There is no such thing as a Third Way Progressive.

[JRLeft]

Third Way is an actual Think Tank. They are economically corporate like Hillary and socially progressive like Bernie who's progressive socially and economically. I'm sorry but that term or phrase is ridiculous.

[jfern]

1. Well, in theory there could be a progressive who only cares about economics

But it's a pants on fire lie to claim that is someone who got interested in politics because of their father's family dying in the Holocaust and who has the best rating from Campaign Zero only cares about economics.

[JRLeft]

3. Such posters are pro Hillary and there is no amount of facts we can present to change their minds.

They will never admit that though, so they lie about Bernie.

[Art_from_Ark]

8. Don't forget, Bernie also has a 100% rating from the NAACP

The cognitive dissonance among some posters is truly astounding.

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. They're trying everything possible to make their Third Way selves look better

because they know they aren't true Progressives, they're Right of Center. Just ignore that one.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[JRLeft]

6. I presented such poster of the thread with facts and the poster said I don't believe that.

Bill Clinton not playing a role in the 07 - 08 economic collapse. His signatures caused major harm.

[in_cog_ni_to]

11. Just a bit of advice -

Ignore that Op poster like the plague. Don't even bother reading her posts. You'll be happy you didn't.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[hifiguy]

39. I put no one on ignore,

but there are many people to whom I apply that very wise rule.

[in_cog_ni_to]

44. I have no one on ignore either. As another Duer put it -

I use "analog ignore."

I don't read their threads, I don't respond to their nasty replies, if I even read those - usually not, depending on who it is and just completely ignore them. Life is good!

[sabrina 1]

13. Facts don't deter those who are trying desperately to protect and defend the indefensible.

The fact is our party has been infiltrated by Wall St Investors, that is who makes up the Think Tank that is setting policy for OUR PARTY.

To even use the word progressive in the same sentence as Third Way, btw, THEY at least are HONEST about who they are, is simply laughable.

[JRLeft]

14. It's a complete joke and ridiculous post made by someone who isn't serious.

[Juicy_Bellows]

15. Yep. It's ridiculously obvious. Nt.

[riderinthestorm]

48. Actually I think she and her supporters are 100% serious nt

[AgingAmerican]

61. Serious people don't make things up then run with them as if they were facts

It's a cognitive dissonance thing. When what you believe doesn't match what you see, you make things up to reconcile the two. Baseless smears, strawman attacks, racial division, and conspiracy theories fill the void. This is what Republicans do. This is what we are seeing from several of Hillary's supporters.

It is toxic behavior, IMHO

[riderinthestorm]

63. Oh it's toxic all right.

But making up shit about Bernie Sanders being some kind of racist has gained traction here and obviously in other places.

The fabricated mash-up "Third Way Progressive" and the twisted philosophy outlined therein has a lot of recs so more than a few also believe it's real and serious.

Maybe it was all posted as a joke and a lark but when I read it several hours ago, the rising fervor of the OP leads me to believe it's not a joke to them. Granted I haven't revisited it (and won't). Once a thread gets past @ 200 posts I tend to skip them. I don't have enough time or energy to slog through to catch up.

[BainsBane]

96. I never saw anyone except Sanders supporters

make claims about Bernie supposedly being called racist. It seems that when African Americans, like BLM or members on this site, have the nerve to think they have a right to raise questions, that is supposed to be the same as insisting Sanders is racist. It is that determination to shut out the voices and concerns of a group of Americans that is deeply disturbing.

If I recall correctly, the recent OP wasn't about Sanders at all; nor did it mention him anywhere. The continual conflation between Sanders and his supporters demonstrated by Sanders supporters themselves is a strange phenomenon. It's almost as though they seem themselves and Sanders as being one in the same.

[BainsBane]

92. Said with entirely no sense of irony.

[bravenak]

95. Yes.

[Fearless]

4. Agreed wholeheartedly!

[Larkspur]

5. When they claim that they are Progressives, I dub them Potemkin Progressives

Hillary is triangulating, as she always does. A few weeks ago, she called herself a moderate, now she is a progressive.
Maybe by Halloween she'll call herself America's Joan of Arc?

[JRLeft]

7. Or move to the right of the tea party.

[Art_from_Ark]

9. Then she'll be

America's Maggie Thatcher?

[JRLeft]

10. She'll be a moderate republican like the rest of the Wall Street side of the party.

[hifiguy]

37. Yep. With a considerably higher level of neo-con

foreign policy than Obama has shown. Thatcher in a pantsuit.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Aka - Neolibs. Nothing "progressive" about them.

[Juicy_Bellows]

16. Well maybe progressive like a progressive slot machine. Nt.

[AgingAmerican]

18. It's spin nonsense

Projection on a major scale. Rovian BS.

[Chitown Kev]

19. Then what would you call someone progressive on economics

and not so much on social issues?

Because those people do exist.

[JRLeft]

20. Not Third Way. The Third Way is a group of investors and ex-Clinton administration

Last edited Fri Oct 23, 2015, 09:44 AM - Edit history (1)

cabinet members and staffers who want to push right wing policies. The policies of the oligarchs.

[leftofcool]

21. I see you couldn't answer the question.

I think Third Way Progressives is just about right.

[JRLeft]

29. No it's a think tank, Wall Streeters who've taken control of the party.

[1StrongBlackMan]

51. So, since you are married to the Think Tank's existence and not the ideology ...

would that mean that HRC isn't a 3rd-Wayer because she is not a member of that Think Tank ... even as her economic ideology may (for sake of argument) align with the Think Tanks?

[NCTraveler]

23. If they are supporting a democrat.....

They would be third way.

[ieoeja]

42. Blue Dog Democrats.

Who were pretty much brought to us by the same people who brought us the Third Way even though the two have opposition positions. But they know that social issues won't play in Peoria, so they're willing to sacrifice economic issues to get a win there.


Third Way may technically be progressive on social issues, but they also advocate triangulation on the issue and slowing down social progress. They have to. They lost too many Democratic voters when they embraced rightwing economics. To temper that loss they recommend we support social progress "quietly".

Bernie says, "I support a woman's right to an abortion. Period."

Hillary says, "I think abortion should be safe, legal and rare."

That last is straight out of the Third Way handbook. They recommend that you never, ever say you support legalized abortion without also adding that you are anti-abortion.

So the Third Way has absolutely no problem with Blue Dogs on social issues. Helps keep things quiet. Not too keen on them economically, but a win for the Party is a win.

[emulatorloo]

57. You are arguing a distinction without a difference

Both Bernie and HRC are for easy access to contraceptives and legal abortion. Suggesting that HRC is "anti-abortion" through the kind of word parsing you've done really doesn't compute.

Yes I understand your sophisticated theoretical argument, but bottom line there is no difference between Sanders and Clinton's position on abortion.

[Armstead]

50. Although it would make life easier, people do not fit into templates

You can have two people who total agree on most issues, but one who is adamantly anti-abortion and one who is strongly pro-choice.

Are they supposed to hate each other because of hat one disagreement, or is it more constructively to agree to disagree but work together on their common issues.

[Deny and Shred]

91. Bleeding Heart Conservatives?

[TheKentuckian]

121. The Pope, Democrats who voted prop 8 in California, Bart Stupak?

Wouldn't this "way" be the 4th or 5th one and by definition a distinct philosophy than the 3rd?

It exists but it sure isn't who the accusation was lobbed at at all.

Who are the people in the party who are most likely to be unfriendly to gay rights?

Who is always blaming and complaining about liberals?

Who is least comfortable with abortion?

Who stands with the Patriot Act?

Who is okay with wireless wiretapping?

Who gets all in a tizzy about dumb ass sex scandals?

Who cut and run on ACORN?

Who is looking at polls to plot their evolution?

Who pushes the stupid and failed Drug War?

Who are the proponents of the education deform movement?

Who is on the back burner the environment/drill, baby, drill bandwagon?

Who dismisses the right wing owning the proprietary voting machines?

Who plays "tough on crime"?

Who has had "very serious questions" about affirmative action or even opposed it over the years?

Who thinks the arts really aren't important?

Who are those people that called people's equal rights "a pony"?

Who kept and in some cases still keep extending every imaginable and some unimaginable benefit of the doubt to the blue gang murdering black people?

Individually maybe overall it wouldn't be fair to assume you have found your socially conservative/fiscally liberal folks but this is where you will find who you are referring to and you know this sure isn't Bernie Sanders nor most of his supporters.

I'm thinking more than anyone admits we may well have some considerable number of plain conservatives just dialed back from the neoBircher set aka not delusional radical regressives and/or open theocrats well you can be even Goldwater/Nixon/Reagan/even Bush right wing and be pretty squirmy in the nut job party for about any number of reasons.

I mean we are talking a party too anti government for any system, even fascism to properly function yet demand a big enough government to monitor every vagina, bedroom, phone call, email, and drop of urine from sea to shining sea. You can be pretty damn conservative and not be able to hang with these idiots. Those people didn't just go poof.

Enough with the convoluted and poorly considered attempt at a smear. Who are the social conservatives? First check with the people who are conservative on everything else and then take a look at the organized religion loving folks.

[NCTraveler]

22. Phrase doesn't seem to be ridiculous if you can define it so easily.

I think it's more ridiculous because it can't be easily defined. It all things to the right and disaffected voters on the left. As the phrase is used in du, it's definition is endless. One of those words that has taken such a beating that it has been rendered useless.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. If you can indulge in word games to paint allies as enemies, you are not seeking allies and you do

not sincerely feel threatened by your actual enemies. Look, there are some anti Clinton posters here who come to me as a Bernie supporter and rage at me because they want me to hate on Hillary, straight white men who were not fighting for equality with us who now say 'look at this date on which Hillary endorsed marriage equality, hate her for being late'. They do not understand why Hillary gets some leeway, that she has been so much on our side that she has endured abuse as our proxy. Bernie is my preference, but Hillary is just my second choice, not some anti gay villain.
We can't afford to take good allies and parse them into enmity. We have objectives still to reach. It would not be truthful nor useful to dress Hillary up as some opponent to equality in order to advance Sanders. The posters on DU who have tried to engender that sort of animosity do so for their own agendas, not for Bernie, not for Hillary, and most certainly not for the good of the people.

LGBT people have actual opponents, people passing laws against us and fighting those laws which give us equal standing. We don't have the luxury of looking for faults to find, of manufacturing reasons for complaint. We have enemies sworn to destroy us.

I figure those who feel they can describe allies as enemies for the sake of petty partisan politics have no idea what it is like to have actual enemies. I watched the Reagan Republicans laugh as tens of thousands of my community died so I will not be claiming Hillary or Bernie are my enemies. Because they are not and because there really are enemies to contend with.

[emulatorloo]

54. Very well said, thanks for posting this n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

53. No ... it's DU definition is clear ...

"One who disagrees with ME!!!"

[wyldwolf]

24. Wrong. Third Way is a political philosophy at least a century old

There is a think tank called 'Third Way' as well but they took their name from the political philosophy.

[hifiguy]

36. Not so sure about that.

The first time I ever heard the term was when Phony Tony the Poodle used it when dismantling real Labour and replacing it with "New Labour" to justify his cozying up to the British plutocracy. Bubba was an early adopter as well.

[wyldwolf]

40. I'm 100% sure about it.

The term "Third Way" has been used to explain a variety of political courses and ideologies in the last few centuries. These ideas were implemented by progressives in the early 20th century. The term "Third Way" was picked up again in the 1950s by German ordoliberal economists such as Wilhelm Röpke, resulting in the development of the concept of the social market economy. Most significantly, Harold Macmillan, British Prime Minister from 1957 to 1963, based his philosophy of government on what he entitled in a book, The Middle Way (1938).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way#Origins

In American politics, Bobby Kennedy has been called the first New Democrat by many:

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/steel-night.html

http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-8050-7792-6

Hammering away at the immorality of poverty and racism, he confronted crowds with their own ethical culpability and, regarding the Vietnam War, reminding campus audiences of the unfairness of student draft deferments. Rapturous throngs of voters ate it up and propelled RFK to a string of victories. Clarke (Ask Not ) positions Kennedy as a prototypical New Democrat who appealed to minorities and working-class whites alike by mixing liberalism with themes of law and order, free enterprise, jobs and local control.

This has been discussed many times on DU. For example, welfare reform in the 1990s, a hallmark of Third Way policy, took lots of pointers from both JFK and RFK plans. Bill Clinton baked a workforce development component into the '96 bill ahead of the full-blown Workforce development bill in '98. Work force development is an American economic development approach that attempts to enhance a region's economic stability and prosperity by focusing on people rather than businesses. It is essentially a human resources strategy.

This was a continuation of a JFK idea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workforce_Investment_Act_of_1998

Similarly, Bobby Kennedy argued that increased government cooperation with private enterprise would reduce housing and employment woes in the United States. THIS line of thought was paramount to DLC thought in the 90s.

http://www.4president.org/brochures/rfk1968brochure.htm

He sought to remedy the problems of poverty through legislation to encourage private industry to locate in poverty-stricken areas, thus creating jobs for the unemployed, and stressed the importance of work over welfare.

http://rfkcenter.org/robert-f-kennedy

[Broward]

27. Just a new meme pushed by Hillary supporters

to try to justify their backing of a conservative.

[Renew Deal]

28. Bwahahahahaha

[riversedge]

78. Who is the conservative??

[Armstead]

30. It's more nuanced than that historically and today. But....

the frame it has been cast in this campaign on DU and elsewhere is totally shallow and ridiculous.

There is fodder for intelligent discussion and debate about Big Tents and specific issues and demographics, human nature, social norms, historical forces....and divisiveness, identity politics, the GOP Southern Strategy, etc.

But the emotional tenor of the subject here is wayyyyyyyy too simplistic and needlessly polarizing in an Either/Or way. It casts candidates and supporters in distorted "factions" that are ultimately a circular firing squad for all efforts to advance economic, social, racial, sexual and overall human justice.

[hifiguy]

35. The essence of Third Way is a fatally flawed attempt

to combine Reagan/Thatcher plutocratic trickle-down economics with tolerance (often somewhat grudging at that) of moderately liberal positions on things like racial justice, reproductive rights and LGBT rights. Add a healthy dollop of imperialist/neo-con foreign policy and et voila!

But its core is and always will be Reagan/Thatcher economics and an intimate relationship, particularly financially, with the oilgarchs, the plutocrats and the MIIC.

Sometimes things are simple to explain.

[Armstead]

45. That's not what sparked this discussion

The Op was referring to a bi of flame bait that was posted here about "Third Way Progressives," which was defined as being economically liberal but socially conservative -- basically a creative new way to bash Sanders supporters.

[hifiguy]

47. The Hillionaires have come up with

So much utter bullshit us Sanders supporters I've lost track of them all. It's like climbing a mountain of zoo waste. Every day a new kind of animal crap.

[beam me up scottie]

66. "basically a creative new way to bash Sanders supporters"

Exactly.

I suggest we ignore the flamebait, it only exists to provoke Bernie supporters into hides.

[liberal_at_heart]

109. I agree. I would caution all Bernie supporters to be careful. The ones that come over here

trying to start crap are probably over on that other site biting their nails with anticipation at trying to get Bernie supporters to say something that gets them hidden and banned.

[beam me up scottie]

112. Oh I have no doubt that's the case.

We know they alert stalked cali so it's not like that's not in their wheelhouse.

Bernie supporters need to remember that's the goal and walk away.

[Bluenorthwest]

62. Do your homework, learn your timelines. You will find that DLC/Third Way 'supported LGBT rights'

or 'racial justice' when such issues became useful and safe for them, not one moment sooner. The fact that they co-opt verbiage well should not allow them to confuse you on these matters. That segment of Democrats was in fact the final segment of Democrats to come around on LGBT rights, then later marriage equality and they were the actual focus of persuasive activists because they were the worm that had to be turned, the Republicans were not going to, the resistance that mattered was in this Party, and it came from the right and center of this Party.

[hifiguy]

67. Hence my use of the word "grudging"

though I perhaps should have said "poll driven," which I admit would be more accurate. And FYI I do NOT take being lectured to well, particularly when the lecture is delivered with a vaguely condescending sneer.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

31. Yeah, that one had me --

scratching my head last night.

[Zorra]

32. K&R! nt

[JaneyVee]

33. Third Way progressive = someone who only cares about progress if it is...

Their preferred candidate at the helm. If not, they are willing to throw their vote away and any notion of progress gets thrown under the bus.

[hifiguy]

34. True. It is a perfectly cancelling oxymoron

like jumbo shrimp, military intelligence/music or Justice Scalia/Thomas.

A complete abnegation of one term by the other.

[TwilightGardener]

38. No, there isn't.

[HereSince1628]

41. But, if you keep the signifiing jargon of group names a muddle

you can convince regular folks of almost anything.

[Bobbie Jo]

43. This dismissive thread

and many of the pompous remarks therein, demonstrate bravenak's point perfectly.

Keep it up...

[Skidmore]

46. A good demonstration of

still not understanding how social justice is unequally applied.

Bobbie Jo is right. Keep digging.

[Armstead]

49. And how exactly would improving everyone's economic situation hurt social justice?

[bravenak]

52. Because it would improve yours more than mine giving you extra power over me.

Unless all animals are equal, but animals like yourself are MORE equal and deserve a fairer portion to my crumbs. Until we achieve equality, you will always be MORE Equal than I in this nation. Do you think it is fair that whites will recieve more per capita than blacks because of the structural and institutional, not to mention interpersonal, racism inherent in our society? Should I be satisfied with a smaller, womans, black share?

[Armstead]

55. That makes no sense

You talk like we live in a world where it is not possible to improve one thing without first totally resolving something else.

We can not attempt to raise anyone's wages until all traces of racial bias is eliminated from the earth. And we can not even start to improve the economic status of any socially disadvantaged demographic group until all of the other issues that harm them are solved.

That makes no sense.

The world does not work that way. Never has, never will.

[bravenak]

56. When have blacks gotten an equal share of the pie, comparable to their population?

When? Name a time that white, straight men have not gotten more.
Then tell me the plan to ensure we all get our fair share. Women still make less. Blacks even less. Hispanics. Pacific Islanders. What is this maginificent plan to ensure all of our children are educated from pre k to 12 equally? Policed equally? Treated equally? Because we will not get our fair damn share unless this happens. If we do not change the inequalities between the sexes and races, you as a white man will get more than me as a black women. Is that fair? Should I trust that this time will be different because a caucasian gentleman assures me it is so? How often have those promises from those gentlemen co e to fruition? Never. They never have.

You say improve, but your people are already way above mine. On e we get to your level then I might believe the promises. Until then this feels like a treaty signed between the white man and native americans. False promises and honeyed dreams.

[Armstead]

59. Sorry I'm not going to enter this topsy turvy universe

"I can't fix my brakes until I've fixed the cracked valves in the engine. And I can't fix my engine until I've fixed the brakes."

While you are correct that we live in an unequal society, your view of what is needed to improve it is so unrealistic and counterproductive for anyone - including those you claim to represent - that I can't even think of a way to discuss it with you.

[leftofcool]

64. Here is a tip: Try the AA Group for more information.

[riderinthestorm]

71. I don't post or visit any of the protected groups

if their discussion can't occur in the "public square", then I'm not really interested in an echo chamber.

I've read the arguments that social justice trumps economic justice and I'm unconvinced. I've listened to their complaints about Sanders or Clinton and can form my own opinions. If DU's AA's aren't willing to air their arguments without "protection" then they have some fatal flaws in my mind.

I'm bi-racial fyi (AA/white).

[bravenak]

73. This is why I call it third way progressivism. Equality must not be discussed. Equality for me is

impossible and not something they want to work for. They want me to work for their utopia.

[bravenak]

114. What makes you think I don't work? My color or what? Hell, just having two kids is work!

I think you are being rude and nasty.

[AgingAmerican]

68. You think taking power from the oligarchy, and giving it back to the people somehow victimizes you?

That putting power back into the hands of the people will somehow harm POC? That is ridiculous.

Name a single country on earth without economic justice that has social justice. There isn't a single one, and there never has been. Without economic justice the poor have no power and the oligarch's control everything. You will not find social justice under the oligarchs. It won't happen ever. All you will get under the oligarchs is less and less rights.

The only way to get social justice in this country is by educating people. A level of a person's bigotry is, in general, inversely proportional to their parents education level. In short, uneducated parents tend to be prone to bigotry and raise kids who are bigots. College graduate parents tend not to be bigots, and tend not to raise bigoted kids.

Education is the only way out of this mess, IMHO.

[hifiguy]

70. That, AA, is the kind of "logic" that was on display

all day yesterday in the Benghazi witch hunt. Very much par for the course.

[bravenak]

74. I am receiving proper education. I try to educate those who have no experience being the slave class

The non slave class is often my oligarchy not just the wealthy. The slave class gets shit on by all, not just the rich. Working class and professional white are at times quick to shut the slave class out of the system, then turn around and point to the oligarchy as the guilty party while ignoring their own complicity.

[riderinthestorm]

81. Your entire post is about economic slavery

yet you're the first to disavow the connection.

How many whites get food stamps v black folks?

I am in no way diminishing white privilege but this post isn't persuasive.

Even you are falling back on economic justice to bolster your social justice first! arguments.

They ARE intertwined.

Fyi, most slaves these days are In India, China and Pakistan. So not AAs. 22% are sex slaves. An estimated 26% are child slaves.

I find your casual use of "slavery class" in the US to be deeply repugnant. Those of us who have worked in human rights fields are sensitive to the nuances.

[bravenak]

83. And cultural slavery. Same victims.

And even the poor whites took advantage. At times free black men were sold into slavery by poor whites as revenge for succeding in trade.

[riderinthestorm]

88. Uhm, word salad? Care to expand on that?

i have no idea what you're trying to say.

The realities are today's "slave class" is very real. And it's not AAs. Not by a long shot. They're non-AA women and children primarily exploited for sex and labor.

Whatever historic grievances there are in the US (and I agree with ALL those grievances), I still say your casual usage of "slave class" is deeply offensive. It's completely dismissive of very real and horrific slavery going on today which isn't AA. Slavery certainly exists in the US (and internationally), and you diminish that reality by comparing AA plights with slavery today.

[bravenak]

94. I am discussing american history and culture not world culture.

Just because it causes you to think of slavery in other places does not mean that those cases of slavery were ever referenced in my post at anytime. As we are discussing american politics and american culture, I am keeping it strictly to that.

Regardless of your offense I am allowed my own interpretation of events and from my own perspective.

Strange that my posts are so offensive, but posts about 'race naggers' and stockholm syndrome never seem to alarm those so offended by my posts and the cultural sensitivity that should be shown to black americans. Even some who are self described aa or mixed, often seem to completely disregard posts calling blacks racist, race baiters, stockholm syndrome victims, leading me to believe they are either not who they claim to be or that they in fact support those statements themselves. Or perhaps they are hypocrits and find a measure of glee or comfort in find posts from fellow aa's to be annoyed by while ignoring race nagger posts and the like. Really I am still attempting to solve the puzzle that those individuals are.

[bravenak]

98. You are being very rude and condescending.

[riderinthestorm]

102. YOU brought up "slave class".

when challenged on this verbiage you say I'm rude and condescending?

I took you as a serious poster but when challenged you resort to ad homs????



Your provocative, erroneous and excessive rhetoric doesn't get a pass from me regardless of our sisterhood. I'd like to actually dialogue. You seem to prefer throwing verbal bombs while getting in a snit if anyone challenges you.

[bravenak]

103. You are still being very rude

[riderinthestorm]

104. Sorry you're so fragile on an anonymous msg board

Debate the points or not. You're the one who threw the bomb into this discussion. You could always retract it.

Because you're wrong imo.



Or actually tell me why I'M wrong instead of resorting to an ad hom just saying I'm "rude".

I've spent 30 years working with women's shelters. Im also bi-racial. Im no naïf to the facts, locally or globally.

[bravenak]

105. That was also rude. You know nothing about my experiences.

If you did know my life story, after you wiped your tears, you would be proud to be my fellow black woman with me. You would love me.

[bravenak]

113. You are being rude.

[William769]

116. Not any more, at least in this thread.

On Sat Oct 24, 2015, 08:13 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

"You would love me."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=718070

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is very rude and nasty

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Oct 24, 2015, 08:34 AM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Ugh
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree with the alert. This is beyond the pale. Hide.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: As a firm believer in free speech, combined with an awareness of how nasty the "internet" can be, I almost never vote to hide a post. However, the implication that the poster may need professional help is over the top.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[bravenak]

117. Thank you.

Glad you were on the jury, thank you alerter!

[Scootaloo]

79. You're reminding me of an image that got some head-nods around here.

Thing is Bravenak, you seem to be making the assumption that anyone talking about economic equality must be talking about an equal boost (the left image) rather than equal results (the right image.)

[bravenak]

84. Not any. You saw me write the one who focus solely on economics!!!

[Scootaloo]

86. I think that's a straw man, though.

There's no one - at least not here - who focus "solely" on economics. There are plenty who prioritize it, but #1 on a list is still part of a list.

[bravenak]

87. Prioritize to the point of making excuses for straight up racism.

[Scootaloo]

89. Such as?

[bravenak]

90. Stockholm Syndrome, Race Nagger, Race Baiter (only towards blacks and their defenders)

Comments about welfare. Threats to pull white support unless blacks behaived as they preffered. Conspiracy theories indicating that blacks would only bother bernie if they were paid by a white person(we lack agency), harassing the aa group, sending me letters calling me race baiter to my home, rushing around in droves to tell every black person with an opinion how much they owe bernie for fighting for their rights, harassing black hillary supporters all over the place....

[Scootaloo]

99. Ah, see, I thought we were talking about policy positions

Since, y'know, that's what we were talking about, the notion that people are solely concerned about economics, to the point where they are giving racism a pass.

[bravenak]

101. He cannot organize his people. The atmosphere is bad.

He refuses to discuss it. It shows how he handles the concerns of blacks. I literally think somebody would have to interrupt him several time and shut down events to even get him to say boo about it. What policy can he get through congress? NONE
So how is he going to get any policy through? REVOLUTION
That's the plan. MILLIONS IN THE STREETS
yeah right

[Scootaloo]

107. Really, Bravenak?

• Candidates don't tend to organize the anonymous hordes of the internet.

• Refuses to discuss those same anonymous hordes? Yeah. Imagine, candidates not jogging to keep up with inane shit on the internet. Sorta like Clinton's not at the forefront addressing your creepy new friends' ardent belief that Sanders' campaign is being orchestrated by Israel to undermine Democrats.

• He seems to be handling the concerns of blacks by performing outreach. The demand to listen keeps being made, seems that's what he's doing.

• The congress argument? really? Like Republicans are gonna be sweet on Clinton. Or O'Malley. Or whoever. You're hinging an argument on what the republicans are gonna do? Or worse, a candidate's willingness to give them what they want?

• Revolution! Millions in the street! What, no red flags, sickles, and over-the-top marching music? Not even a good ol' socialist gulag? We must be slacking off. I'm pretty sure the idea of "Sanders revolution" has been covered plenty. I'm sorry, but the only people invoking 1917 Russia (or whatever) are, well... idiots. Interesting though, that people in the streets is a bad thing all of a sudden. But then I guess a lot of things have very suddenly become terrible, awful, evil, taboo. Like economic equality.

[bravenak]

115. Obama did it.

Well, how much have his numbers gone up with blacks since this summer?

We blacks do not think he is handling our concerns well.


Hillary and Bernie will both not get much done. Period. So why him?

His revolution is monochromatic almost with a smattering of hue.

[Scootaloo]

118. Johnathon Swift had a relevant quote...

Besides, as the vilest Writer has his Readers, so the greatest Liar has his Believers; and it often happens, that if a Lie be believ’d only for an Hour, it has done its Work, and there is no farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect…

Remember Froma Harrop? You ought to, she authored that article "Bernie Sanders’ problem with blacks — and others" that you shared with the other Hillaryclintonsupporters, which spawned that rather amusing thread around here.

The problem was... the entire thing was bullshit. Top to bottom, outright bullshit. Hypocritical bullshit no less, coming from a very white writer who had some VERY choice things to say about candidate Obama and his skin color. But none of that mattered, because it didn't have to be true. After all, a lie stands until corrected.

So it gets spread around. And fact is, Sanders does suffer from low name recognition in communities of color. And another fact is, people tend to stick with whatever opinion they form first. So, if the first time someone sees Sanders talked about, it's that full-of-shit article you handed to them, claiming it was god's own truth? What's the net outcome?

Another quote I like, I'm not sure who invented it, is this:


So about the numbers? According to the latest from PPP, he has 55% favorability among African-Americans, and 24% favor him over Clinton. Could be better, but it sure as hell is better than what he started out with. I can only imagine what the numbers might be without the concerted effort at well-poisoning. I can only think that truth will eventually catch up. In the meantime, Sanders is doing what black people have asked of him - he's listening to 'em.

What happens in June will not be decided by what happened in August.

[bravenak]

119. I notice you blame this on poisoning but gloss over the attitude of his base.

No matter how many black complain, still it is 'poisoners'.

Remember how southern whites used to say that their black were happy until those northern whites started riling them up?

I won this argument days ago so I'll just move on.

[Scootaloo]

120. Not at all, bravenak.

I've mentioned often enough that some Sanders supporters wore their asses for hats. Here's the thing, though...

69Dudebro4Bernie69 gets read by... what, a thousand people on Twitter on a LUCKY run? Okay.

How many people do you think read that Froma Harrop article? Well, I can tell you that it was run in the Seattle Times. The Times has a readership of 849,300. Seattle Times wasn't the only newspaper that carried that op-ed, it went all over the nation.

You really wanna tell me that 69Dudebro4bernie69 has a greater impact?

[Skidmore]

60. May I suggest that you go over to the AA group

and very carefully read through it.

[Armstead]

65. Been there.

I totally agree about the extent and nature of racism, and the importance of resolving it on every level.

But I don't agree with those who believe that trying to raise the floor for everyone, or dealing with the overall problems of concentration of wealth and power is contradictory or a distraction from other issues related to racial justice, social justice etc.

[riderinthestorm]

72. I'll give you the same answer I gave leftofcool upthread

I don't post in any of the protected groups

If their discussion can't occur in the "public square", then I'm not really interested in an echo chamber.

I've read the arguments that social justice trumps economic justice and I'm unconvinced. I've listened to their complaints about Sanders or Clinton and can form my own opinions. If DU's AA's aren't willing to air their arguments without "protection" then they have some fatal flaws in my mind.

I'm bi-racial fyi (AA/white).

[jfern]

85. No one said that social justice isn't worth fighting for

And I think the candidate who became interested in politics because his father's family was killed in the Holocaust understands the importance of social justice.

[hifiguy]

69. Oh, lordy lu.....

A more appropriate response to that thread than this one eludes my vast imagination.

[Bobbie Jo]

75. Exhibit A

How old are you, btw...?

[Bobbie Jo]

80. Goodness

Get over Myself??

I didn't ask for a resume, nor do I give a rip.

Your response to me seemed incredibly childish, so I asked.

Get a damn grip.

[BainsBane]

93. That pretty much sums up

the broader political trajectory I see happening in this election, also echoed in the demographic breakdown in terms of income level of Sanders supporters and Clinton supporters. I mean, how could you possibly think you matter without an Ivy League education? We're the great unwashed, inferior plebes who simply matter less.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. Any thread that boils down, at it's core, to "DU talking about DU" is politically useless to me.

And that applies to people who have and continute to mistakenly conflate their own personal board grudges or other grinding axes, with some larger political reality.

I dont miss meta, not THAT much.

And I dont make the mistake of thinking that people who made me mad once, are somehow representative of anything more than chafing personalities on one small corner of the intertubes.

There are people who live and breathe DU-drama, same as it ever was. People who want DU to be about DU, all the time, every day. Same as it ever was, fo' sho'.

I am not one of those people.

This response is not about, or not not about for that matter, your OP. Just a general statement.

[portlander23]

76. Just saying is all

[kelliekat44]

82. Thank you. nt

[Todays_Illusion]

100. They are a big lie, they are libertarian. Call them out and run from them and yes I believe Hillary

has signed on the dotted line.

[BainsBane]

106. Man, it sucks when the little people don't sit back and take it

Doesn't it?

[SMC22307]

110. They're really not "socially progressive," but I"m going to...

rec your OP anyway.

Education

I don't trust Third Way fuckers on Medicare...

...or on Social Security

Social Issues