazing work, and stand in solidarity with them.
My problem isn't with the hashtag or the BLM movement at large. It's with the so called "group" of people who claim to be the "representatives," "leaders," and "founders" of #BLM who continually bash Bernie Sanders even when he's saying everything they want, while they heap praise on Hillary Clinton. The "representatives" featured on MSNBC and elsewhere.
Moreover, these so called "leaders" only want to focus on politics of identity (which are important), but they ignore or dismiss the real issues Bernie Sanders (and others) bring up about how economic oppression and inequality are disproportionately marginalizing PoC in America.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Beartracks
(12,809 posts)From what I can tell, Bernie's supporters (of all races) are trying to make the point (or as some would snidely call it, "whitesplain" that racism in America does not exist in a vacuum apart from other issues like economic inequality.
Racism definitely is its own issue, and even getting all AA folks out of poverty isn't going to end racism, since there are always racist a**holes who will hate blacks regardless of -- or perhaps because of? -- their economic status. HOWEVER... economic inequality impacts blacks disproportionately, and can be a mechanism to "keep them in their place." While attacking overt racism head-on is necessary, so is correcting economic injustice -- because not only will that serve to improve their lives, it will also give blacks more mainstream political clout (correction: others will finally recognize it as mainstream).
Furthermore, lifting a lot of whites out of poverty, too, will mitigate the economic desperation that makes their brains such fertile ground for conservative, racist, blame-your-neighbor bullshit to flourish.
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)lark
(23,097 posts)I'm proud of how he's spoken out on this issue.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)UNREC.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)The people who are playing the "if he speaks to our issues, he's pandering; if he doesn't, he's ignoring us"? No. That's bullshit.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)eom
SolutionisSolidarity
(606 posts)If Bernie can't win their support, he'll just have to focus on those people who are open. If he talks about racial issues he's pandering, and if he doesn't he doesn't care. That's a nice little trap.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... it's a trap he's set for himself.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)But nobody would be so stupid as to claim that BLM speaks for ALL.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts).. his "connection" is pretty shallow.
But let's not let facts get in the way.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)I'm sure you're smart enough to know that.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... and "unanimous" doesn't even enter into the discussion.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)SolutionisSolidarity
(606 posts)The primary is early yet. We've had no debates, and things are in flux. I recall in 2008 Hillary was counting on the black vote to help her beat Obama before South Carolina.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Because the only poc who matter to you are the ones who support Hillary?
Nice.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)But better to believe that one PoC's post on DU - or even a number of them - outweigh the nation-wide numbers.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Or don't they count?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that have long self-identified AS PoC.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)That's the thing about poll numbers, they can change.
mythology
(9,527 posts)A very limited number of minorities suppress Sanders. Are there some? Sure. But not enough to get him the nomination.
It's like saying that Republicans win white male voters. Yes they do, but not all of us who are white men vote Republican.
Likewise Rachel Maddow spent a lot of time discussing how Democratic candidates like Clare McCaskill won because of the women's vote. She won a vast majority of women but that doesn't mean all.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)long before it was fashionable in Democratic party politics.
I know that he is definitely connecting with persons of color that I know.
Is there something wrong with those people?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)There just aren't enough of them to outweigh the nation-wide poll numbers that say something very different.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Things aren't trending well for Hillary Inc.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Seems things are going very well for Hillary. The "Inc." is childish - but I think you already knew that.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)And they're not trending well for her. And the fact that downward trending polls are all you have to prop up an uninspiring, wooden, and scripted candidate with an eternity of 6 months out from the first caucus is pretty pathetic. But you knew that.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Joe Chi Minh
(15,229 posts)shaping public opinion, rather than rating it? In France, until the little right-winger rose to power, they were prohibited within a certain period before elections. And as regards Ibeurgard's use of 'Inc', how is it you let something you view as childish raise your hackles?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... is demonstrative of "raising hackles"?
Really? I know over-the-top hyperbole reigns on DU these days, but I didn't realize it had gone this far.
Joe Chi Minh
(15,229 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)it may take a little time.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)and keep spreading the meme you just repeated. It just doesn't happen to be true. But the PoC that he does connect with are being told that they are a betrayal to their race here on DU.
This is a clear and concerted effort to divide the party on social and economic lines so as to aid HRC's campaign. It's been obvious from the start, before the BLM kerfuffle, when the PoC who are HRC supporters pointed out his "lily white" crowds "wink wink" and said things like "it's not racism, it's economics" and "when do the 'minorities' get to play". Now the new meme is it doesn't matter what he did all his life, even though it was in large part fighting for civil rights, for some reason we're not supposed to mention that any more. It's pretty convenient to not allow the past into this when HRC ran the ugliest race baiting campaign last time around. Yes please, let's forget her racial past that was ugly by saying the past doesn't matter, meanwhile throwing out Bernie's strength along with it.
Politics over principles. Damn.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Who doesn't authentically care about the issue of institutional racism.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)That he isn't getting any credit for doing exactly what BLM demanded is a bit annoying.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Quite interesting
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)Thanks because as a white guy I could not make this argument so I had to wait silently....and your defense has exceeded my hopes. Epic defense...
Response to gobears10 (Original post)
NCTraveler This message was self-deleted by its author.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The representatives want to see Hillary get the nomination and they have every right to use blm to promote their candidate.
I'm rec'ing your op because of the truth about Bernie Sanders' record and the courage it takes to speak your mind.
It's obvious that nothing Bernie does will ever be good enough for some.
He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
I just wish more people would look at his record and listen to his words instead of believing the meme that Bernie doesn't care about poc currently being parroted by opportunistic HC supporters.
I choose the candidate with the best record on civil rights - Bernie Sanders.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)It's a classic Rovian tactic.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The HC opportunists want to silence everyone else, but judging from the amount of recs the op received, they speak for a lot of people here.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)They're attacking the op and dismissing their pov and imo that's pretty messed up.
I respect everyone's right to choose their candidate and fight for them here during the primaries.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Thanks for pointing it out. I'll read the thread more carefully. Hope you have a good rest of the night. And day as well.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You have a good day too, lovemydog.
I love both of my dogs, btw.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)not everyone who is critical of Bernie (or of some of his supporters) is a Hillary supporter. Some are supporting O'Malley. Some are still undecided.
Hooray for dogs.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I think the op has some good points, they edited their op since I first said I agreed with everything. I think I'll go back and edit my first post to clarify.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)if someone posted something most everyone agrees with, got tons of recs and positive replies, then changed the original post to something really bizarre & offensive.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)They could edit it in the wee hours so all the folks logging on in the morning would see it on the greatest and be like WTF???
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)It got the trickster banned.
delrem
(9,688 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)without reading. The Bears, assuming you are referring to the football team, are in rebuilding again. Endless construction without an end point. If your DU name does not reflect your team spirit please forgive my presumption.
Did I mention what a fantastic post this is?
I really liked that you tied your argument to MLK's economic focus. Progress must be made on all fronts. Voting rights without economic rights are meaningless, and the opposite is also true.
MLK recognized that the anti-war struggle, and the struggle for racial justice, and the struggle for class justice were and are all facets of the same struggle for equality.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)How anyone can take issue with your excellent post I can't pretend to understand.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That cannot and will not be tolerated by HC supporters.
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)If you are a die hard Hillary supporter and you read gobears10 entire post and can't acknowledge that it is odd the way the media are painting the scene, it is my opinion that you are an unreasonable person. I mean that literally. Reasoning does not hunt with some.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)A reasonable person would listen to everyone, not just those who support their candidate.
I've read dozens of lectures telling me to shut up and listen to minorities and I have.
Now I'm supposed to dismiss the op because they disagree with HC supporters?
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)I don't know why but Hello Walls pops into my head often when reading some of these comments/posts from the Merchants of Doubt.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Especially if the blm representatives came out in support of one candidate over another.
Doing that makes what they said fair game in the primary wars.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)If "spokespeople" want to question his authenticity there's not much to be done about it. I'm certain that Bernie will continue to speak out on the issue because it's critical.
wilsonbooks
(972 posts)It deserves to be widely read.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)Thankyouthsnkyouthankyou.
I've never had the patience or emotional condition to get and go this deep with my passions taking over, thank you for giving us this.
Bernie has always believed and acted on the fact that blacklivesmatter.
JustAnotherGen
(31,817 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 5, 2015, 04:18 AM - Edit history (1)
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/12/the-long-shot/382238/People in our country can become very famous overnight, he pointed out. Besides, he went on, laughing: Why would anyone go into politics for respect? You dont go into politics for respect. You go into politics to get something done - Martin O'Malley
The three founders of BLM can support who they want in this election. No skin off my back.
But they don't have to give any of the candidates respect.
I've been reading some conspiracy theories around DU - so here's mine . . .
What if they believe O'Malley or Sanders will be the candidate so it was time well spent?
1Strongblackman says we suffer from Liberalitis - he meant it in a good way to O'Malley supporters. And he's right. I do! A lot of us do. But we aren't torn up over the protest. Personally - I saw that and thought . . . the opposite of hate isn't love -
It's indifference.
Oh.. .those women know where to get their bread buttered - that's why the protest happened there. Clinton isn't inevitable and they gave black political movers and shakers and just the aware a reason to have O'Malley come in the door in places like South Carolina. Can I get a witness?!?!
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Debate Schedule will be published by the end of the week, IIRC. Then he might get a good bump. How do you see him, if he was to win the primary, arguing with the GOP's prom date - and I fear it's going to be on Faux or something equally odious. They'll mess it up.
JustAnotherGen
(31,817 posts)I believe the debates will allow him to shine.
What would you do about xyz as a candidate?
Answer - I did, this how WE did it, and here's how it works for the rest of America. Like same sex marriage - we did, I signed, and look at tat. It's the law of the land! But I'd like to see us work together as opposed to kicking things up to SCOTUS. Like how about something really ground breaking like a voting rights Amendment?
^ That's a specific by O'Malley^
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Although the only time I saw him really talk was when he announced his run for POTUS. Listeing his his speech gave me goosebumps!
But in other venues I've seen him talk or or debate with whoever, he comes off as very milquetoast. His ideas are good, but he is so polite the 'throw me some red meat' crowd and the media don't find him interesting.
Of course, none of them care about ideas anyway!
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And if Godwin can do it why not me...the law states;
All movements no matter what they are about can and will be co-oped.
And this is based on observations not just a pull it out of my ass.
When you are dealing with large amounts of money you can buy anything...and those at the top have more money now than ever in history.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)dougolat
(716 posts)More money easily lends itself to more mischief.
7962
(11,841 posts)Because you forgot ONE big thing: You MUST follow the crowd here.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)It's a campaign strategy. When you favor one candidate and try to use whatever levers of influence you can grab hold of to sway a group of voters to vote for your favored candidate, that is a campaign tactic.
Pretending it is anything other than a campaign maneuver is dishonest bullshit.
All is fair in politics I guess.
Skittles
(153,150 posts)very well done
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Rilgin
(787 posts)A very spirited post. I think right on point and possible to fall on deaf ears.
Ultimately, there is one fight with many contours. There are a lot of symptoms of injustice and oppression. They do not always reduce or correspond exactly. The effect of injustices fall on people differently and unequally.
These problems do not always affect all people equally. However, ultimately they are one fight. We (emphasis on we), the sane part of the human race, can only win if we are not divided.
The common thread to almost all our problems is economics as you point out. It is a common thread because it affects every one of us.
There are other aspects than just economics but in almost all of the problems in our society there are economic aspects. Using climate change rather than race (since it is a charged topic), solving our economics will not solve all environmental issues. Some exist independent of the economic systems in society. However, a major impediment to fixing any environmental problems is individual economic greed. The same with race.
I do not see many people who think that our economic system is the basic problem with society denying there are issues outside of just economic issues. I do see both here and in the outside world, activists who are so consumed with a single issue that they do not hear or acknowledge such a view. Certain issues affect everyone and common concerns are the basis of a changed society.
Unified groups can also address issues such as discrimination where the affects are not common so long as we are not fighting ourselves. A big part of this is the rhetoric and communication used by leaders and activists. A good example of this is that the gains in the 1960s with respect to civil and social issues mostly arose with support from a unified opposition to the war amongst young people of all races and genders.
The war and the draft was a unified movement which cut across a lot of groups and united rather than divided them. Of course, these movements did not solve everything and even within the groups there were human problems. Fights for justice do not end they seem to take place every generation. However, we did make some gains in the 1960s both social and economic which gains we are constantly fighting to maintain.
Your post which was great can be expanded to most single issue activists. We can only win if we do not divide ourselves. There is a good motto that seem to reflect this concept that seems to be forgotten.
United we stand. Divided we fall.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Please give their name or link to the video so we can look this up and see for ourselves what you are talking about.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Only African Americans were brought here in chains and even after they were legally freed a whole series of laws and customs were implemented to keep them in servitude.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)lecturing everyone (including PoC) all day on race relations from the perspective of a PoC? I sure would feel foolish doing it.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)And a member of a group who is less than one percent of the world's population and was scheduled for extinction in the mid twentieth century and have been the target of bigotry more times than I can enumerate I believe I can speak to prejudice though I would never claim to know what it's like to be black. I can sublimate the fact i am Jewish but the odd thing is no matter how assimilated you are as a Jew there will be always be someone or something to remind you that you are.
Maybe the people who are tossing hosannas at a person making the argument that the members of BLM are playing identity politics are the ones who should be embarrassed.
I would respond with a lot more verve but it is not my friends who have gamed the alert system.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Too bad Bernie's experience as a Jew didn't give him the same insight and expertise into PoC as it did you. Weird that.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I never peered into the senator's heart and found him wanting. It seems some have peered into the hearts of BLM and found them wanting, like in this thread.
I would add that the suggestion you have to be a member of a group to have empathy for members of said group is illiberal.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Maybe you could point to some examples?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)eom
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)PoC in this thread? Where?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)What are you doing in this thread ... albeit, not from a PoC POV.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)and you know it, else you'd provide a link. I think you're confusing daring to disagree with 1SBM with what DemocratSinceBirth does. Not the same at all really.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"albeit it not from a PoC POV", but you are lecturing, none the less.
I have read a lot of DSB's posts ... and it is the rare occasion that he has not reflected what I, and other PoC here on DU, have said.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)It's just getting old being lectured about how white you are from white people who think they care and you don't.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)hears a clear distinction between what you are saying and what he is saying ... that is why his comments are accepted and yours are rejected.
But as you implied earlier ... "F@$% it ... we'll just find other folks to replace the Black vote."
Good luck with that.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)This probably won't go well, but here goes
The concerns and difficulties of PoC are critical. No matter what you think of me or who you think I am, I say that earnestly. You have to understand, to a Bernie supporter, the notion that he is seen as unfit by the AA community is beyond baffling given his history. Even if you grant that there's a consensus among AAs that his economic message was not quite on the mark, he's about the last guy who should be thought of as the enemy. There seems to be some misplaced animus for him, which, I'm sorry, calls BLM's focus into question (for me). It's not my place to tell them their business, but IMO if they continue to hammer Bernie exclusively they're gonna be hurting their credibility and not really serving the AA community. I'm not advocating replacing AA voters, that would be pointless. I'm saying if turns out nothing Bernie does is gonna cut it, then stop sweating it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But do you see the mixed message you are expressing:
You would do well to understand three things: First, often times when you (figuratively) are in a "damaged"/"disconnected" relationship ... it really is you, causing the damage/disconnect. a refusal/inability/unwillingness to self-reflect/see things from outside of the "Me frame", does nothing to close the gap. Secondly, Bernie's revised message focus has been effect, what? 10 days ... after months of direct feedback regarding the not quite on the mark messaging (and 50+ years of the social justice/economic justice conversation) ... isn't it a premature to conclude there is nothing that can close the gap. And, lastly, BLM (and the Black community) don't see Bernie as the enemy ... if he, truly, were the enemy, he would get no attention from them/us. There is an old (and, admittedly, somewhat, sexist ... it comes from a cautionary love song) expression ... "when a woman cries (because of your dirt) she still cares ... worry when she has no more tears."
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Does anybody see the irony that our interlocutor has nothing unkind to say about those recommending this thread?
What are their qualifications to claim standing?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)for Bernie's decades of service and 10 days of changed(ing) message.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Only African Americans were brought here in chains and even after they were legally freed a whole series of laws and customs were implemented to keep them in servitude.
My girlfriend is POC...I am starting to dislike that term. She's from the Philippines. We were at a friend of her's home , a Filipino, and he went on of one of these bootstrap riffs where he said "I came here with nothing and did well, why can't blacks do that?"
It's easy to be a civil rights warrior on the 'internets'. It's harder in real life... I looked at my gf, took a deep breath and said "Gary, you know that you didn't come here in chains, your mom is a judge back in Manila, and you went to parochial school and elite colleges.You didn't go to overcrowded public schools."
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)most of those claiming to have " come) here with nothing and did well, why can't blacks do that?" Are full of crap ... they discount the education and wealth that they arrived with, and the support they received when they got here.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)reveals a lack of character and a sophomoric mentality.
- your interlocutor
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)If I believed in reincarnation I would hope that I could come back as the paragon of virtue my immediate interlocutor holds himself or herself out to be.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)And you'll be the one to bring it down. It's becoming clear from the BLM rep's rather predictable statement today, and your snark about Bernie's "10 days of changed(ing) message", that the demands for Bernie to "get it right" are insincere. It's likely nothing he does will fill the bill, so why bother kowtowing? We're just going to do what we have to do to appeal to anyone, from any community, willing to listen to what Sanders can offer this country.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)didn't take me long, Riddler?
bvf
(6,604 posts)uhnope
(6,419 posts)Link pls for "A representative of BLM was on MSNBC, in which he praised Hillary Clinton's recent statements on systemic racism, and how it's not a symptom of economic oppression, but blasted Bernie Sanders for being a class reductionist. "
eridani
(51,907 posts)Let's not do this to BLM or any other group fighting for social justice.
Number23
(24,544 posts)are the same ones that hollered the loudest about "holding Obama's feet to the fire" even after they'd burned them to a crisp.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Supporting someone they currently aren't supporting because that candidate has done X things.
Thank you very much but women can decide for themselves when someone has earned their support and trying to browbeat them into that support won't work, just like it won't work here for African Americans.
Anyone should be able to see that this is the wrong way to go about this and will not achieve the results desired by the folks doing it.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)It has not been an attractive look for DU's "left" at all.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Tone actually matters, whether you're a 'group', a 'movement', a 'candidate' or anyone else.
Different tones allow you to communicate to different audiences. Bernie's 'tone' when it came to speaking to black voters simply wasn't working, and he needed an upgrade. He had never said all racism could be eliminated by economics, a strawman frequently thrown around when talking about him, but because his 'tone' was to talk mostly about economics even when discussing racism he wasn't communicating with a lot of black folks.
Can talking about tone be used as an attack? Sure. But it isn't automatically so. Sometimes it's simply a discussion of the best way to communicate a message you want to communicate.
BLM's protest was, metaphorically, slapping a bunch of highly preoccupied people in the face. Some people said 'Hey, why did you do that?' - which is what BLM wanted - for people to actually pay attention to them. Others immediately started punching and slapping back without asking why they got slapped. And even after having it shouted at them that they were slapped for a reason, stayed pissed over having been slapped at all. And that's the danger of such an approach. Different people respond differently.
BLM got what they wanted from Sanders and many of his followers, but alienated others. Sanders matters more, given his position, so overall, their tone was effective, when his had not been.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)You can have the same message, but it comes across to different people differently depending on the words you use, aka the 'tone'.
I can say the same words to two different people, and have them interpreted in entirely different ways. What I transmit as message is different because I didn't customize my tone to each person.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)relates to feminism. We should be sweeter- just like BLM should have. Bernie was slammed for being "tone deaf" - not thinking how wrong it is to pivot to "unemployment" immediately when talking about murdered teenagers, and pivoting away from the issue of police violence. It appeared he was not listening and wanted to make it about economics when it was not. That is tone deaf. Being clueless to how wrong something sounds.
Tone is only about delivery, tone deaf is not.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and figure out the disconnect between them and BLM/AA, not from what they are trying to say; but, from what BLM/AAs are hearing. A good starting point would be ... looking at what they (the campaign) are saying, compared to what HRC is saying ... one clearly resonates with BLM/AAs, the other is not ... whether you like it or not.
Note: I stopped reading when I saw references to Dr. Martin Luther King ... I've seen enough re-interpreting of his legacy for a life time. When I come back to read your entire post, I will see whether that holds true (i.e., reinterpretation) for your references, or not. If not, I will come back to apologize.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and if only he can bring his supporters along with him.
But I suspect, sadlt, the Bernie campaign is concerned that/weighing whether doing so would lose some of his most ardent supporters.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Sometimes you do the right thing even when people are hoping you won't so they can jump on you for it. But you do it anyway because it's the right thing.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)racial justice, or even the BLM movement specifically. I think that just like any other politician, there are a number who have too deeply invested themselves in the 'him' image they have built in their own head, rather than the him that exists separately in reality, and by making 'him' part of their own psyche automatically take anything they perceive as an attack on 'him' as an attack on them.
He (the real politician) can drag them along by evolving his positions and priorities, but they'll always hold hidden grudges against those they feel have insulted or attacked 'him'. So it's not actually about racism, racial justice, or anything along those lines, but simply about the tendency of people to want to 'personalize' and 'make mental friends of' politicians, celebrities, sports teams, or indeed, political parties. To create a 'special relationship' that exists only in their own minds, that requires them to 'defend' their 'friend'.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that there is any animus towards racial justice among (most) Bernie supporters ... rather that, a shift any from economic primacy, would not be well met, as it is what many "paid to hear."
Perhaps, the two ideas are inter-connected?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)for so many decades that anyone who thinks he'll 'abandon' it, even when working more on other issues would be deluding themselves.
Of course, there are lots of people who never really knew him until now, so it's possible those folks might feel he's 'changed'.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)But maybe I 'm misreading you?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I was/am referring to a shift away from economic primacy, from what I am seeing, would not be met well by a (significant(?) segment of Bernie's supporters ... not because of any animus towards social/racial justice; but rather, because it is a shift away from economic primacy.
And I would argue that those that claim, "we can do both", are belied by their many variations of arguments for why we really don't need to do both ... e.g., economic justice will bring social justice, etc.
n8dogg83
(248 posts)Without having seen the segment, though, I would just advise my fellow Bernie supporters to take a lesson from Netroots Nation encounter and refrain from any attacks on the BLM movement. We all know that the issue of systemic racism in our society is vital and we need to keep focusing on it. Bernie will continue to speak out about this issue without lecturing or criticism of BLM, and we should follow his example. We as his supporters need to be talking about racial justice issues and help to inform the Sanders campaign about what specific policies he can advance to address them. Whether BLM thinks Bernie (or his supporters) are sincere or not is really up to them and that may not be something we can really influence, but we should still talk about these issues simply because its the right thing to do.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)+1
Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts)economics and race, that are intricately tied together.
Furthermore, the destructive, overwhelming economic power created by the extreme disparate incomes that the U.S. suffers from today between the string pullers and the vast majority of the American People is especially magnified by Citizens United.
I believe your OP is first rate and admirably connects these parallel issues of race and economics coupled with history and the candidates' long time records and statements.
Thanks for the thread, gobears.
LuvNewcastle
(16,844 posts)Certain 'leaders' of BLM are obviously Hillary supporters. That's their prerogative, but it pisses me off to see them trash Bernie in the process. All you have to do is look at the candidates' records to see if anyone is tone-deaf on race, or if anyone has a history of pandering to certain groups in order to win elections. If anyone wants to support Hillary, that's also their choice, but don't pretend it's because she cares about racial injustice and Bernie doesn't.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)burned by the Hillary Clinton supporters after this one though. Sorry to have to say that.
Thanks for taking the time to put into words what I'm sure a whole lot of people are thinking and feeling.
kenn3d
(486 posts)Thanks Gobears, for standing up for your sincere beliefs. Great post.
It seems to me that...
There has been an element of BLM from its start which belies it's roots in the obvious black cause which good Americans of ALL races support and uphold. There has been from the start an aspect of the BLM movement which appears to be overtly and intentionally anti-Sanders (and perhaps anti-O'Malley too) for whatever reasons, and is apparently (perhaps covertly) pro-Clinton.
Some part of the movement seems to be more about political persuasion than it is about the urgent cause to combat racism in America, which Bernie Sanders has championed for his entire adult life like no other politician on the scene today.
But PoC and white folk alike do and will continue to rally to Sen.Sander's righteous movement in ever-increasing numbers despite any efforts to jaundice the AA community against his campaign. And in time I suspect the majority of Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and all the mixed races of American citizenry will support his efforts to bring the US back from the brink of oligarchy and racism, towards the peace and equality for ALL that this country is supposed to stand for.
I sincerely believe and hope this, because all my children are black
MisterP
(23,730 posts)they also have personal connections with the party's AAs as a base (and they were central to the 1992 primary victory IIRC)
so word of the Clintons' policies that crush AAs doesn't spread as far or as deep, perhaps
of course it just makes Sanders talk MORE about racial issues and the racial dimension to inequality so I don't think they really workshopped this out
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Bill Moyers does a pretty good analysis that when Welfare funding and administration was handed over to state control, those states with heavy AA populations put even tougher rules in place that worked against AA interests, while states with more white populations benefitting from welfare had more lenient rules, so these laws put forth more obstacles and barriers for AA trying to do better in our society.
http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/12/how-bill-clintons-welfare-reform-created-a-system-rife-with-racial-biases/
Does BLM think laws like that would be better than what Bernie would put in place if president?
MisterP
(23,730 posts)remember when they blamed the Lebanon War on *Nader* even as NY's Dem delegation asked Israel to *stop holding back*?
from IWR to TPP, CCA to CAFTA--forget all this or they'll have to blow the GOP whistle
of course, Pavlov's dogs often tried to get away, too
BKH70041
(961 posts)It happened on MSNBC. Nobody watches MSNBC.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)people who feel so strongly about a cause that they are willing to risk arrest, ridicule, and the stern words of powerful people will not for long sit by and see that cause exploited for any reason, by anyone, leadership or not.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)By and large and by huge percentages. You can play the one off "But I'm a member of that group and I don't feel that way" game all you want. It doesn't change the reality.
Whether it is women, Latinos, union members, POC or whoever else, groups will give their support when they believe it's earned. And from the numbers it certainly can be said that POC do not feel that Bernie has earned it. You can go through a laundry list of stuff, it won't matter. Some of this is just a visceral feeling.
The irony is, I think Bernie has taken a couple of good steps since net roots, and I have said that here. But it seems that many of his supporters, and I include the OP in that, are determined to hurt his chances by dismissing the opinions of a vast majority of minorities.
Anytime you are saying of a group "Well candidate X should have earned your vote by now"
Which is in effect what the OP and others are saying you are in a bad place and being wrongheaded. No one has to tell women or Latinos or union members or POC etc., when their support has been earned.
tblue
(16,350 posts)What in the world more could Bernie Sanders have done--with regard to actual policy--to prove his uncompromising support for people of color?
People who don't support Bernie Sanders do not know Bernie Sanders and they are, at best, misinformed.
He is the most reliable supporter of the AA community and always, always, ALWAYS was. I refuse to criticize Hillary here, but I'll take his record on any subject over anyone else I see running for POTUS.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Nothing says one cares more about the poor than blowing them up to provide employment to our poorest Americans and profits to shareholders.
He could stand firmly behind Wall St. Dismissing concerns about rampant militarization, police states, private prisons and absurd minimum sentencing laws.
He could stand with Walmart. One of the fine corporations that helps men like Huckabee get elected and far right conservative radio and websites to disseminate hate.
For some reason, wealth without conscience resonates loudly with many people against all appeals for sanity.
That one can, through the financial backing of corporations, deny direct democracy for so many and still feel that one is a stalwart against the fires of fascism and a champion for those exploited, is a joke shared only by them.
Cha
(297,180 posts)have a true cause with Millions of People behind them who have Compassion and Empathy for what they're doing. We're there for them.. no "buts".
Donna NoShock ?@NoShock
#BlackLivesMatter #SayHerName #SandraBland
6:42 AM - 22 Jul 2015
40 40 Retweets 15 15 favorites
http://theobamadiary.com/2015/07/22/profit-and-loss-why-blacklivesmatter-matters/
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... black Bernie thing ... it isn't.
There's been, up till recently, little attempts to relate
bravenak
(34,648 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)I could not agree more.
As another person of color please be prepared to be dismissed and ridiculed here for what you are saying.
The straw men abound. The partisan attacks will continue.
This has turned into an Atwater/Rove playbook case study for sure. Sanders has the strongest record of any Dem candidate on both social and economic justice. So they turn that strength into a weakness. Phony rhetoric my ass. The only phony rhetoric is HRC's and her surrogates.
But the deeper level of propaganda is actually the Third Way/DLC technique of co-opting another 'progressive' issue, rebranding it separate from any economic connections, and then focusing solely on it. Pay no attention to the fact that Clinton, another fucking neo-liberal, will espouse and practice economic policies that are highly destructive to persons of color. Pay no attention to the fact that Clinton, another fucking neo-liberal, has a history of racist campaigning but is now suddenly the minority savior and champion.
If this does not backfire on her and people of color do not wake up to the shit that is being peddled and used against them, well then fuck it, we deserve what we get. I won't shed a tear if she wins the primary, loses the general, and things get far worse under Jeb Bush. I won't shed a tear if she wins the primary, mangages the win the general, and things stay exactly the same under her presidency.
tblue
(16,350 posts)and, if my heart could speak with profound eloquence and clarity, it would say what you have written.
I'm choked up reading it l because it is long overdue, so for now I'll just say I thank you from the bottom of my heart.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Just wanted to let you know someone heard you.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)So I will not pretend to tell black people what their concerns should be. Oh, and I am a Bernie supporter. Like any other politician, he will have to do what he has to do to earn his votes. Yes, I THINK he has the track record, but he has to "connect" to those whose votes he wants.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)He does a very good job of examining the parallels of economic and social injustice. It's a long article, but well worth a read.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)JI7
(89,248 posts)the area i work has a lot of bars and it's mostly white people around there and i see white people especially guys always talking shit to cops and acting like asses and nothing happens to them.
but for some reason black people seem to always get stopped for no reason. and this is a mostly liberal area also.
even i can admit and recognize i have some privilege compared to some others so why is it so hard for others to do it.
i do have problems with cops but none where i fear they will shoot me.
romanic
(2,841 posts)Id give you a million recs if I could to you OP. As a fellow minority Sanders supporter, I agree with every single word you said. I support BLM as a message but I do not support their egotistical "reps or founders" and their obvious shilling of Clinton. And i say that as someone who doesn't even dislike Clinton.
Don't let other people on here boo and hiss at you with melodramatic snarky remarks because you dared to be both a POC and a Sanders supporter. I and many others have your back and Bernie's.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Thank you for these nuanced words.
Scuba
(53,475 posts).... free press certainly isn't above asking a Hillary supporter to represent themselves as a BLM leader. It's kind of like Fox News having a milquetoast neo-liberal on and telling their viewers he's a "Democratic Party Strategist."
Thanks for the great OP.
Darb
(2,807 posts)I should have known. Got it.
A little wordy, IMHO.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Polls are dynamic, they can change. We expect them to change.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)The general tenor of an OP like yours tends to evoke rote responses. If they don't address your actual points then just take them at face value and don't let them get under your skin.
Response to gobears10 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Senator Tankerbell
(316 posts)Do you remember their name? Or which host they were talking to? I would like to see what they said.
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)Nada
Guess no one can draw conclusions for themselves
Sort of the theme so go with it I guess
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)of a movement,have the courage to name them.
Triana
(22,666 posts). . "are reading off of the same script!"
Not at all outside the realm of possibility.
"Hillary Clinton may be speaking on institutional racism, mass incarceration, and immigration now, but she certainly wasn't in the past. And even if she's solid on racial issues now, she still supports the traditional, neoliberal, establishment Democrat Third-Way centrist policies. She's the quintessential DLC Wall Street corporate Democrat. She's not advocating for a $15 national minimum wage, she's opposed to single-payer Medicare-for-All healthcare, and she opposes reinstating Glass-Steagall to break up the big banks. She's iffy on the Keystone XL pipeline and the TPP."
^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)These people will NOT call Gore the same as Bush--as Nader did in 2000, while secretly hoping that a far right wing presidency will agitate the left and get them mobilized. Some people must have the next president be a Democrat. Their lives depend upon it. As some one who has benefited from "white privilege" all my life, I know that I will do the same regardless of which party wins next year. However, I do not allow that to blind me to the fact that many of my brothers and sisters do not have that luxury.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Hillary is not change.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)rather involved and long winded, but bullshit nonetheless. This person wouldn't know the reality of the "inner city" or "depressed urban area" from their upper middle class ass. Still lipstick on a pig. Period. Disgustingly transparent.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)And Bernie supporters are the ones with a purity problem.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Some people have used "racismandsexism" for so many years in an attempt to conflate nebulous and dubious claims of perceived gender injustice with real, legitimate, obvious and structural racial injustice, that they've successfully created the impression that they're the same thing.
Thus, voting against a woman is racist.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)to this...BS. You have no idea what it means to be an AA in the real world. Geez. What unmitigated BULLSHIT!.
romanic
(2,841 posts)This is the second time I've seen you come after another black DUer for not saying what you like. Not everyone has to toe the line, get over it.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)and to you I say NO, I won't stop. It was ALL very finely woven bullshit.. I really have no interest in anything you have to say. Ever. Means ZERO,zilch, nada......
romanic
(2,841 posts)-_-
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Cha
(297,180 posts)descent. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)Cha
(297,180 posts)and nothing about whom they're attempting to target.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)Last edited Thu Aug 6, 2015, 08:35 AM - Edit history (1)
here are grabbing any and all straws to try to remain relevant when their irrelevancy is becoming more and more apparent each and every passing day. The truth always speaks for itself, this OP is coming from a clogged mind and blind eyes. I have dealt with these types of "progressives" many decades now and it really isn't new. Cast doubt on a black movement and it's leadership and hope it seeps into the group deep enough to cause friction and disunity. Classic disruptive propagandized BULLSHIT. This is going to be a 'fun' run up to the General Election.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Goodness.
2banon
(7,321 posts)akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)Can you post something that we POC can understand?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)we know these 'protesters' are not interested in listening to anyone, and why so many people believe and will continue to believe they are working for Hillary's campaign