2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSen. Sanders: I know you mean well, but I don't WANT those people in our party
Trump supporters support Trump, not because they are concerned about economic inequality but because he speaks to their bigotry and desire to CONTINUE disparities in this country. They recognize that the system isn't fair but believe that they are always supposed to do better than minorities and the fact that they aren't is royally pissing them off.
The only way to attract them to the Democratic Party is to convince them - either expressly or tacitly - that their concerns will be addressed. And the only way to address their concerns is to diminish the minorities they so despise. As one of those minorities, I do not wish to be pitted against those people in my own party. I don't want them anywhere near me. And as a committed, long-time Democrat, I have earned the right to not be forced to compete with people who want nothing to do with me, who see me and people who look like me as the reason that America is "no longer great," and who believe that the way to "Make America Great Again" is for me to be silenced, marginalized and disenfranchised.
So, Sen. Sanders, I respect the hell out of you. But please don't try to bring those people into our party. They don't deserve to be here and they will only besmirch it and everything we believe in.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)"we all must come together". It's not about a party when he says that. It's also speaks to Trump supporters bigotry. When Bernie speaks, it's not about a party.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)I don't want any candidate running as a Democrat going after votes of people who hate people who look like me. I do not want to be part of any coalition with those people, whether it's called the Democratic party or it's a just group of people who support the same candidate. Bernie Sanders is a very capable politician and public servant, but it would be impossible for him to serve both types of voters without someone getting kicked to the curb since our interests are diametrically opposed. And, as I said, the ONLY way those people would support Sanders is if they believe he will sublimate MY interests in favor of THEIRS. That is unacceptable.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)You're sounding like the people you claim to dislike.
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)"people who hate people who look like me" (i.e., racist, sexist bigots).
How could such a phrase offend you in that context? 
tecelote
(5,122 posts)As off base as they may be, ignoring them is not going to help.
Sander's could actually enlighten a small percentage of them and that puts us ahead.
Why such vitriol over an attempt to change their views?
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)should be ignored. I was merely pointing out that your comment to the OP about "those people" was apparently taken out of context.
If Bernie really wants to expend goodwill by winning over racist, sexist bigots who currently are Trump supporters, rather than trying to convince the typical Dem base that he is the best Dem candidate for the GE, then so be it and bring it on.
It's a real Hail Mary pass, with about the same odds as a snowball in a fiery hell. It is also a tactic that may turn some undecided Dems against his candidacy and thus is likely to lose more support than it gains.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)He is trying to bring people together.
You may feel that the sexist bigot is always going to be a sexist bigot and we should shun them but I'll take Bernie's approach of trying to appeal to their rational side and change them for the better.
Even if the sexist bigot is set in his/her own ways, they have friends and family that can be shown the light through reason.
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)than I am that die-hard racist and sexist bigots who support Trump can be "shown the light through reason." 
Miracles rarely happen.
But the odds are excellent that goodwill towards Bernie will be eroded among undecided Dem constituencies by such a tactic, certainly at the level of the primary elections. Among those who are already supporting other Dem candidates, the likelihood is 100% that goodwill will be eroded, as amply demonstrated by the OP and responses here.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)There are many people like myself who respect the risk takers for their courage. I know a lot of good people who are Independent and Republican who are listening to Bernie. I am optimistic and I believe Bernie can turn America around and make America about Americans. All Americans.
If you won't vote for someone because someone else does. So be it.
We disagree. I think the campaign of inclusion will take the day.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Some Republicans just want to raise their kids and are sick and tired of struggling with low wages and other basic issues that affect their families. These are the Republicans that might cross over if the message hits home with them.
Bernie is not trying to appeal to them from the right. He is trying to appeal to them FROM THE LEFT on issues of basic morality. If you don't understand this appeal, watch Sanders speech to Liberty University and you will.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)If you find one in that group that isn't, it would be a rare find indeed. It is especially those bigots, anti immigration, haters, mysoginistic, and homophobes that have found their voice in Trump.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Sorry it went over your head.
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)speaking specifically about die-hard racist and sexist bigots who currently support Donald Trump.
There are also several Trump supporters who are libertarian, not necessarily racist/sexist bigots. I was not speaking about them.
No sane person is happy about struggling with low wages and other basic issues that affect their families, so yes, there is certainly some common ground.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)The problem is, strong social conservatives do not "come together" with anyone except those like them who agree with them -- exactly the opposite! Surely they're demonstrated their capacity for intransigence, widespread hostility, destructive behavior, vulnerability to manipulative leaders, and just plain intractable stupidity many times over?
BTW, the notion that bigotry toward "others" is their one driving issue is not quite correct, although it is huge. They're basically the same as John Birchers, just don't wear the label. They are very strongly nationalistic, favor military attack as answer to every threat (which they see as incoming from every direction they look), are strongly states rights to the point of secession, anti- national government (which is always involved in evil conspiracies against the people), tend to be pro-theocratic and believe the Constitution is a religious document, are very strongly punitive, and are dangerously prone to mindless, conscienceless support of any leader who attracts their fealty.
Under evil leadership, these people are virtually always the main group behind large-scale crimes against humanity. Their minds are like sponges for lies they want to believe and concrete for truths that contradict the lies.
In the U.S. they've been causing enormous trouble on the right and, under the direction of wealthy string-pullers, were instrumental in driving most moderate conservatives from the GOP and making it impossible for moderate conservatives to win office -- this even before the Kochs and their allies organized them under the label "Tea Party."
Apparently Bernie feels it's in his interest to draw their destructive, dangerous energy his direction, but what's in it for Democrats and for the hundreds of candidates running for office under the Democratic Party banner in 2016? WE are the alternative to the madness on the right.
Oh, and let's not forget, where they go the Kochs will be busy using them for their purposes.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Believe it or not, some Republicans are sick of making $7 per hour, not being able to feed their kids, and are disillusioned. Not every Republican is a tea partier or John Bircher.
His leftist message will never appeal to Tea Partiers and John Birchers, ever, and you know it.
Your "Bernie has decided to appeal to the worst of the worst in the GOP" meme is nonsense. Nice try though.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Pretending I was is just an attempt at deflection.
Bernie's leftist message has already appealed not only to many across the conservative spectrum, as we see here at DU, but specifically to some strong social conservatives and former tea-partiers. Why would Bernie be focusing on drawing more of them if he wasn't trying to woo them?
It's a good thing to draw economic and moderate conservatives who want to repair our economy and strip the power we so foolishly gave away to the wealthy from them again. Those are allies we need.
Unfortunately, that's NOT what social conservatives want. They actually tend to be more comfortable with a ruling class-based structure and to see nothing wrong with authoritarian government, inequality, fascism, and the oppression of minorities -- as long as its THEIR ideology, religion, and race in charge. How do you think a billionaire class rose in this country, if not with their help?
They also don't understand and disapprove of the enlightened, liberal principles our nation was founded on, and they insist that it was not. They say they don't like big government, but they actually very much want THEIR kind of big government in power. They are a major force in the growing fascist leanings in our nation today.
As for Senator Sanders' appeal, in spite of having been a big part of the establishment for a quarter century, he has successfully cast himself as anti-establishment, and they like that. Being extremist, they will support left-wing extremism, as well as right -- for now, but Bernie can't control them. Because you're right. He's not really their kind of leader for the long term.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)It's that simple, IMHO. So they make up fallacious memes about 'bringing them into the party' which has nothing to do with the what is happening. They will never 'come into the party'.
Sanders is appealing to them FROM THE LEFT. Something Hillary will never be able to do.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Exactly.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Go find some Trump supporters to "convert" to Socialism. You have 5 weeks before. No time to,waste
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Yours is the same attitude of the idiot RWs who say "Obama is the real racist", or "All Muslims are terrorists", etc etc. Calling them on it is right, and proper, and necessary - not the flip side of the same coin.
Trump and his supporters aren't people we should seek out to join with. They have nothing to offer, not without a great deal of re-education.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)But, grouping them all together and saying forget about them is being unjust to the ones that may not be assholes and will take the opportunity to say to their peers that this guy makes sense.
And, even if assholes decide to vote for Bernie, they are only supporting the better good for all Americans.
Your suggestion that this idea of inclusion is RW and racist is simply wrong. It is just the opposite. If you want to react to offensive behavior, then that is right and even noble. You should. But focus on the assholes themselves, not Bernie. He is trying to unite America.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Trump supporters are unafraid to bully and abuse people on the basis of their religion.
Trump supporters think booting out people who aren't sufficiently "American - looking" is a-OK with them.
The best thing that ever happened to the Democratic Party was Nixon's southern strategy. It forced all those bigoted assholes OUT of our party, and left us with the people who believe in equality in all its forms.
I'm uninterested in Bernie-Come-Lately's "Bernie Strategy" to grow our party by inviting bigots, bullies, sexists and haters back into the tent. It's a Big Tent--but it's not THAT big. If the way we grow our brand is by eating our own, I want no part of that.
Eff that nonsense!!!!!
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Well said!
Qutzupalotl
(14,289 posts)I must have missed that.
Sanders has crossover appeal, but that is not the same thing. The tone of all his policies is the exact opposite of bigotry. The bigots won't feel welcome, and aren't. The Republicans he does pick up will be the moderates, not the haters.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Sanders reaching out to Trump voters?
You must have missed that--it's only the premise of the entire conversation, though. Go back to the OP and start from there.
Maybe before you even go there, go HERE, and see what the Senator had to say about those bigots who vote for The Donald: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/27/politics/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-middle-class-voters/
A taste:
In a taped interview with CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday, the Vermont senator -- a self-proclaimed democratic-socialist -- made an overture to "angry" Americans frustrated by financial woes and concerned by foreign terrorism.
"What I'm suggesting is that what Trump has done with some success has taken that anger, taken those fears -- which are legitimate -- and converted them into anger against Mexicans, anger against Muslims," Sanders said...
Qutzupalotl
(14,289 posts)Or are you practicing selective editing to support an assertion not founded on facts?
But while he made the case that both candidates had tapped into a similar frustration, Sanders was careful to underline the different approach he offered -- a sharp contrast to Trump's often controversial or demeaning rhetorical spasms.
"For his working class and middle class support," Sanders said, "we can make the case that if we really want to address the issues that people are concerned about...we need policies that bring us together, that take on the greed of Wall Street the greed of corporate America and create a middle class that works for all of us rather than an economy that works just for a few."
In other words, he is not inviting the bigots, just the economically frustrated. So the premise of the fact-free OP is off base.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)killers and urged war against us. He openly said he wanted to reach out to people who believed those things and he called them 'good, moral people'.
Did you object to that? Most on DU totally supported all of it.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)...your statement makes that abundantly clear. Demoralize, demolish and maybe even dismantle the Democratic party. No unified front to take on the Republicans for many future elections to come. Bernie's every move seems to confirm that, and many of his supporters on DU think it's the wave of the progressive future and are just fine with that notion. But it should not come as a surprise given Bernie's past hate rhetoric regarding the Democratic Party.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)and the more people realize that, the better off we'll all be. Be a part of the solution, not the problem.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Good Gawd, really, you want a Bush Utopia?
msongs
(67,367 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)ejbr
(5,856 posts)are fine with the notion of corruption in politics. Newsflash: Wall Street does not donate and support Clinton because of 9/11.
We don't want to dismantle the party, but bring it back to its roots when it comes to fairness.
FloridaBlues
(4,007 posts)But maybe he figures he needs to get his poll numbers up from 30% range
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Don't try to shift blame for the failure of the party.
still_one
(92,061 posts)not really democrats, and have hurt the party
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)A thought that had not previously occurred to me, but amazingly lucid and valid. There is no good reason it should not have occurred as soon as the statement became known. Thanks.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)30+ years of right wing hate propaganda has done a lot of damage.
I just want Bernie to keep speaking the truth.
Truth will set you free.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)But if you believe that he can "deprogram" right wing bigots by "speaking the truth," you are delusional.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)It will take a National change of messaging, or in other words "A political Revolution."
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)All about how brilliant is was to employ that bigoted hate preacher. You employ Double Standards. Like your entire cohort. Want to do a full tour of links? I will if you want.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)seems to stop at our borders, since he elicits not one bit of concern for the 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis whom Hillary cast under the bus in her lust for power.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)But my links that you posted don't make the point you claim to make. Apparently you didn't bother to read them before posting them or you would have known that.
But if you have nothing better to do with your time than to read all of my old posts, please have at it. I wrote them to be read . . .
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"I have no idea whether President-elect Obama purposely offered this symbolism. But I do find it very interesting how the juxtaposition of Warren and Lowery speaks volumes of the change - the passing of the torch - represented by the inauguration of Barack Obama."
It was an elevation of a hate preacher to 'reach out' to his bigoted cohort. It broke the hearts of millions of Democrats but you excused it, you characterized it as a positive thing, a good thing, when it was an attack on a minority group.
One set of rules for Bernie, another for everyone else. One set of rules for LGBT, another for everyone else.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)We disregard half the population because they've been radicalized racist facist dishits, instead of inviting them in to correct their shit and show them where they're wrong while giving them what they really need?
If you're ok with that, I guess. I wonder how we're supposed to be fellow citizens with them then.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)In the meantime, I don't want them anywhere near me. And if Sen. Sanders insists on trying to bring them over BEFORE they correct their shit, then I won't want HIM anywhere near me, either.
Here's a clue - we don't need those people in order to create a strong, unshakable majority. There are plenty of people already on the right side of issues who have been forgotten for too many years. I would much prefer that if Sen. Sanders wishes to build a larger majority, he would reach out to the people who are already on the right side but need to be heard and supported, not abandoned while folks go running to the other side to try to make nice with the very people who are spitting in our faces.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)not progress.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)You can't say change first then we can talk. That's the whole point of talking, reaching them in order to show them where they went wrong and finding common ground.
.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I just can't see it happening.
They join because he has promised them a garden of Eden and he has to pay up or he gets dragged to the right...because he is their POTUS too.
-none
(1,884 posts)If you're ok with that, I guess. I wonder how we're supposed to be fellow citizens with them then.
Too many in the "Democratic Party" are acting like Republicans. Bernie is trying to bring us together, not further dividing us. Why is that so hard for some people to figure out? This us/them, binary thinking is the problem.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)you don't want me in your party either. We'll see how things turn out, you might get that wish.
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)among racist, sexist bigots who are currently Trump supporters? It is they who are the topic of the OP.
What on earth are you saying?
Matariki
(18,775 posts)If they can 'see the light', made to understand the right target for their anger, then they should be welcome. More than welcome, congratulated. There's been more than one occasion on DU when some former republican or right-winger or Limbaugh fan has come here and explained their 'conversion' and we've all praised that person and rec'd the post. It's just like that. Hallelujah! a saved soul, etc.
Being angry and hateful takes a lot of energy and joy out of life. Pointing this out plus redirecting their focus to what matters in their daily lives would benefit them. Reducing Trump's poll numbers would be another benefit as the world will see it is not that bad here. Lastly, some Clinton supporters may see that they are to the right of some Trump supporters when it comes to corruption and rethink their vote. If her supporters think she gets Wall Street money because of 9/11, then they are beyond hope.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Martin Eden
(12,847 posts)Those who criticize Bernie over this are being willfully blind.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,615 posts)are so-called "low information voters" who like Trump mainly because (a) he's famous and (b) he's not part of the political "establishment." Sanders will never pick up the racists and white supremacists and teabaggers, because his policies are the exact opposite of what they believe. However, he might be able to draw some of the people who like Trump now because they feel injured by the "establishment" and they've heard of Trump but not Sanders (yet). They might be educable. It makes sense to try to attract people whom you think you can convert to you your way of thinking. Many Trump supporters might be hopeless but maybe some are salvageable.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)And some of them may not fit those exact definitions. But anyone who is comfortable standing alongside (either literally or figuratively) racists and white supremacists and teabaggers while cheering a vile, disgusting demagogic bigot needs a lot of work before I want them anywhere near me.
One of the essential but usually unspoken elements of white privilege is the full comfort of being able to compartmentalize racism in ways that minorities cannot do. "Yes, my friend has some strange views on race, but other than that, he's a lot of fun and we have a lot in common. As long as we don't talk about race, we're cool." Well, I don't have that luxury of being able to separate out those kinds of views or to argue that people who feel perfectly comfortable being around racists are really cool in every other respect, so I should just give them a chance.
As I said - keep these people away from me. I don't want you trying to convert them. Let them convert their own damned selves and THEN I'll decide whether or not they've earned the right to play in my space.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)One half of the country being trained to hate the other half is what has brought this country to its knees. Bernie is trying to move beyond that.
You are not, because you are buying into the hate.
artislife
(9,497 posts)I am not above thinking this whole OP is flamebait.
One pious OP writer scared of the fact that Bernie may be inviting racists into the party. Jeez, did this poster ever read what some of the first h supporters said and wrote about Obama?
I am Latina. I am not afraid of people drawn to Bernie.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)I just don't want to have my political leaders chasing after bigots and then telling me I'm supposed to happily share my tent with them in hopes that one day they will see the light. And, frankly, listening to a bunch of white people (yes, white people - since that is who are pushing this the hardest) tell me that I'M a hater because I don't care to join forces with people who despise me and that I need to align with them for my own good is really rich.
White folks have the luxury of compartmentalizing bigotry - "Yes, I KNOW he's a racist BUT . . . other than that, he's really a nice guy. He's just misguided and brainwashed" - but minorities don't have the time or space to be so tolerant of racists. That doesn't make us haters. That makes us sane and savvy. This is not our first time at the rodeo. And it's not the first time we've been told to sit down and be quiet while the really smart people tell us how politics really should be done.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Iraqis that Hillary threw under the bus in her lust for power?
Or do you, like so many others, merely illustrate La Rochefoucauld's observation that "hypocrisy is the hommage vice pays to virtue"?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)You have joined the ranks of those who care more about the silly Red v. Blue feud than about fixing the country.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)joining forces with Clinton's supporters and working together to fix the country . . .
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)There are many people out here who are trying to survive the acts of hatred committed by the very sort emboldened rightwing racists represented in those Trump crowds. AND it does not follow that because people are angry, that their anger derives from the same source as those Sanders is claiming for the left. I will restate. When someone hates someone else because of the color of their skin or their gender or their sexual orientation, these are not economically based characteristics but are immutable and essential components o who the object of their hatred is.
We are about 150 years out from Emancipation and 50 years out from civil rights laws. Women were given the vote in 1920 and there are still men who believe that they have the political choices of "their" women belong to the husband. And remember, the old Dixiecrats who supported Jim Crow fled the Democratic party when Nixon promised them a haven in the Republican party, where they still reside. Do you think these people are joking when they derogatory and demeaning statements about people of color and cheer hate crimes against them? The Sanders' campaign is still missing the point it missed with the introduction of BLM into the equation months ago. The magic of Bernie's economic philosophy does not wipe away all sins.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Some just want a candidate who will stand up for them and their families. That's Bernie, and I hope they will see that.
His strategy is smart. First, he acknowledges their anger as rightful. And then he redirects that anger toward the real cause of our discontent. Oligarchy.
Martin Eden
(12,847 posts)The OP (and many others, mostly Hillary supporters) apparently believe (or want to believe) that every single voter who polled for Trump is a vile bigot. Your post logically points out that one size doesn't fit all.
Rightwingers often fall into the trap of absolutism, seeing the world in black/white all-or-nothing terms. It's troubling to see Democrats fall into that same kind of mindset.
In reality, a wide range will be found in every large group.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Race is won.
The winner of every single 2 way race in history has taken votes from across the line...a candidate cannot win in any other way.
Every two way race is determined by minor movement of the center left or right.
Bernie can take those voters against all contenders...Hillary not so much...imo
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)"converting" people from the other side but is won by energizing and mobilizing the people who are already on your side - especially when there are more than enough of them to put you far over the top, if you just take the time to show them you give a damn about them. And you DON'T show them that by turning your back on them to chase after people who despise them.
Voters are voters. The Democratic newbies think polls of college students are meaningful...they aren't, they don't show up. The winner always pulls from center left or right, opposite their party...it will not be won without...
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)the same? Your standards just change for each new day.
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)which is the GE stage, a candidate must first be selected by those in one of the two major parties.
Reaching out to the types of Trump supporters that the OP is talking about (the majority of Trump supporters are indeed racist, sexist bigots, whatever else they may be) - while still being at the primary stages - is one way of ensuring that the traditional Dem base will not be enchanted. Is that really what you want to see happen?
pipoman
(16,038 posts)It is wishful thinking. If he gets the nomination it better be taken seriously...Democrats have been known to be self congratulatory before the vote is in....Think what you want about Trump, only a fool thinks all of his supporters are any one type....
A huge share of Trump supporters and Bernie supporters are disenfranchised voters. Occupy and the teabaggers have several common issues. If either Bernie or Trump is nominated and the other isn't, the one who is nominated will win.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)His followers think Obama is a Muslim and that socialism is bringing down the patriarchal capitalist family unit, along with gay marriage. They aren't budging.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)He's a retired cop. White. Married to a Hawaiian woman. They have both worked very hard in life, and are quite comfortably fixed now. A home, an oceanfront beach house, travel when and where they want, and so on. They are exceptionally kind and generous people.
He supports Trump. Why? Hate radio and FOX and hateful FB pages. I rode home from the beach in his car this summer and was exposed to it for two hours. This is why he supports Trump. He's propagandized. He believes that Bernie will take 90 percent of his money that he has worked hard for. He's sick of the politically correct culture. And he's been brainwashed.
So he's one of "those" people to you.
I say no. He's brainwashed.
We don't help people out of their learned ignorance by insulting them or hating them.
Ultimately, we have to live with them. If Bernie can make them think, if a President Bernie can improve their lives, then a portion of them will learn NOT to be tools of demogogues.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)elaborating on its themes.
Very well put, imo.
Martin Eden
(12,847 posts)I think Hillary supporters don't understand this because they are eager to grasp any anti-Bernie spin, to the extent that critical thought is abandoned.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Bernie is NOT appropriating any of their rhetoric into his platform. He's not triangulating by playing to the Right - for example, by posing as "tough on Iran" to finagle conservative votes.
He's sticking to his guns and pitching his ideas to them, and asking them to buy in.
Asking Bernie to not even try to earn their votes is unreasonable. If he can peel even a few percentage points away from Trump, that would give him an edge that Hillary could never, ever have.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Guns, ODS, Clintonitis. Maybe some leftover Libertarian stuff. No thanks.
Cha
(296,881 posts)trump for the charismatic berni?
Nyan
(1,192 posts)but the specific prototype of Trump supporters that we have in our mind -the abusive racists at his rallies who beat up proteasters-, they're not gonna come to this side of the aisle anyway.
There are a whole swathe of low-information people out there though, who like the idea of Trump not being bought (which, of course, is untrue. He does have a SuperPac).
They simply don't know about Bernie. They've never heard of him. So they flick on TV and go, "Oh yeah he says some crazy stuff. But he's not Washington insider. He's not bought." Then they answer the landline and say they'll vote for Trump.
So I say, don't worry too much about it.
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)Cha
(296,881 posts)
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Tortmaster
(382 posts)Watching Fox News is an Act of Racism.
Being a Republican is fast becoming an Act of Racism.
Let's be real here: The only reason Republicans show support to Senator Sanders is because they fear Secretary Clinton.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)we libs are so weak we might become like them, or start to placate them by letting them treat people shitty and hateful, didn't you know?
TSIAS
(14,689 posts)Don't they also fall within the group of "hard-working whites" that Clinton worked so hard to court in 2008?
Now, who is preaching purity? The h supporters will grab onto any bone.
What if we all left them alone...then how big and powerful would the party be?
BigBearJohn
(11,410 posts)" Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America — there's the United States of America.
The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too: We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States, and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq."
If it's good enough for Obama, it's good enough for Bernie.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)It was brilliant then and it's brilliant now, HC supporters are either ignorant of history or being dishonest about this stategy.
Hillary and Obama both reached across the aisle in 2008, this is not some new evil plot hatched by Bernie to unite racists and other bigots against Dems, the idea is laughable.
Hillary ran a racist campaign and pandered to Rick Warren and his bigoted followers. And Obama campaigned with Donnie McClurkin.
At least Bernie is standing up for women and minorities, not selling us out for votes.
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)who had already won two Presidential elections - likely without ever convincing racist, sexists bigots to vote for him or support his policies. And definitely without ever having to convince them.
There are a lot of stages that you skimmed over, e.g., primary elections, two GEs, and a helluva a lot of unprecedented racist bigotry that Prez O was subjected to, before saying that. That he could still say it shows what a wonderful and remarkable human being he is.
There is no comparison of Bernie at the Dem primary stage with Prez O in his second term in trying to reach out to all Americans. Bernie will most likely never be subjected to the same kind of racism or bigotry that Prez O has been. Ever. And if he is reaching out to Trump supporters before convincing traditional Dem supporters, then he will never get the opportunity to say anything comparable as a resident of the WH.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
BigBearJohn
(11,410 posts)address at the Democratic National Convention. (See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19751-2004Jul27.html)
The whole point is: We are ALL Americans. If Bernie gets elected by including Trump supporters, he is including ALL Americans, and I say, "all the more power to him."
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)He said the same thing again in 2014 - and likely said it or something like it several more times over the years.
Yes indeed, we want a President for all Americans. But any candidate who manages to alienate a good part of his/her primary base will simply not make it through to the GE. The overwhelming majority of the Democratic base (in fact, almost anyone sane regardless of party affiliation) considers most, if not all, of Trump supporters to be racist, sexist bigots and reaching out to them at this stage to be outright insanity.
THAT is the whole point. But I'm done repeating it, so will not respond anymore on this point.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)
greymattermom
(5,751 posts)Maybe Bernie can get them to realize that and change. Maybe folks will put their jobs, pay, benefits, and lifestyle that depends on infrastructure above their hatred for once.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)But then you knew that.
Also, as a Hillary supporter, you must be a big fan of people evolving in their beliefs.
But only a fan of voters evolving into Clinton voters.
That would of course be quite acceptable.
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)A Hillary supporter claiming people can't evolve in their political thinking.
If I may paraphrase,
You may say Bernie's a dreamer, but he's not the only one.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
MrWendel
(1,881 posts)about the amount of "Trump-splaining" going on here. I thought that kind of excuse for Trump and his supporters were reserved for Fox news.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Going after Sanders supporters. Sanders idea of a big tent is to attract Trump supporters. I know which tactic I favor.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I'll just enjoy your wisdom. Thanks.
djean111
(14,255 posts)anti-Bernie screed du jour, sorry.
Here's a news flash - a vote is a vote. Maybe some candidates will pander and actually change their positions in order to get voters, so I can see why some are worried about getting Trump supporters. But Bernie won't.
And why was it okay for Hillary to specifically appeal to "white, hard-working" voters in 2008? Because she was going after votes.
Also hypocritical and laughable that any candidate would refuse any vote.
Oh, and voting for Bernie does not necessarily mean that someone is joining the Democratic Party. And, as a liberal and Progressive, I can assure you that the Democratic party is quite capable of just ignoring a group of Democratic voters. With ease and arrogance.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8008746
The Double Standard Society of DU is in full swing.
djean111
(14,255 posts)or Google. Wow.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)They feel they have the right to berate and preach against LGBT, given to them by God.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)While the fact that you went digging around in 7-year-old archives looking for things I've written is interesting, the posts you pull do NOT support your argument. In fact, they are completely consistent with the point of my OP.
The first post simply noted the interesting symbolism of Warren delivering the invocation at President Obama's inauguration while Rev. Lowery offered the benediction.
"Whether he intended it or not, President-elect Obama will present some very interesting symbolism with the invocation and benediction at his inauguration.
Rev. Rick Warren will give the invocation on Bush's watch; Bush will still be president when Rev. Warren takes the podium and he will still be president when Rev. Warren - a minister seen by many as narrow-minded, divisive and judgmental - finishes his prayer.
Before we get to the next prayer, a sea change will have occurred: when Rev. Joseph Lowery takes the podium, this giant of our time, this champion for human rights - will pray for and ask God's blessing on a nation led by President Barack Obama.
I have no idea whether President-elect Obama purposely offered this symbolism. But I do find it very interesting how the juxtaposition of Warren and Lowery speaks volumes of the change - the passing of the torch - represented by the inauguration of Barack Obama.
As you can see, I neither praised nor defended Warren's participation. So your reference to my post is not only utterly irrelevant to this topic, it is blatantly misleading.
The second link is even less relevant to this issue. That discussion revolved around the negotiation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the need to negotiate with all manner of people, including bigots in the House and Senate, in order to get it passed - something very different than campaigning to attract the votes of bigots. If you don't understand the difference, I suggest you do what I recommended in the post you linked to - go do some research.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Your OP today has no such leeway offered. It is the opposite of consistency. Everyone here can read, your words are on record, that was your choice. The admins created nice search tools, anyone with a brain can find these posts and the contradictions in them.
You know, there is a poster here who each day attacks Bernie using the exact same verbiage he used in 08 against Barack. 'Big phony. Won't vote for him in the general, waste of a nomination, like voting for McCain'. Oddly people who were Obama ardent supporters love that guy now. They seem lacking in powers of recollection. They are seen being friendly with a guy who called Obama a big phony, and that makes them all look like the phony.
You can not expect smart people with search engines to forget what has been said and never quote you when it might not suit you. The only cure for that is constant honesty and air tight ethics. That's what Bernie does, that's what I do. Give it a shot sometime. Search my quotes, bring them to me. I have no fear because I have not said 'this is good' then 'this is bad' depending on who was the subject.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)
Enrique
(27,461 posts)
stonecutter357
(12,694 posts)
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Do you honestly think that all trump supporters are racists? Get real.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)of the Obama campaign you are very hypocritical or maybe just another homophobe. So did you speak out against them or did you play along?
djean111
(14,255 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)their own cohorts. They think is ok to trash talk or even harm us. Just not to do those things to 'real humans'. Big Double Standards, ie bigotries.
dsc
(52,152 posts)voters. The simple fact is one of three things will happen. It won't work to any significant degree because Trump voters stay put. It will work to a significant degree but Bernie doesn't win anyhow. It works and Bernie wins and then Bernie has to decide who to fuck over. Does he renew Obama's orders on immigration, lgbt employment, and other such issues? If he renews them his voters from Trump will go apeshit, if he doesn't, then he fucks us over. We went through 7 years of making a President move forward on gay rights when he otherwise wouldn't. Hispanics have spent the same amount of time doing so in regards to immigration. We shouldn't have to do so again.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)was needed to get where we had to be to make progress. So I fought him tooth and nail to provide the pushback I'd been told he'd want. 'Make for him the set and setting, he will play his part'.
So my advice to the OP and to you would be to do what I did, I supported Obama while being very critical of his methods around LGBT rights Making for him the set and the setting. Making sure as well that any of those religious bigots that did cross over for Obama knew it meant a change for them, not that we were going to change to suit their bigotry.
And to be blunt, Obama did events with bigoted preachers, at which he echoed their anti gay views in a more moderate fashion. Sanders is just saying 'you are wrong to vote for Republicans and should vote for me instead'. He's not saying 'you are right and I agree'. He is not doing rallies with speakers of hate who urge bigoted laws against minority groups. Obama did that. So the comparison is weak indeed.
Hillary also went to Rick Warren's church where she praised Rick and his congregation, spoke as one of them, and excused herself and the whole 'faith community' for mistreating AIDS patients in the early days of the crisis. They were afraid, so it's ok that they abused others. They were scared. We were dying, but they were scared.
I could spin Hillary at Saddleback very poorly. I could also spin it more kindly. Some here would start in about The Family and all of that, not me. I know who The Family is and they do not like Hillary, nor Bill, at all. But she did go there,to ask for support. From bigots. It's politics.
I would like to offer carefully that in part, this seems to suggest that Christians who pander to Christian bigots are acceptable to this Party while others are not. I would hate to think this is the case.
dsc
(52,152 posts)and yes Hillary's too when she was at Warren's church. That said, Trump voters are stone cold bigots plain and simple and the one and only way they would vote for Bernie is if they were convinced he would do nothing whatsoever to advance an agenda that expanded rights for those they hate. If he wins by convincing the electorate of that, then he pretty much will follow through since Congress is likely to be GOP controlled for the forseeable future. The fact is Obama, left to his own devices, would have gotten pretty much nothing done in regards to LGBT rights. If Sanders gets in by appealing to hate filled bigots, then he won't get anything done either.
Vinca
(50,237 posts)Maybe if they're educated about the issues they won't be Trump supporters anymore. You have to try at least. The country would be so much better off if the whackjobs woke up, read a newspaper and gave some thought to what's going on. I don't especially think it's Trump that is attracting them. I think it's celebrity. Kim Kardashian could probably attract the same crowd if she ran.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I remember your pained defenses of Obama's constant use of bigoted preachers to pander to bigots using bigoted rhetoric.
Why are your rules different for LGBT? Spell it out clearly. I dare you.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)invite them to carefully scrutinize my honesty. I provide links to your statements, quotes from them. You on the other hand simply spew unsupported personal insults. You have nothing I have said you can take issue with, so you avoid specifics and rush to insults and accusations.
Since we need to honor the juxtaposition of Rick Warren to decent people, I'd like to point out that in the Christian faith, the faith of Obama and Rick Warren, it is considered a huge 'sin' to bear false witness against others, that means accusations always have to come with proof, and it means that when you put words into the mouths of others to convict them, you are in error. This is why I quote you and link to the all over the map, situational ethics that are blatantly demonstrated in your posts on DU. I note you simply accuse as if your word was that of the angels.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and how those gays were whiny when they were protesting ant gay Churches during the early AIDS days, Hillary spoke of herself and Rick as 'we' and gay people as 'they' and said 'we let fear control us' to excuse their vile treatment of their neighbors. It is the speech that made me not want to vote for her then.
You have standards that are not consistent.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Nobody is talking about 'bringing them into the party'.
He is appealing to a certain subset of Republicans who are tired of making $7 per hour, and he is doing so FROM THE LEFT not from the right. It's called 'crossover votes'.
Your whole premise is false.
bklyncowgirl
(7,960 posts)It is worth reaching out to them.
If you're someone who hates Mexicans because they look different and speak a different language you will not vote for Bernie Sanders no matter how much he begs you to do so. Likewise if you are a religious fundamentalist who believes that gay people are consigned to the flames of hell, you will not be voting for Sanders.
On the other hand, if you're someone who has nothing against Mexicans but who feels that you have suffered because the influx of cheap foreign labor has hurt your job prospects and think you have found a savior in Donald Trump because he tells you that the powers that be want these people in this country in order to keep wages low you might be amenable to Sanders' appeal.
The powers that be in both parties have screwed over the vast majority of Americans through trade deals and immigration policies that promote the interests of the investor class.
Sanders offers populism without the hate.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)speaks volumes.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)so the only resource you are left with is influencing the thoughts they are having when cast their vote. You don't have to agree with them or have them in your house.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)...you finish with false conclusions. Simplistic broadbrush generalizations say more about those that use them than their targets.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)They're already in the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is pretty conservative. One third of Democrats still oppose gay marriage, even today, that's one third of the party that would be banned from this site according to the rules if they ever said their opinion on that issue.
You seriously need to reconsider the reality of political ideology in the US today.
Many minority communities that Democrats want to reach out to hold very bigoted and hateful views overall. I know it's easy to pretend as long as we get all the "good guys" out to vote that should do it, but the reality is that hate and bigotry are in all populations, and politics doesn't eradicate it. Political reality requires getting bigots on your side, and Democrats do it all the time, they threw gays under the bus as often as needed until gays and their allies shifted the conversation to where it was no longer practical to do so.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Believe that Obama is a Muslim, Kenyan, illegitimate President. Trump was the #1 birther. Trying to paper over this bunch to get a few votes is unseemly. We don't need them to win. I do think we will be able to draw from the other part of the Republican Party but not the Trumpsters
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Why isn't Senator Sanders trying to reach out to those other, saner Republicans? Why the focus on trying to attract the absolutely worst element of the party?
Autumn
(44,986 posts)I felt that way when republicans were welcomed as blue dogs and the third wayers took over the party and moved it to the center.
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)We've been divided to be conquered my entire life, I say we try and unite, to collectively don the glasses from They Live and get shit started in the right direction for once.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)over the last decades, with having neo-liberals move in and take over "our" party? I haven't.
You assume that their bigotry is their primary concern. I disagree. Bigotry is the shield for fear, insecurity, and weakness. Education and security can thin those shields...which is a good starting place. If you want to end bigotry and the injustices it perpetuates in our nation, you don't leave bigots behind their shields, growing and spreading their angst.
I live in a rural white area; there's plenty of bigotry, but not as much as you'd think. Generally, if PoC attend the right churches in this area, they are welcomed and accepted. There is as much or more Christian bigotry as racial bigotry here, which is why the Republican on more bumper stickers than Trump here is Carson.
I'll tell you that America is no longer "great." To be honest, I don't think it ever was.
In the end, which would you rather: invite them in closer, let them get to know you, acknowledging your humanity, or letting them continue to exist in fear, hate, and ignorance, buttressing the party that thrives on fear, hate, and ignorance?
Personally, if I were going to exclude people from "our" party, it would be neo-liberals. That, though, would be counter-productive in the long run. The best I can hope for is a non-violent revolution at the polls removing them from positions of power within the party.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)In particular, I have consistently fought against Democratic politicians chasing around after the angry white man vote while telling black Democrats to just sit tight and wait - that this is necessary in order to grow a larger Democratic majority and THEN they'll be able to stand up for what's right. of course, that doesn't happen because those angry white men need to be fed and watered and they don't want the party doing those things and since them that brung 'em are afraid they'll leave and take their votes with them, they keep pulling their punches in order not to lose them.
I don't object to Sanders' tactic lightly or from a place of inexperience. Contrary to the view of many of his supporters who seem to think he invented politics, Sen. Sanders is not the first Democrat to try this. it always fails, but not before it insults and alienates the most loyal members of the base, who are the most likely to pull any candidate over the finish line but who continually have to put up with this crap.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)support Sanders, I also fully support your points.
I don't want to feed and water angry white bigots. Not in the least. And, as a left-of-center woman from the poor working class, I fully understand the alienation you describe. In my angrier moments, I'd say the same. I'm not always angry, though.
I've paid close attention to those around me when it comes to bigotry of all kinds. I've seen how the national conversation feeds that bigotry. My family includes PoC and an LGBT individual, and I feel like I'm always on guard at their backs. I've seen how some of it is triggered. I sure as hell don't want to perpetuate that.
I had a conversation last week with a couple of white men that went like this:
"So what class are you taking next term?" (As a teacher, I have to constantly take graduate level classes to keep my license current; I've been taking classes towards another masters degree.)
"African American History."
That unleashed the two men whose voices immediately got loud, both talking over each other, and drowning me out, to make their points. So I just listened. When they finally stopped, assuming they'd made their points, I said,
"Wow. You guys sure feel strongly about this. You were yelling at me. It makes me uncomfortable."
Their energy immediately lowered down, and they looked confused. They tried to argue about whether or not they were yelling, and I just waited. Since they could hear the level of their voices rising, they blushed and stumbled to a stop. So I continued, to one,
"I can see that affirmative action really upsets you. You know, one of the things I've learned, that I know, is that we understand that limiting the rights, liberties, and/or opportunities for many because a few might abuse those opportunities, is not what this country is about. We're supposed to be about protecting, not limiting. Really, how many white people do you really think are turned away from jobs in favor of PoC, relative to the PoC that are turned away because of their color?"
Feet shuffled, throats cleared, and no one made eye contact. So I kept going,
"How would YOU combat racism limiting opportunities? What is YOUR solution?" The answer? A gruff "I don't know." I told this man that I'd love to talk to him about this some more, should he come up with some other possibilities. Then I turned to the other guy and said something along the lines of:
"I see that African Americans standing up for themselves, demonstrating, and fighting for racial justice makes you angry. Just like some people were angry when women fought for the right to vote, when many of us have demonstrated against wars. It seems like, while you are saying you want equality, you are really afraid. If PoC are what you said, just people, you don't need to be afraid of them. You know, I agree with what you said. I agree that our nation, our society, our culture, should see people, not color, when it comes to rights, liberties, and opportunities, when it comes to social justice, although I personally find seeing many colors to be enriching. I'm not that fond of homogeneity. The bottom line, though, is that as long as social justice is meted out unequally, as long as PoC don't get the same justice as white men, we have to see color. If you think that we've achieved racial justice in this country, you're mistaken. I'll send you examples." This man said instantly, "I'm not afraid. But go ahead and send me your examples." Of course he's not afraid.
Finally, I said, "So, are you trying to say that there's nothing in African American history important enough to be studied since the end of the Civil War? Because I'm sure my class is going to be about a hell of a lot more than affirmative action."
Both men then acknowledged that it was a legitimate issue for study, and I told them I'd let them know how the class went. They said they'd like to hear, and we moved on.
I will be sure to let them know what the class is discussing. Simply preparing their soil, so to speak, for new seeds to be planted, so that when they encounter those seeds, they'll land on more fertile soil.
Now, if I'd said what I'd been thinking, not only would that conversation have been over very quickly, but it would have ended any future conversation before it began. I'd rather them listen a bit then circle the wagons.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)blame. They are the ones who tell people they must be afraid and then use them to gain and maintain power. Underneath the fear most voters want the same thing; to go to work in the morning and put food on the table for their children in the evening. It is that desire to go to work in the morning and put food on the table for their children that Sanders is speaking to when he talks to Trump supporters. So if someone like Sanders who we know will use power for the good of the people can turn people away from Trump who we will know will use those voters just to gain power and money, then I say good for him. We have to remember that those people who have been taught to hate things such as Social Security still need, depend, and use Social Security. And those who have been taught to hate people will often soften when they get to know someone one on one, face to face. This is how scars heal after wars. I love hearing stories of children on opposite sides of war playing soccer together. These are real things that really happen. Of course the news doesn't tell these stories because they are busy telling everyone they should be afraid and hate each other. When children play together they get to know each other and the walls of hatred are broken down. Children are often our only hope because they are the ones not yet so jaded that they refuse to talk to one another.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)Some people are pretty far gone but not all Trump supporters fit that description. True, they may not a smooth match to our values NOW - but some can be deprogrammed once they realize how deeply misdirected their anger is. There are plenty of examples of that. It is work that needs to be done to turn this nation around.
Koinos
(2,792 posts)that many here seem so conciliatory toward Trump followers. It would be refreshing if these peacemakers extended the same open arms to other candidates, their supporters, and voters within the Democratic party. The fact is that a number of Sanders' supporters share common ground with Trump followers. Both of these mini-groups distrust the government and dislike (or despise) the Democratic party. Both are animated by fear and anger. Where the Sanders miraculous conversion of mouth-breathers will being and possibly end will be with getting Trump's followers to hate not just Democrats and the government, but billionaires as well. Since economic problems are the sole sufficient cause of social injustice for some Sanders supporters, they will pass over issues of racism, bigotry, and misogyny in their zeal to get more converts to taxing the rich and making America into Finland. Taxing the rich is an excellent idea, by the way; but it won't solve long-standing attitudes of hatred and ignorance. And Trump followers don't like Finland, by the way; nor do they care for anything else foreign.
In any case, such a strategy may gain for Sanders a small percentage of Trump followers, but lose for him more and more women, minorities, immigrants, and everyone else who detests the white sheets, the beatings, the anti-science, the illogic, and the intolerance that seem to follow the mind-set of the typical Trump follower. Trump appeals to the worst elements of the worst human natures in our society. The Republican party has found out the hard way what Sanders has yet to learn -- that, once unleashed, these low-information mouth-breathers are impossible to educate and very hard to control.
Tolerance is a virtue. But it is unacceptable in a so-called "civilized society" to tolerate intolerance. Tolerating intolerance to get a vote or two is something more akin to Republicans than Democrats.
I think that, as a learning experience, anyone believing that this beastly crowd can be turned into homo sapiens with a stirring speech or two about the 1%, should attend an actual Trump rally and try to work their magic on the brains and hearts therein.
Or Perhaps Sanders should make his pitch to non-Trump followers in the Republican party. Some of them actually have an education and know a syllogism from a fallacy. Why he would aim his Occupy Wall Street (I happen to revere that movement) pitch at the very Tea Party now reviled even by Republicans, is beyond my comprehension or digestion.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)no need to fret
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)most Trump supporters - but for those who are likely to vote for Trump or Cruz or whoever - who are attracted by their faux economic populism and faux "say what you're really thinking" style - which I think is a significant number - of course we should try to re-channel the anger in a more progressive direction. Doing so can help build the kind of progressive majority we need. Not doing so - means we lose. If only "the enlightened" were allowed to vote for the Democratic Party we would lose every election from now until eternity.
Last person I talked to who told me he was voting for Trump was a person of color originally from Papua New Guinea. Go figure.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)What many of them are really after is honesty and for some reason they think Trump exudes that (I do not, since I don't think he even believes the bs he is spouting) but once they hear Bernie and his (real and verifiable honest) they are swayed.
jfern
(5,204 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)You damn well better try to educate them and get them on our side or we risk losing everything.
Shaming and ignoring has a great history of failure by the way.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)who don't demean, who don't expect their political leaders to step all over the least of us in order to maintain notions of white superiority whose votes would make a tremendous difference in this and other races but who are not being courted. Campaigns have limited time and resources, so the choices of where to direct them matter. It makes no sense for Sanders to waste such valuable time and resources trying to convert an element of the electorate who have consistently displayed no interest in voting for anyone like him and who despise the very people who Sanders claims to want to be the champion of.
And the extraordinary effort among some Sanders supporters to justify outreach to bigots - especially those claiming such compassion and empathy for them and insisting that it is necessary to reach out to them in order to bring the country together - rings very false in light of the lack of compassion or empathy, and, in many cases, the outright viciousness toward anyone supporting any other candidate other than Sanders or Trump.
You don't bring the country together by climbing across the people who need your help in order to sell yourself to those who spit in those very people's faces at every opportunity.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)than bring the supposedly liberal party further and further to the right. Even if we're likely to fail.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)And they claimed to be 'reaching out' to people that did not always agree with them. Here is one such statement from Obama spokesman Kevin Griffs:
"The Obama campaign is trying to bridge real divides and bring people together. Two things are certain: We will never be able to bridge those divides if we are unwilling to listen to voices we don't agree with, and we will never change anyone's mind if we refuse to talk to him."
The 'listening' was of course actually letting a man who calls gay people child killing vampires act as host and only speaker.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/uproar-over-obamas-gospel-tour-continues/
So among other things, this Party has already demanded that LGBT endure the honoring of hate preachers as part of the Party's 'outreach' to the faith community. If you were oppose to outreach to more bigoted persons, you should have joined the cry against McClurkin then Rick Warren.
As it is, you standards are not consistent, you judge Bernie differently than others. You expect LGBT to listen to the trash talk of some bigots while saying no one can even ask other bigots to do what Obama was asking, get over being so bigoted.
In the end, what came out of Obama 08? LGBT progress. According to Barack Obama, that 'outreach' and often painful process was part of how he made change. You strongly disagree with Obama's methods. That's funny.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)And first, [applause] let me first say how relieved Bill and I were to hear that Saddleback was spared from the recent wildfires - and how impressed and moved we were to hear about the love and support that you gave those who were not so fortunate.
It's another example of the way in which this church is not measured by numbers. Yes, the numbers are big, they're certainly impressive. But it's measured by your impact. It's measured by the meaning that you give to lives here within this complex and so far beyond its boundaries. And the commitment that you demonstrate both to our faith in God and to doing His work here on earth is exemplary and that is one of the many reasons that I wanted to be here today.
You know, Rick has helped so many people with his lessons for a 40-day spiritual journey. But he knows those 40 days are just the beginning. My own faith journey is approaching a half a century, and I know how far I still have to go.
But I have been blessed in my life, both starting in my family and in the church of my childhood, to be guided every step of the way. A mother, who taught Sunday school and made sure that my brothers and I were there the minute the church doors opened. A father, who kneeled by the side of his bed every night of his life to say his prayers. A minister of our youth fellowship, who took it as part of his mission to show the group of white, suburban, middle class kids that there was a bigger world outside. And a prayer group that formed for me shortly after I came to the White House - a group of extraordinary women, both Democrats and Republicans, whose love and support sustained me.
I've often been asked if I'm a praying person and I have always responded that I was fortunate enough to be raised to understand that the power and purpose of prayer, but, had I not been, probably one week in the White House would have turned me into one. [Laughter] It's wonderful to know that the sustaining power of prayer is there for so many of us.
One of my favorite passages in Scripture is that famous line in James that faith without works is dead. But I have concluded that works without faith is just too hard. It cannot be sustained over one's life or over the generations. And it's important for us to recognize how here, in what you're doing, faith and work come together. You understand that. Or as Rick might say: creed and deed!"
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=77080
The rest of the remarks are at the link. In them Christians are 'us' and LGBT are the 'them'. It's a speech about AIDS she manages to say 'gay' 4 times. Mostly while pardoning her faith community for their many vile errors in the early days of the crisis.
It is not the worst speech, but it is in fact a speech in which Hillary traveled to bigot central to reach out to those bigots using words of comity and agreement.
I wish the OP would specify why Hillary can pander full tilt to bigots while Bernie can't even suggest they drop the bigotry and join up with us? The Double Standard is striking.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)'Because I don't want people to ever learn from their mistakes, become more understanding, or properly identify the corporate wall street sources that are the real cause of a lot of their troubles in life. No, I would rather that they never realize their ignorance and keep voting republican forever just because I don't like Bernie Sanders.'
*sarcasm so intense that my sarcas-tro-meter exploded*
Learning that your economic problems have economic causes is good! Learning to vote in your economic interests is what we have wanted people to do for literally decades. Now that some people might actually be in danger of doing so people here are going to complain about it? Frigging ridiculous.
riversedge
(70,093 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)I don't even know if she means well, but I do know I don't want any of those people in charge of the party (DWS).
