2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumRemember when Bernie said social justice must wait for economic justice?
I do..
Well, here's what you got. What you got is an African-American president, and the African-American community is very, very proud that this country has overcome racism and voted for him for president. And that's kind of natural. You've got a situation where the Republican Party has been strongly anti-immigration, and you've got a Hispanic community which is looking to the Democrats for help.
But that's not important. You should not be basing your politics based on your color. What you should be basing your politics on is, how is your family doing? ... In the last election, in state after state, you had an abysmally low vote for the Democrats among white, working-class people. And I think the reason for that is that the Democrats have not made it clear that they are prepared to stand with the working-class people of this country, take on the big money interests. I think the key issue that we have to focus on, and I know people are uncomfortable about talking about it, is the role of the billionaire class in American society.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2014/11/19/365024592/sen-bernie-sanders-on-how-democrats-lost-white-voters
Signed,
First Way BB - setting the record straight!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)But, you know what people around here think of "evolving."
riversedge
(70,322 posts)not Hillary.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Today, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is most often remembered as a crusader for racial equality, not economic justice. But those struggles were inextricably intertwined for the civil rights leader, whose 85th birthday is being honored this weekend. Even during his upbringing, as he wrote in 1958 [PDF], he knew “that the inseparable twin of racial injustice was economic injustice.....”
...While Jim Crow laws are long gone, economic inequality—and especially racially stratified inequality—has intensified in recent years. President Barack Obama has even referred to inequality as “the defining challenge of our time.”
http://www.msnbc.com/all/mlks-fight-against-economic-inequality#49742
riversedge
(70,322 posts)Human101948
(3,457 posts)You are seeing things. Also known as Fiorina syndrome.
MADem
(135,425 posts)conscientious objector (rejected), and then quickly had a child with his girlfriend to change his draft status from 1A to 3C?
You really wanna go there with the Goldwater Girl crap? She was a KID. The voting age was TWENTY ONE.
smh.
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)
jalan48
(13,894 posts)Bernie seems to be the only one talking about how to deal with the gross economic inequality, which he sees racism tied to. We've had a black President for almost seven years-what has he done to deal with the stand alone issue of racism? Would it be best if Bernie just continued his successful policies aimed at eradicating it?
sheshe2
(83,934 posts)http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/19/politics/obama-zimmerman-verdict/index.html
Transcript
Barack Obama’s Speech on Race
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/us/politics/18text-obama.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
My brothers Keeper
https://www.whitehouse.gov/my-brothers-keeper
There is more go find them if you wish. Your statement that Bernie is the only one talking about this issues is naive at best.
Obama, to refresh your memory walked into the worst financial collapses, near recession. We were bleeding jobs, we as a Nation were hemorrhaging. People had lost a good part of their life savings.
He has been on fricking cleanup mode for 7 years from what the Bushcos left behind. The wars the economy, jobs, government shut downs due to a POS GOP congress that will now and always pull this Country down.
He has been vilified by the right and sadly some from the left. Nothing the man does is good enough. He has received more death threats than any other President.
What do you think would have happened if Our First Black President only focused on race?
Yet here you are telling me Bernie is the man.
Bernie seems to be the only one talking about how to deal with the gross economic inequality, which he sees racism tied to. We've had a black President for almost seven years-what has he done to deal with the stand alone issue of racism? Would it be best if Bernie just continued his successful policies aimed at eradicating it?
Sorry, Bernie will not eradicate racism by your statement. You state below that this is how Bernie sees it. Yet it is not what most black people are saying, what Bernie sees is not what people are living. He needs to listen. It is not his life, it is theirs and they sure as hell are not stupid. Stop telling them what you want, listen to what their wants and needs are.
jalan48
(13,894 posts)First of all I never said (or intended to say) Bernie is the only one talking about racism. I said, "Bernie seems to be the only one talking about how to deal with the gross economic inequality, which he sees racism tied to". I think dealing with the issues of jobs and poverty is key to dealing with racism. In one of the links Obama talks about programs to work with and help young black males, some programs possibly funded by wealthy sports figures and entertainers. Also, the "My Brother's Keeper" program sounds like a promising program. My point in asking about what Obama has done wasn't to disparage him (I agree Obama was handed a mess and has worked hard to improve things), but rather to see what is being done and what can be built upon that work. My personal feeling is that a massive jobs program is needed to get people of all colors working again.
The other issue is that of "racism" divorced from any economic ties (if this is possible). I referred to it as stand alone racism. What can be done to break down the racial barriers between humans? It seems like something much more illusive and difficult than creating economic opportunities for all people. So, I'm listening to ideas on the subject. Thank you.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)
boston bean
(36,223 posts)thesquanderer
(11,995 posts)He said that the color of the president's skin is not important. i.e. - it is more important to vote for the person who will better represent your interests than it is to vote for the person who has the same color skin that you do.
Disagree with that if you want, but nowhere in the quote does he say anything close to social justice being unimportant. Nor does he say that it must wait for economic justice. Really, the worst thing you can say is that he didn't talk about it at all.
Even then, not every angle of every issue is mentioned in every interview, by any politician. Not mentioning something doesn't mean someone has a bad position on it. In how many 2014-or-earlier interviews did Hillary speak about social justice? Are we supposed to draw some conclusion from that?
If you want to know where BS stands, or where he stood in 2014 (when he did that interview) or before, look at his record. One place to start would be
http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Bernie_Sanders_Civil_Rights.htm
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #3)
Name removed Message auto-removed
sibelian
(7,804 posts)You've nothing to say to any of us.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)echo chamber for people who hate Democrats. Either worship Bernie or go somewhere else!
sibelian
(7,804 posts)There is no Universe in which the statement "race should not form the sole driver behind one's understanding of politics" means the same thing as "social justice should take a back seat to economic justice".
Boston assumes a heirarchy of significance that doesn't exist.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Sure, he decided to tack on a social justice segment to his platform after the BLM debacle, but it's obvious that his heart isn't there, and what he's really about is economic justice and inequality.
I get it, you disagree. But I've noticed that a lot of Bernie supporters are now simply telling anyone who disagrees with them to leave DU. Why do you want an echo chamber? My guess is that even you understand that what BB is saying is (obviously) true, and you're prefer not to deal with inconvenient truths.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)Another bullshit post
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)It just deosn't mean what she's claiming it does.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Economic justice requires social justice.
Social justice is an integral part of economic justice.
If all Americans could have a decent income regardless of race, it would be the single largest thing we could do to improve social justice.
It won't end social inequality but it will be a huge first step.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)First we address the economic issues, then we get to the social issues. Why is the "first step" not reducing social injustice in the first place?
tecelote
(5,122 posts)What part of social injustice does not have a strong economic angle?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)We could have zero inequality and still have racial profiling, or we could have massive inequality without racial profiling.
In the 50s and 60s there was less income inequality than now, and median wages were keeping up with productivity games, but racial injustice was worse than it is now.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Lack of a quality education - educated people are generally less bigoted.
Access to more services - lack of transportation is a major problem when you are poor
There's more.
They are integral to each other.
- The OP is trying to say Bernie does not care about social justice - absolutely not true.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)You can find links between any two issues if you try hard enough.
Like I said, we had a lot less inequality and a lot more racial injustice in the 50s and 60s than we do now.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It is possible to address both at the same time. In fact, as people have endless tried to explain to you, they are connected,.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)olegramps
(8,200 posts)This is not only the case of African-Americans but also those of Hispanic heritage. The some cops see a welled groomed minority driving an expensive car and they think he either stole it is a crack dealer. Virtually every minority, especially Black or Hispanics can relate instances in which they were stopped and questioned solely because of their race.
Response to olegramps (Reply #100)
Ed Suspicious This message was self-deleted by its author.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Anansi1171
(793 posts)...comprise the largest reservoir of anti-black and anti-Latino(and anti-women) hostility that is particularly apparent in the workplace, in education and in the administration of government and justice.
Visit me in East County San Diego and I can point out concrete examples of what I mean...many.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... who voted AGAINST the social justice seeking Civil Rights Act in the 60s... Evidently social justice wasn't her priority then over Bernie who was fighting for it at that time in the trenches!
As others have said, the OP twists the meaning of Bernie's statements, and if MLK were alive today, he would be saying the same thing, as he also realized in his day that social and economic justice are intimately tied together.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... in order to solve the social issues as well, just as Bernie is trying to emphasize in his campaign that so many corporate bought Democrats try to minimize because they don't want to offend their paymasters. It's just too bad some of the voters don't see through that message of trying to deemphasize economic justice as a necessary cog of moving away from a fascist state that screws everyone both socially and economically that isn't the 1%.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Corporate donors that are "good businessmen" that spend that much money on elections and don't get that money back and then some in return would be stupid if that didn't happen. So, how else would you characterize those that give them back that money and influence if they aren't corrupt entities doing what their paymasters want.
You do realize that the Koch brothers helped create the DLC don't you?
Volaris
(10,274 posts)Only education and cultural interaction can do those things. It's why I think Universal Higher Education (by choice) is such an importnat Party Plank, however it gets implemented.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)attack". That person's post was nothing but a personal attack.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)
polly7
(20,582 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)On Tue Sep 29, 2015, 09:06 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Just leave.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=631750
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Is this the kind of behavior we have come to expect on DU?
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Sep 29, 2015, 09:23 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Boston Bean has as much right to be here as does sibelian. This is rude, bullying behavior and sadly, seen too much these days on DU.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Pot, meet kettle
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I see no violation in this post. Alerter pls get over your old self.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sorry agree with alerted. Be gone.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Maybe even 7-0.
still_one
(92,433 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)seaglass
(8,173 posts)idea why he came back.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)The ones that have been trashing DUers here for quite a while have a lot of gall calling others out. I'm not involved in the other site, but I could give two shits what they say over there. I learned to let that shit go back when a bunch of disgruntles got together and formed oldelmtree.
seaglass
(8,173 posts)that DI is supported by the owners here and if DUers can trash other DUers from there with no repercussions then it shouldn't be an issue anywhere else.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)It shouldn't be an issue anywhere else because the admin created their own site that does the exact same thing. And when someone here complained about DI, the admins reprimanded her for bringing that trash over here. There is nothing consistent about DU, lol. But that's the new system. Chaos. Forever may it reign I guess.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)but they still come over here. 
As Dan Hicks asked, "how can I miss you if you won't go away?"
Scuba
(53,475 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Which is fine: economic issues are important. But I don't see why people are trying to pretend otherwise.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)And that they depend on each other, and the economic justice issues are fundamental for everyone in the 99% of today, and the biggest hurdle to overcome with the 1% stranglehold of power we have today. The 1%ers will try to appear to be concerned about different segments of society by handing them periodic social justice partial wins, but many of those wins are "hollow" and doesn't fundamentally address the problems faced by everyone that affects them both economically and socially. The big battle today is to overcome the fascist takeover of our government that is the hardest to achieve with the forces of power aligned against it today.
There are many both in the Republican and Democratic Party establishment that are being bought to emphasize talking about social issues over economic issues, and not really solving any of them.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)If you're cold and starving and sick because you can't get healthcare, and you have billionaires putting right wing Republicans into office, and the social safety net is being slashed, and you can;t get family counseling or birth control, and your kids are starving and cold, and you're living in a society filled with desperate people which breeds violence....Those are social issues that effect everyone.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Bernie likes to pretend that there's no difference between the two, but there is one.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)You talk about socialism as some monolithic force in which there are no variation or shades of grey.
You like to blow off ptogressives with cute dismissive insults that sound a while lot like Rush.
You engage in the most simplistic forms of stereotyping, that usually contain highly insulting undercurrents.
Yeah, you do that and you'll get pushiback.
I've seen evidence that you're better than that. But your default position is hippie bashing and stereotypes.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)resort to personal attacks when you're losing an argument, but in the long run it's better both for yourself and DU if you try to defend your positions with logic rather than personal jabs.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)You want to disagree? Fine. Then explain WHY instead of meaningless empty phrases.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I don't think that the distinction between social and economic issues is meaningless. To me, it's silly to pretend that it's all the same. If anything, "social" and "economic" is too few distinctions, not too many. Even within these broad categories there are a lot of different issues.
The funny thing is, most people in the Bernie camp understand this -- their big complaint with so-called "third-way" democrats is that they are liberal on social issues but not on economic issues.
And then there's, for example, the pope. Very liberal economically, but still conservative (though much better than his predecessors) on things like abortion and gay rights.
As for Bernie, it's obvious that his priorities are economic issues.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)""f you're cold and starving and sick because you can't get healthcare, and you have billionaires putting right wing Republicans into office, and the social safety net is being slashed, and you can;t get family counseling or birth control, and your kids are starving and cold, and you're living in a society filled with desperate people which breeds violence....Those are social issues that effect everyone.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)ain't bad.
If you are saying that there are connections between economic and social issues, you're right. But if you're saying there's no difference, you're wrong. What Bernie does is prioritize the economic issues, and then emphasize the connections the way you have. That's a legitimate viewpoint, but it's not shared by everyone.
Other people believe, justifiably, that issues like racial discrimination or women's rights won't be adequately addressed simply by reducing inequality. For example, Bernie likes to talk about the post-war period as a kind of economic golden age, which in terms of inequality and median incomes keeping up with productivity, it was. But in other ways the 50s and 60s were no golden age at all.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)That's a reasonable statement. It's a lot different than the stereotypes and insults you frequently use. That's my point.
As for the rest......Bernie (and many others) who refer to the 50s and 60s are not saying that it was a perfect period. But -- having lived through them myself -- I can tell you that our economy was much more broadly based and more ethical than it is today. And wages and economic security did reflect profitability a lot more closely. And a lot more people were a lot better off.
We threw out those goals and rules after 1980. A lot of the rules got tossed out the window, and the majority is suffering for it. Bernie -- and the movement he represents -- are saying it is necessary to restore those regulations and ethical requirements of business that did make the economy work for everyone, rather than the few at the top.
Yes, there was a lot of poverty. And if you look back at history of the time, changing that by bringing economic opportunity to more people (and removing racial discrimination in the workplace) was one of the key themes of the civil rights movement, as well as liberals like LBJ and the War on Poverty. But the Corporate Government that emerged after 1980, tossed those goals out the window.
Bernie -- and those he represents are NOT saying the "social issues" don't matter. But they have to be placed in the larger context of economic justice as well.
Please read my response to Steve Leser below for the otehr aspect of that in political therms. Should all AA's vote for Ben Carson if the GOP nominates him, simple because he is Black?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)cause for him to be focused on.
I'm only objecting to people who try to pretend that economic issues are not his focus.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Wealth and Power.
Those are key issues that affect all otehr issues directly and indirectly.
Legitimate disagreement on priorities is not the same as branding people as socialists who want to take over all businesses, or hippies, or ponies and unicorn and some of the otehr insulting stereotypes you toos around so regulatly.
What I am saying is that rather than engage in deliberate flamebait, you would do better to explain your beliefs -- and defend them -- in the more reasonable way that I know you are capable of.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)get upset when I quote him.
He also stated very clearly that at one point he believed that the major means of production should be publicly owned. When I pointed that out, a bunch of people tried to pretend that "public ownership" doesn't mean the government, something utterly preposterous. When I ask whether he still believes that (a reasonable question, since one of his supposed strong points is that he's held the same beliefs for 40+ years), I get accused of red-baiting.
Then I point out the fact, supported by polls, that Bernie's supporters are wealthier, whiter, and more male than Hillary's, and the same people get all upset and start lashing out with personal attacks.
Even in this OP, we have more than one person suggesting that BB should leave DU and post somewhere else, and yet of all people, the person you choose to direct more than one personal insult at is yours truly.
Seems to me your concern about civil discourse is pointed in the wrong direction.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)And yes, at times I am guilty of it myself.
But it is how you ask those questions often using ritht wing insults, and the fact that you hang on to them like a dog with a bone is what I am referring to.
Look at Sanders platform, look at what he says today. Look at what he has supported as mayor, congressman and Senator. He has not tried to "take over" the private sector or impose a Marxist state. Quire the contrary.
As I recall, the Democrats, including Obama were the ones who pressed for the US government to take over the auto industry. Does that make them Socialist too?
As has been explained to you many times, "socialism" is a broad and very diverse term, just as "captalism" applies to many dofferent approaches. A small business owned by a kindly grocer and Jack Welch are both "captalists" but their approach andd goals and values are very different.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)As far as I can tell, though, there are zero Sanders supporters who take the "look at Sanders platform, look at what he says today" approach when it comes to Hillary. In fact, part of the reason that I wanted to highlight Sanders's drastic evolution from a proponent of a state-run economy to where he is now is to highlight the hypocrisy of people attacking Hillary for much smaller changes of opinion over time.
And the auto industry bailout has nothing to do with this. That was a temporary emergency measure, and a good one. But Obama never had any intention of permanently having the government run the auto industry.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Where does he say he feels that "major means of production should be publicly owned". I think it really depends on the industry. There are some industries where there are natural monopolies in some situations that need to either be strongly regulated, or publicly owned. Without that oversight we have more of the corrupt oligopolies that you don't seem to think is a problem here, but traditionally the Democratic Party has fought those "economic royalists" as FDR did when he was president.
He brands himself as a DEMOCRATIC socialist, meaning that the people have the voting control over who represents them and what policies get set up to govern them, not communist dictatorships like Stalin's that the Limbaughs of the world try to make their definition of "socialism" in to being equated with. Unfortunately, they don't realize that Stalin was just as much a 1%er system that the growing fascist powers of our country is here that want the 1% to control us instead of a democracy here too. That is why the Koch family worked with Stalin after WWII and also works to keep the 1% in power over us here too today, both through their control of the Republican Party as well as the DINO DLC contingent of the Democratic Party that they helped build during Bill Clinton's time.
Why don't you put in links to these so-called polls that try to categorize the demographics of Bernie's supporters. We are still at a stage of the election being more about name recognition without debates happening like they did in the past where they can have more of a focus on issues, which would have demographics be more balanced when those that traditionally don't have as much access to detailed information on candidates and their stances learn that more as a part of their decision process. There is a reason why DWS is risking damaging the whole Democratic Party and allowing the Republican Party to get far more visibility at this stage with debate messaging when the party screws itself with less debates. That is to give more power to the candidate that would rather the vote just be about voter recognition than a discussion of issues.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
DURHAM D
(32,611 posts)riversedge
(70,322 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)at that other site.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)Maybe.... But fits fine here as well. I am a member here as well as you can plainly see. Does that bother you?
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)you were extremely young.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
boston bean
(36,223 posts)Did I do something wrong?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Are you just hammering "refresh"? 'cause that was awfully quick.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)you, a very forceful Bernie supporter, to roll your eyes.
And no, the My posts tab lights up when someone responds to me. It is a feature of this website.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Also I'm pretty sure this exact topic has been hashed over about thirty times in the last three months alone.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)Posted because it seemed some needed a refresher.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I'm sorry you find nothing worth supporting in your own candidate, and so instead have to resort to lies and distortion in your effort to tear down, denigrate, and debase Sanders. I don't plan to vote for her in the primaries, but even I can see some merit to Clinton. Maybe someday you'll be able to achieve the same.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Have a pleasant day.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Response to boston bean (Reply #16)
Name removed Message auto-removed
boston bean
(36,223 posts)Response to boston bean (Reply #21)
Name removed Message auto-removed
boston bean
(36,223 posts)In my minds eye, this is what he said, and it's pretty much verbatim... That it "wasn't important" and that economic justice was the "key issue to be focused upon"?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Response to boston bean (Reply #29)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Over the years in countless ways, Sanders has said and done things that prove he is ALSO committed to racial justice, criminal justice, women's rights and all of the other "social issues."
He was referring to the fact that people should look at the totality of their situation -- and the totality of issues in society -- in terms of who they support. As a logical extension of that, should AAs vote for Ben Carson, simply because he is black. Should Hispanics vote for Marco Rubio because he is a Cuban American?
ALBliberal
(2,346 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)what, did I do anything wrong?
I'm sure you know.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)
Gothmog
(145,628 posts)Android3.14
(5,402 posts)'Nuff said.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)
riversedge
(70,322 posts)Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Her voting history and lack of leadership are actual data on which an ethical and informed voter can make his or her decision. She lacks credibility and the "proposals" she does make are so lackluster they mean zilch even if she meant what she was saying.
U of M Dem
(154 posts)Whereas the OP's "criticism" of Sanders is reaching to try and tarnish the astounding social justice credentials of Sanders because allegedly social justice "isn't a priority," (according to a quote that is selectively interpreted). I am calling BS on this selective interpretation.
This particular statement is a part of arguing against identity politics, inviting "voting blocs" to become informed voters - especially in regards to how everyone is being screwed universally, independent of race, religion etc. (gasp) by the billionaire class.
Sanders is a crusader for justice period. If you take a look at his credentials (voting record, activism, statements etc.) and are still convinced that he doesn't care about social justice then you are either actively not trying to hear him out (selective interpretation) or you are willfully ignorant.
Also, I do believe that Economic Justice begets Social Justice in many ways. Does economic justice guarantee social justice you ask? I am not that ignorant, of course not. Sheesh.
jfern
(5,204 posts)uponit7771
(90,367 posts)lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)If everybody voted her or his pocketbook rather than his or her racial, religious or cultural identity, the 99.9% would never have been taken to the cleaners by the 0.1%.
However, this does not mean that fighting institutional and personal racism is not one of my biggest priorities.
You can think economic justice is the key issue while understanding that social justice transcends and must be addressed separately from economic justice.
6chars
(3,967 posts)Or should they vote their conscience?
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)6chars
(3,967 posts)It makes sense that the more you have/make the more you pay in and the less you need back from govt (not counting the value of a functioning nation). I would guess that if we didn't have such concentrated wealth, but were more like a lot of European countries, it would be about top 10% or 20% should be paying in more than they get out. The number might be about 10% here. But people who, for example, have perfectly good healthcare through their jobs should still support access to healthcare for everyone. What doesn't make sense to me are people who are not well-to-do supporting policies that benefit the well-to-do at their expense.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Rich people need a strong, stable, property rights championing government the most by far both because rich people benefit the most from the free congress of society that a strong, stable government provides and because rich people have the most to lose by far if social chaos overtakes social order.
The idea the rich people (or their right wing and neoliberal handmaidens) want small government is absurd. Do you know how much it costs the US Navy to secure all of the world's seas in order to promote unfettered trade? Who benefits most from this huge taxpayer boondoggle that allows globalists to enlist the cheapest labor? The only kind of government rich people want smaller is the tiny portion of government (other than Social Security and Medicare, which they also want to eliminate) that benefits average citizens and the poor. Have you ever heard of rich people campaigning to slim down corporate welfare, the CIA, the NSA, the DOD, Homeland Security, the FAA, the Department of Transportation, jails or police departments? Rich people asymmetrically benefit from all of these federal outlays, in terms of both wealth generation and wealth protection.
Q. What do you call a rich person in the hinterlands of Afghanistan?
A. A warlord.
Do you really think rich US citizens would rather hire and train their own standing armies to protect their riches?
6chars
(3,967 posts)I don't think most rich Americans think their paying taxes as voting in their own economic interest - even if it is. I guess you are saying that even for them, voting their pocketbook really is voting Democratic. That's a fair point. I don't care how they come to vote for, as you say strong stable government that serves all of society, whether they view it as in their personal economic interest or just the right thing to do.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)"What you should be basing your politics on is, how is your family doing?....I think the key issue that we have to focus on, and I know people are uncomfortable about talking about it, is the role of the billionaire class in American society."
The role of the billionaire class includes funding the right wing Republicans who have been gutting voting rights and civil rights and social programs. The billionaire class funds the right-wing Republicans who have been rolling back women's rights, who fought LGBT rights tooth and nail.
The billionaire class also finnced the Teaparty and the politicians who stir up racial animosity, and tell white people to "take back our country" from the dark alien Obama, and the hordes of immigrants.
And "How's your family doing?" is also a basic social issue. The right to eat, heat and suport your kids, and have access to healthcare are basic social and civil rights.
And Sanders doesn't need defending on his commitment to criminal justice.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Well done and I thank you for saying it all so well.
MuseRider
(34,131 posts)As far as we have gone in this country, as divided as we all are it would seem that issues of equality could be best solved if everyone were not so poor, anxious, angry and worried. All those things work very well to keep us apart blaming everyone and everything for the fact that as hard as we work we can't get ahead. Issues of equality are my main focus and it is next to impossible to get that far into the discussion these days. Bernie seems to be on a good track, he never said they were not important nor did he ignore them. I believe he is working for relief to a beleaguered population then moving forward when the issues might hopefully get an actual discussion. I don't know if this is the best way but he is listening. The BLM issues were far too important to wait on imo and thankfully he heard it
ALBliberal
(2,346 posts)and more tolerant of diverse cultures and races imo. Tough to be educated without economic justice.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)Awesome post.
Remember, none are so blind as they who would not see. You have a lot of blind people around here.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Either
"Well, what Bernie REALLY meant was..."
or
"Neither Bernie nor his supporters here said that..."
That is what I have gotten so far.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Try it sometimes instead of rat-a-tat crap from your spin machine. You might actually get your points heard if you tried it.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)It's called context. The OP suggested he said social issues don't matter at all by pulling a short little segment. What Sanders believes is more nuanced than that. You want to disagree with Sanders on substance? Fine. You want to engage in actual discussion to see where there might be agreement? Better.
But if you choose not to engage in actual give-and-take, and instead decide to spout snarky insults and political-consultant cliches, than that's your own issue, not the fact that people don't buy misleading spin wholesale.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Sanders clearly said that the impact of the economy on families is a core issue that affects everyone.
But he has also said much more about social issues that prove he is not a "one issue" candidate. Instead he is cinncting a lot of different dots.
The mentality Sanders was referring to was that race alone is not the only consideration. If Ben Carson were to be nominated by the GOP, does that mean all AAs should vote for him, simply because he if Black? If the race ends up being Carly Fiorina vs, Joe Biden, should women vie for her because she is female? If its Clinton vs, Rubio, should Hispanics vote for him because he is Hispanic?
betsuni
(25,660 posts)Suddenly Sanders' own words are flame bait and but ... but ... but... he has evolved and ... HILLARY!!!!!11!!! Ridiculous.
earthside
(6,960 posts)My politics, in large part, is based on how my family is doing.
So, is Hillary arguing 'color' before economic justice?
Maybe I haven't been spending enough time on DU lately to understand this so-called controversy.
Is Hillary for race-based policies before standing with the working class that includes 90 percent of us?
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Why not now? It worked so well then.
TM99
(8,352 posts)social justice or economic justice anywhere in those quotes.
But that has never stopped you or really any hardcore Clinton supporter here at DU from distorting the truth to try stick with a meme.
And the more often y'all do it, the more obvious it is that the meme is just not working.
Before all of this racist bullshit began when he announced in May, we can see clearly that Sanders has and always will tie the two together.
So let's counter your lies with a truth.
Here is what Sanders said when he joined John Lewis and other Civil Rights leaders to mark the 50th Anniversary of Selma in March of 2015:
President Barack Obama and members of Congress gathered at the foot of the Edmund Pettus Bridge to commemorate the events of Bloody Sunday in 1965, when baton-wielding police beat Lewis, the future Georgia congressman, and other peaceful protesters.
Later that year, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, which protected voters from discrimination until the Supreme Court two years ago invalidated a key portion of the landmark law.
What Bloody Sunday was about was showing the entire country and the entire world how far some of the racist officials in Alabama would go to prevent African-Americans from participating the political process and from voting,” Sanders said. “What happened on that bridge that day was a huge step forward for democracy in America. But what is happening right now – not just in the South but all over this country – are efforts by Republican governors and Republican legislatures to make it harder for African-Americans, for low-income people and for senior citizens to vote.
The election of Obama, the first African-American president, is a sign of the nation’s progress in the past half century, Sanders said. “But we also know that much more needs to be done. Today, African American unemployment is double the national average while African American household income is $17,000 less. The struggle for racial and economic justice continues.
So please, take your lies, distortions, memes, and dirty politics over to that wonderful echo chamber that y'all set up. It belongs there with the other racist, anti-Semitic, and venomous bullshit on display.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)let's do our best to divide ourselves in the hope that a smaller democratic body will be easier to control. We can reunite later, really we can.
Just in case.
Now feel free to flame away, everyone here is well versed on this so I will not be responding.
Have a lovely day.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Let's take a high school English quiz and find the main idea of the quote you've given...
Well, here's what you got. What you got is an African-American president, and the African-American community is very, very proud that this country has overcome racism and voted for him for president. And that's kind of natural. You've got a situation where the Republican Party has been strongly anti-immigration, and you've got a Hispanic community which is looking to the Democrats for help.
But that's not important. You should not be basing your politics based on your color. What you should be basing your politics on is, how is your family doing? ... In the last election, in state after state, you had an abysmally low vote for the Democrats among white, working-class people. And I think the reason for that is that the Democrats have not made it clear that they are prepared to stand with the working-class people of this country, take on the big money interests. I think the key issue that we have to focus on, and I know people are uncomfortable about talking about it, is the role of the billionaire class in American society.
-------------------------------------
Funny thing is context matters. And intentionally distorting the truth is wrong.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)what Bernie is saying here is that white working class people have been voting based on color...
when they should be voting based on how their families are doing. As a rule, Black and Hispanic voters do not vote based on color. That is why it was so hard for Obama to win over those groups initially, because they were focused on who they thought would be best for their families.
but white working class people have been voting based on color...against their own financial interests.
"You should not be basing your politics based on your color. What you should be basing your politics on is, how is your family doing? ... In the last election, in state after state, you had an abysmally low vote for the Democrats among white, working-class people.
That is what Bernie is actually saying.
It is hard for me to have any respect for people who approach politics in this way....the political apple does not fall far from the tree.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)As it it was poor.
If Hillary wants to win she and her followers need to try to actually engage the issues. Otherwise they sit at the starting line and attempt to pull Bernie back. They're just not going anywhere.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)of the Hillary network.
it is a relief to support someone who does not resort to that sort of thing
actually I should call it.....lose at all costs.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)So he's never put social justice on the back burner.
To her credit, Hillary has recently 'evolved' on those social issues. Some people are just a little slow....or maybe too busy cozying up to billionaire sponsors.
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)I can't imagine how long you spent sifting through his interviews and speeches to find this 'smoking gun.'
"You should not be basing your politics based on your color" doesn't equal "social justice must wait for economic justice." Your assertion is false. He never said it, so you "remember" something that never happened. Gotcha fail. Setting the record askew.
Since you disagree with his statement, you tacitly endorse the corallary: We SHOULD be basing our politics based on color. I don't think its a winning prescription to address social justice, but we are all entitled our opinions.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)But you go with it.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)It seems that you don't agree.
Most people do.
Your subject title is disingenuous.
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Post removed
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...and I see that it is easy to interpret what he said as you are doing.
The way I would have put it is, it is easy for politicians to voice their support for social issues such as voting rights, racial justice, acceptance of LGBTQ, and other social issues. It is easy because these positions do not come with a price tag. You don't have to have a line item in the budget if you support racial equality.
The harder issues are those that concern our lopsided economic system, that becomes more lopsided daily. If you speak out on these issues, the monied interests will fight you tooth and nail. But correcting this issue is the most fundamental thing we can do at this time and will also help to support social justice as well.
The monied interests don't care that much about social issues per se; however, they provide a convenient way to divide the population, weakening their ability to unite on economic issues.
Obviously my way of saying it is too long winded and dry for a political speech. Although I do agree his wording was a bit off. But you know what? He has not only fought for economic justice, but for racial justice as well as gay rights for a long time. And he has been consistent in his positions on these social issues. That is why I am willing to give him a pass for that bit of clumsy wording. It does not in any way negate who he is and who he has been for 40 years as a politician -- and it is fundamentally correct.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)
Stellar
(5,644 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Before the primaries, Sanders was held in the same universal regard as Warren is around here. Including for his support of social issues.
It's only when he started running that he started being portrayed as racially insensitive, against progress on "social issues" and all the rest.
If Warren were to run, she'd be subjected to the same distortions and mischaracterizations. People would dig up shit about her, or distort her statements and the whole ball of wax, in order to make her "unacceptable" to the very people she appeals to today.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)Obama is still a Kenyan born socialist Muslim with no birth certificate. He was elected POTUS...twice. What will be will be...I'm for Warren.
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
TBF
(32,106 posts)"Democrats have not made it clear that they are prepared to stand with the working-class people of this country, take on the big money interests." Of course Bernie said it, not Hillary.
Hillary with her H1B Visas and experience on the Board of Walmart has done nothing to show us how she will bring jobs back to THIS country. She has only showed us her support for investment bankers and out-sourcing. The rank and file of this country have had enough of that perspective.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Disgraceful post.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)What Bernie's saying, is the two are intertwined inextricably, and insisting
on one at the expense of the other is hugely counter-productive.
smilingwen
(52 posts)was the point. He is saying we need to talk about the role the Billionaire class has in society BEFORE we can solve economic injustice or racial injustice. The headline is totally misleading if you just read the paragraphs
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Except in your lame attempt to spin it.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)I am beyond bored with this.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)and it is enormously tiresome.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)He's right in what he said. Period.
You're misrepresenting things a lot here. What Bernie is saying is that you should vote for the candidate who best represents your self interests and simply doing so based on someone's color of skin is wrong. People need to study candidates and know where they stand on the issues and get to know where their strengths and weaknesses are. We're seeing this exact same scenario now repeated with many Hillary voters with the attitude of "too many men, it's time for a woman" and that is the only reason why they're voting for Hillary.
You want proof? https://twitter.com/bettygiles53/status/648546255136780288 and https://twitter.com/bettygiles53/status/645225502035329024
Stuff like that is around all over the place and if the only reason you're voting for someone is because of their gender or skin color, we're doomed. It's incredibly ignorant and shallow on an epic scale.
Sanders is correct, people shouldn't be basing politics solely on someone's color of skin. In fact, that almost sounds like something Tea Baggers would do. You should be basing politics on how your family is doing and who could best do something to improve your life situation and circumstances. Who best represents your values and who best would stand up for you and your beliefs. When Bernie says "is the role of the billionaire class in American society" you need to understand that very issue trickles down and impacts many things, from tax cuts (money that should be going to the middle class and the poor) to education which he, myself and many others see as a human right. On and on it goes. It impacts a lot of things.
You need to look at the big picture.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)At least he didn't say it in the quote you have falsely labeled as a comment on social v. economic "justice".
What he did say was "You should not be basing your politics based on your color", which is what liberals and Democrats have been saying for half a century.
You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to twist this into some racist remark.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)I don't see anything in Hillary's platform doing anything new for poc. Does that mean you are happy with the way things are now?
Are you suggesting that Bernie focus only on a platform supporting poc and women? And exactly what laws do you want passed to protect poc and\or women? I have seen racial profiling mentioned but that is already illegal and Bernie has said law enforcement should be held accountable for breaking laws.
What exactly do you want Bernie to say? And why do you not hold Hillary to the same standards?
I can only surmise that if one is supporting the establishment candidate they are happy with the status quo. The confusing part is that many that are supporting the statu quo have been the most vocal critics of it. Is keeping things the same so that they can keep complaining the ultimate goal?
DrBulldog
(841 posts)He said precisely that social justice and economic justice are parallel interrelated issues and must be solved together.
And he is correct. And Obama said the same thing when he visited prisoners in El Reno prison. Jobs and education and police reform and stopping black crimes on blacks are all tied together.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)should all remember. You are claiming he said those words, so show us that he did. I have a solid rule I live by. If someone wants me to indict a person for their words, they have to quote the words. They can't make up some verbiage, ascribe it to someone and then claim they should be indicted for that verbiage.
You want to hang a man with his words, you have to use his own words, not your own. I find this OP to be without any ethical center.
So no, BB, I do not remember Bernie saying what he never said, I do remember you claiming that he said it. And I will never forget it either.
PatrickforO
(14,593 posts)at least 50 years. So, now that Bernie has actually talked with BLM activists and Warren made that speech about social justice, what's not to like?
Sorry, but this doesn't convince me in favor of Clinton. I want single payer healthcare, free college, stronger Social Security, much higher taxes on the rich and a recapture of the 2 trillion + in untaxed profits corporations have 'offshored.' I want massive infrastructure projects that put people to work. I want to get rid of the so-called 'free trade.'
I mean, I know you guys are for Clinton, but WHY should we not all want these things? Clinton probably figures they aren't 'real,' but the suffering of the American people IS real. And we are suffering because we DON'T have these things that Bernie is advocating.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)That hasn't changed in our history, even with a war. Your OP is quite transparent.
Which is why...
You will not catch me with a free 15 minutes, in which I’m not studying something that I feel might be able to help the black man. Yesterday I spoke in London , and both ways on the plane across the Atlantic , I was studying. Every time I catch a plane, I have with me a book that I want to read, and that’s a lot of books these days, If I wasn’t out here battling the white man everyday, I could spend the rest of my life reading. Reading changed the course of my life forever. I didn’t go to college, my alma mater was books-----MALCOLM X (from the Autobiography of Malcolm X)
artislife
(9,497 posts)are good for proving a point.
The point they want to make, with little regard what the minority wants to make.
As a Latina, I see all the candidates out there and there are two who don't seem to use the minority for their agenda.
Sanders and O'Malley. I haven't really studied O'Malley that deeply, but his supporters sure don't like to use minorities as a rock to break someone's storefront window.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)the issues, whether they win or not.
I'm not a big fan of wasting my time whining about the outliers. My opponents bring pain to many more people than those few could ever dream to influence. Besides, with behavior is so similar the whiner and the whinee become indistinguishable after awhile.
I'll concentrate on worker control of the assets, ways to stop labor's output from being stolen, how to unfreeze people's thinking so they can realize they have been and are being trained and lied to for the purpose of keeping them in servitude, and ways to disorganize business.
'Cause the only way people are going to do better is if they take it away from the thieving bastards that took it from them.
All the rest is just Dancing with the Stars.
turbinetree
(24,720 posts)one more time.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251495072
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)question asked of her.
Question:
"What is at the heart of your opposition to same-sex marriage?"
Answer given by Hillary Clinton, 2008 primary cycle:
"Well, I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions. You know, it’s a personal position. How we get to full equality is the debate we’re having, and I am absolutely in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits, rights, and privileges."
And that's why I'd rather vote for Bernie. Sorry about that. I'm just sick of the whole 'voting for the candidate in spite of things they said about LGBT' routine. Obama got the last serving of that dish ever available. There is no more.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Bernie Sanders says no, and you're obviously critical of his comment. The logical conclusion is that, in that hypothetical election, you'd try to turn out as many white and female voters as you could find for Clinton, but you'd consider it perfectly natural for black men to vote Republican.
Fortunately, I think Clinton would win a high percentage of the black male vote, even in that matchup.
And, by the way, the quoted passage does not say -- indeed, does not even come close to saying -- that social justice must wait for economic justice.
frylock
(34,825 posts)
SunSeeker
(51,734 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Nor have I ever heard a Sanders supporter say it either. Hillary supporters made it up. The OP title is a lie.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts).... and true statement. Not everyone who is poor is a person of color. Nowhere does it say "social justice must wait for economic justice?".... so no I don't remember when.... and still don't.
It is merely a statement about how race should not be the deciding factor when voting.
Baitball Blogger
(46,761 posts)raising Bernie's conscious regarding minority issues.
They have made a difference.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Much more noise than signal out of the aristocrats and oligarchs.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Let's see how it works if we work on both at the same time.
At this point with Congress solidly in the hands of those who oppose both racial and economic justice, we have nothing to lose by taking our chance on fighting both at the same time.
Surely, Hillary supporters are not suggesting that we focus on racial justice to the detriment of focusing on economic justice? I am unaware that Hillary thinks that wise.
Both are needed.
We have a strong movement for racial justice. It has been well organized for decades. It has integrated our schools, made it possible to integrate our neighborhoods (although they are often still segregated for economic reasons) and hospitals and even many churches.
Theoretically all of us have the equal right to vote (although Republican gerrymandering and voter registration laws put that right in jeopardy).
We at least do have our first Black president (although he had a white mother).
(We've never even had a female vice president so that suggests we have made some progress with regard to racial equality that we have not made with regard to gender equality.)
In spite of the strong and active movement for racial justice, millions of Black people are still left behind in terms of education, living standards and acceptance in society. I'm white. Nobody follows me when I shop in a big store -- no matter how sloppily I am dressed. They assume I can pay for the products I pick up and try on. My Black friends -- another story. That's racial injustice. Black people, especially men, get picked on and murdered by police officers, denied justice, singled out for long prison terms. With exceptions, Black people in America are not yet free much less prosperous.
But at least there is a movement for racial justice. The BLM movement did not come from nowhere. It grew out of a campaign to educate Black people about their reality.
On the other hand, we have virtually no movement for economic justice. In fact, we have, in the Republican Party, a movement for ECONOMIC INJUSTICE, but no counter-movement anywhere really for economic justice. Back when, a person (at least a white person) could homestead land, work, and then get a job in a factory and then eventually form and join a union to demand fair wages, we did not need a movement beyond that for unions and fair business practices for economic justice. When FDR became president, the union movement pushed him toward economic justice measures.
When Nixon became president, when we opened up to China, when we had the oil crises, when the global economy began depositing cheap goods in our department stores, that union movement nearly disappeared and with it, what little movement we had for economic justice.
But, as we see from Jeb Bush's latest comments about people wanting "free stuff," the movement against economic justice survived. It is alive and well and coming to all our neighborhoods.
Even Social Security is under attack. (And might I add that the Clintons are good friends with the Pete Petersons of this world, those who would want to get their grubby, greedy fingers on ALL THE SAVINGS of Americans, even what we put into the Social Security pot and share when we get into our 60s and 70s and beyond.)
And while some Democrats and social reformers on our side may view the movement for racial justice as separate and not equal at all, it is very clear that Republicans and their strategists view the MOVEMENT AGAINST RACIAL JUSTICE and the MOVEMENT AGAINST ECONOMIC INJUSTICE as two sides to the same propaganda coin. Two edges of a mean and evil strategy that gets economic bigots cloaked as racial bigots (and maybe they really are both, probably are) elected over and over -- to the defeat of both racial and economic justice.
I agree that the most urgent problem for Black people in the United States today is to stop the police killings of Black people (mostly men).
But as a nation we can deal with that urgent problem while still building a very young, previously (at least in the recent past) non-existent co-movement for economic justice.
We have to. Because the only way that we can create a majority and win a majority for racial justice for minorities in Congress is to build a movement for economic justice for all people.
People vote in their own self-interest or at least what they perceive to be in their own self-interest.
In many parts of our country, the Republicans get white people to vote against candidates who would support racial justice by speaking to that primitive part of white people that blames their own poverty, their low wages and sub-standard housing and education not on the selfish, very wealthy people who cheat and steal in clever, legal ways, but rather on those who are different from themselves -- minorities including immigrants, African-Americans, LGBTs, even liberals.
Meanwhile, as Black Americans are targeted by bigoted police officers, the minimum wage remains $7.25 per hour, and we trade away our wealth and our economic future.
While the issues of racial and economic justice are two separate issues in many respects, they are one issue when it comes to the way they are used by Republicans to win majorities in Congress and on occasion, the White House itself.
I know this is complicated, but just listen to the Republican rhetoric.
The reality is that we must have both racial justice and at least a modicum of economic justice. Everyone should be able to go to a doctor. And personally, I think everyone should be able to go to the dentist too. I know that is an obscenely socialist idea to some, but I think that dental health is important. Seriously. When I lived in Europe, I had the right to see a dentist. It was covered by my single payer insurance. Why are we not even talking about that idea? Why are we talking about police brutality instead? Because we Democrats who should be doing something about both racial discrimination and healthcare for all issues, are arguing about which comes first. Well, for me BOTH RACIAL AND ECONOMI JUSTICE issues come first. I consider both to be SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES.
We Democrats have to be united around justice issues -- both racial and economic.
It is the word, "JUSTICE" that is paramount. Race and economics are two aspects of justice. We need one strong movement that is united in the resolve to change our nation with regard to racial justice and with regard to economic justice.
I am grateful to Bernie Sanders for listening to Black Lives Matters on this issue and for having the insight to see how these two issues, which seem to be separate to some including perhaps Hillary Clinton (I don't really know. She may agree with me on this. It would not surprise me if she did.) but which, because of the Republicans' linking of them, because of the Republicans' using the racial prejudice and hate of a certain element (Blacks and immigrants) in this country to prevent action on either racial or economic justice, are inseparable issues.
Personally, I think the issues are inseparable for other reasons. But this attempt to separate the issues of racial justice and economic justice and the media focus on separating them are intended to divide liberals and prevent us from gaining majorities in Congress and from winning the presidency.
We must not fall for this age-old ruse, as old as our country.
Divided (by race or economics) we fall; united we stand.
I call on Hillary and her supporters to stand with Bernie Sanders in the fight for both racial and economic justice.
And no to the privatization of Social Security. Raise the cap.
And free education in state schools for all academically qualified young people whether Black or white, rich or poor. That's just elementary.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)
I did see this, though:
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said Sunday that economic inequality and institutional racism are “parallel problems” that both must be addressed at the same time.
“We have to end institutional racism, but we have to deal with the reality that 50% of young black kids are unemployed, that we have massive poverty in America, that we have an unsustainable level of income and wealth inequality,” he said on NBC’s Meet the Press.
“We have to address both,” he added, referencing the efforts of Martin Luther King Jr. to combat poverty in America.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bernie-sanders-racism-economic-inequality-are-parallel-problems
MisterP
(23,730 posts)flagrantly contradict it!
heck, every time they pull this "he's racist! he's sexist!" feint the internet gets flooded with condemnations from the groups the proxies are trying to "ride" into office, and flooded even further with decades-old CSPAN videos showing him knocking the issue out of the park (even before 2015 Sanders videos were go-to resources for explaining the system to the uninvolved and showing your asshole uncle how he'd been hoodwinked by resentment politics); then people start paying attention to *Clinton's* stances on the issues, and trying to bring in the facts is labeled as white/male fragility, turning a lot of people offf
like a banana republic they can't even recognize that their approach could be counterproductive (no wonder Clinton loved the 2009 coup)
yeah, they should just keep at it, every time one of these sad posts appears Sanders's nationals goes up another 0.01 points--and it's cumulative, and there's hundreds of these OPs a month
people aren't just not being convinced by this argument, but being actively turned off from it: "Like, it doesn't MATTER that, like, Sanders has a record. He's, like, a dude, and really old and max grody, and, like, just doesn't get it, and I believe Clinton's, like, against war and fracking and neoliberalism because, like, she's a chick"
ALBliberal
(2,346 posts)to white people. How did that come from a person that is in line with racial justice?
Phlem
(6,323 posts) MindfulOne
(227 posts)Are you bashing Bernie for saying that we should agree with MLK?
Do you hate Bernie for wanting us to live in a nation where we will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of our character?
Don't you have another special site where you can express these feelings freely and with plenty of support?
William769
(55,148 posts)Signed,
Democratic way William769 AKA Bill - setting the record straight!
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 29, 2015, 05:03 PM - Edit history (1)
Flamed for posting Sanders own words.
Kudos to you BB. Keep up the good work!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Thanks!
MADem
(135,425 posts)Didn't you read the link? THAT was the HEADLINE! And it was followed by a whine about how the Democrats aren't "appealing to" white people and what they need to do to "fix" that.
Sheesh. Seems pretty clear to me. The OP headline was actually KINDER than NPR's....
Try to imagine yourself as a black person, reading that, as well as his other comments.
The phrase "lead balloon" should come to mind. If it doesn't, then I don't know what to tell you.
But hey....he's "evolving." Not as fast as my beloved Betsy Warren, but he's evolving.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Believe it or not, we are smart enough to fight more than one battle at a time.
MADem
(135,425 posts)That is WORSE than putting them in a priority order--don't you see that? Color, of COURSE, doesn't matter--IF YOU ARE WHITE.
He's dead wrong on this. He's tried to correct himself by inches, but no one is buying it.
Betsy Warren gave the speech he should have given months ago, on Sunday.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)But the headline specifically states that social justice must be made secondary. And the quote doesn't say that. After all, you just pointed out he doesn't address social justice at all, so how could he demand it be secondary?
It's cute when you shorten a chick's name for her. Shows massive respect.
Additionally, Sanders has made similar speeches. This OP had to dig back to 2014 for an example, and then lift a quote from when he was specifically talking about white people.
Would this make sense:
Q: Why do working-class white people vote Republican?
A: We have to fight for social justice!!
Yet that is the claim you are making.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And CHICK? WTF?
Gee--all things being EQUAL (and isn't EQUALITY, in essence, the whole issue being danced around in this OP?) you disrespect "BERRRRNIE" everytime you don't refer to him as BERNARD.
smh!
Perhaps you don't realize this (naaah--no "perhaps" about it), but people who KNOW Senator Warren KNOW that she has been called Betsy--not LIZ, not ELIZABETH--since she was knee-high to a grasshopper.
So maybe, JUST maybe, you should ASK about "intent" before you ACCUSE. I drove all those people to the polls for her because I "disrespect" her...yeah, sure.
And again--chick? REALLY?
Thanks for playing, though.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)As we can tell by all the melanin-seeking photo analysis.
Yeah, WTF with Betsy? Kinda the point.
Actually, I refer to him as Sanders. Just like I refer to her as Warren, and I refer to your candidate as Clinton.
Considering she goes by Elizabeth Warren in all her campaign literature and media appearances, calling her "Betsy" isn't exactly a sign of respect.
MADem
(135,425 posts)People who call Warren, the first female senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, "Betsy" LOVE her and would do anything to ensure her continued success. They do things like drive voters to the polls all day, from opening to closing, to make sure her vote is gotten out.
People who don't love her call her names invented by assholes like Scott Brown.
I guess you're having trouble distinguishing between what normal people would call a "term of endearment" (Betsy, Hill, Bernie) and an insult.
How interesting that you double down on your "no nicknames!!!" admonitions when conversing with a member of the primary opposition, but you don't lay down the law AT ALL when dealing with your own crew.
Seems a bit, well, (cough) "situational" to me. I guess some people are more deserving of lectures than others?
Enjoy the view from that high horse--take care you don't get a nosebleed from the altitude.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)you are welcome to do so. And people are going to notice you decide to apply a familiar, shortened name to a person who doesn't use that name.
For example, Sanders actually uses "Bernie" in all his campaign literature and media appearances. So he's effectively saying "Call me Bernie". Just like Bill Clinton uses/used "Bill" instead of "William".
How interesting that you are apparently unable to read a campaign's bumper stickers.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You might read her book. Or not--makes no difference to me.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)They were paraphrasing him and they are fraing it that way.
Here's what SANDERS said:
"Well, I am focusing on the fact that whether you're white or black or Hispanic or Asian, if you are in the working class, you are struggling to keep your heads above water. You're worried about your kids....."
And he suggested that "You should not be basing your politics based on your color. What you should be basing your politics on is, how is your family doing?"
He could have phrased it differently, but rather than trying to leave out miniseries, he was saying that the working class as a while should be joining together to fight for their common interests.
The logical extension of politics based solely on racial identity is that if eitehr gets the GOP nomination all AAs should vote for Ben Carson or all Hispanics should vote for Marco Rubio.
At one time liberals supposedly believed in things like uniting for common purpose.
MADem
(135,425 posts)title? That was MY point.
All that bit you're quoting (that was also quoted in the OP) sounds like SHIT to someone with any amount of melanin. It sounds like the same old "We'll take care of the WHITE folks, and you people can come take the leftovers off our table."
You SHOULD be basing your politics on your color--because that "economic" bullshit isn't going to put jobs in the inner city, schools in the inner city, community--as opposed to head-bashing-policing in the inner city, or even fix the POTHOLES in the inner city. And -- mind you -- "inner city" is an old term, that doesn't apply anymore in many cities. Why? Because the poor folks have all been pushed OUT of big chunks of the "inner city" and now they live in run down communities on the outskirts of these gentrified cities where moms push their double strollers down the streets where there used to be drive-bys, and complain about the dog poop that the dog walkers haven't picked up.
This is NOT a "We're all in this together" scenario. It's a big fat honking--and dare I say WHITE--lie. So long as black people are the last hired and the first fired, "economic justice" ain't gonna do it. All that "common interest" crap is just that--crap. It's real easy to talk common interest when they're firing five people, and you know it won't be you because you're white and there are five black guys working in the shop. Does this sound harsh? It should. Because it is some harsh, hard truth. And way too many white people just aren't copping to it, and they need to start GETTING IT. Black people aren't going to sit quietly waiting for their pie-in-the-sky anymore. One asshole is the same as the next. There's not much difference between a Democratic or "progressive" leader who ignores their concerns, and a Republican leader who does the same. Screw them all.
Betsy Warren gets this. Who knows, maybe she's gonna change her mind and run. She gave the speech Bernie should have given months ago this past Sunday.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Hell, even if you read the quote in the most uncharitable way, it doesn't say what your title does.
Just shameful.
GeorgeGist
(25,324 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 29, 2015, 05:51 PM - Edit history (1)
a single person on earth, no matter which race, gender, sexual orientation or anything else.
Do you complain when women are told economic equality will not benefit them??? Why yes ..... you do. You've probably posted dozens of threads here wrt the issue of women not earning as much in the workplace.
Why are you so against it when it comes to helping to improve the lives of people of colour? Of course it goes hand in hand with social equality - but one CANNOT work without the other. I honestly don't get what is so hard to understand about it.
This all has to have a purpose other than helping people of colour - and I don't think that purpose is an honourable one. Its shameful. It's even more shameful to accuse the man who's understood this for decades of being racist or whatever you're trying to paint him as, with his solutions. Especially when he's out there trying to learn even more, and learn from people who've seen and lived the suffering for most, or maybe all, of their lives.
Just one example: Dirty money funds the corruption that enables out-of-control LE to target young black men, send them to for-profit prisons, ensure they can't vote to change things, find a job when they get out, feed their families. Which, as the scientist below points out, leads to hopelessness, an inability to see a future, depression, and often substance abuse. Then they get caught - and around and around it goes. How can you argue this?
This scientist and researcher who lived it and knows the brutal consequences of poverty wrt the 'War on Drugs' and many of the other ways people are hurt by it.
Now, if you look at the history in poor communities—my community, my family—long before crack ever hit the scene, that sort of thing happened in my house. We were raised by my grandmother. My mother went away because she and my father split up. She went away in search of better jobs and left the state, but it wasn't just her. This sort of thing, this pathology that is attributed to drugs, happened to immigrant communities like the Eastern European Jews when they came to the Lower East SIde, but people simply blamed crack in the 1980s and the 1990s.
Another example is that, since the crack era, multiple studies have found that the effects of crack cocaine use during pregnancy do not create an epidemic of doomed black "crack babies." Instead, crack-exposed children are growing up to lead normal lives, and studies have repeatedly found that the diferences between them and babies who were not exposed cannot be isolated from the health effects of growing up poor, without a stable, safe environment or access to healthcare.
CH: Poverty. And there are policies that have played a role, too. Policies like placing a large percentage of our law enforcment resources in those communities, so that when people get charged with some petty crime, they have a blemish on their record that further decreases their ability to join mainstream, get a job that's meaningful, and that sort of thing.
The policy decisions that we make play a far bigger role than the drugs themselves. When I turned 14, for example, there was a federal government program that, in order to keep kids like me out of the streets, gave us jobs. Under these federal government programs, we had money for the summer, for clothing—it was great. When we cut these types of programs and kids have nowhere to go what do you expect to happen? It doesn't take rocket scientists to figure this out.
Now, I have an 18-year-old who, this summer, won't have anything to do. I'm trying to find him some sort of work. Having a federal government program for underpriveleged children, that was great. That let kids know that the society might care about you. We teach them work skills, we teach them something about responsibility, we make sure they have money in their pockets. Now, you take away all of this, and you miss the chance to teach them about responsibility. You miss the opportunity to help them put food on the table, to put clothes on their backs.
http://www.alternet.org/drugs-addiction?sc=fb
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016132112
The only thing you're 'setting straight' is what seems to be your complete lack of caring for the people you're trying to use to score points with, imo.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)That what happens when people get desperate.
polly7
(20,582 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)That's one problem I have with what he said and his campaign in general, and why I no longer support him as my #1 choice. He seems to be acting like we can't pursue upward economic mobility and strengthen people's rights simultaneously--as if one matters more than the other. He lacks balance in his platform. Another part of the quote I take exception to was the "vote your color" thing. Why is it all of a sudden considered "voting based on color" when most Blacks voted for Pres. O, but most Whites voting for McCain and Willard isn't? What about all the years where Blacks voted for White presidents? That comment almost sounded like an insult to people's intelligence and implying that people can't think for themselves.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Check out the thread on this in the AA forum. I said damn near the exact same thing. http://www.democraticunderground.com/118728148#post1
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)All you are doing here is trolling.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)Automated Message
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Tue Sep 29, 2015, 07:25 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Why don't you stay in your own foul playpen?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=633537
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Incredibly rude personal attack. Poster is in no position to be telling anyone to go elsewhere, especially those who have been here even longer than him. This cliquish nonsense needs to stop.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Sep 29, 2015, 07:36 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's an observation on a location and a question. Not telling anything. Fail.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What's with "especially those who have been here...longer than him." That makes them sacrosanct? I don't think so. - and the finger wagging about "cliquish nonsense" is too ironic.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Here's a thought. Don't dish it out if you can't take it. 'K?
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Since BB clearly has falsely spun the NPR story, I don't think hifiguy is wrong in calling s/he out on it.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: lol @ cliquish nonsense. I'm leaving all jury alerts until both sides straighten up.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)... Warren said for weeks and were dismissed outright
senz
(11,945 posts)Read for yourself what Bernie Sanders' position is on racial justice.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/
It's always better to get the straight truth.
