General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCome on Bernie... I love ya but
get off the Deplorable Hillary Comment.. Id say maybe 20% of the Trump vote came from honest working class people who believed Trump would clean house and the swamp.. But the other 80%..Just fucking racist, homophobic,xenophobic haters.. Lets not pretend who they are..
And please Bernie, get off of that Liberal Elite Crap...I never met ( and Ive been around a long time) a liberal elitist.
Thats a name Right Wing Dicks came up with which meant nothing, but it stuck..
Saying that... you're my hero and I would love for you and Elizabeth to lead our cause for the next 7 years.
Hopefully this does not turn into" I told you so" ant-Bernie threat... We all need to be on the same page.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/01/bernie-sanders-trump-voters-not-deplorable-clinton-warren
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Democrat and very proud of it. Don't disparage the party which allowed you to run in our primary, it appears a strange way of saying thank you
jrthin
(4,836 posts)I have never liked Bernie and never will. The moment he announced that he would primary Hillary, I turned to my husband and said, "this will not go well for Hillary and the dems will lose the election."
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)just a joke.
DeeDeeNY
(3,355 posts)There was no incumbent in this race, so it was democratic for the primary to field more than one candidate. The whole idea is to have a choice - to vote for whoever you think will best represent the party's ideals and have the best chance to win. Do you blame all those who who ran in the 2004 Democratic primary for "primarying" John Kerry? Or maybe Obama shouldn't have "primaried" Hillary in 2008?
To blame Bernie because he ran in a primary for the Democratic nomination makes no sense. Hillary won the primary and went on to win the popular vote, and maybe even the general election had there been no Russian interference.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)O'Malley would have landed some punches but things would have been very different.
DeeDeeNY
(3,355 posts)The reality is that Bernie caucused with Democrats and espoused Democratic ideals. Maybe it's time to let go of the petty divisiveness and work together against the true threat?
jrthin
(4,836 posts)friends with the person I vote for. I can dislike a candidate but support their positions. It's not a mutually exclusive position. Does he have positions I support? Yes. Do I like him? No. The problem with liking people is that we can end up with people like 45.
I don't want to go back, the election is over. But when Bernie berated Obamacare, Hillary was left in a bad position of having to defend it. The public didn't understand the nuance of Obamacare is a good start, but needs fixing.
LisaM
(27,813 posts)Talking out of both sides of his mouth, IMO.
Cha
(297,259 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)DeeDeeNY
(3,355 posts)People here can't let it go but try to constantly refight the primaries. I will not get drawn into that. I only posted to defend the right of any candidate to run in the primary. I know who the enemy is and it definitely isn't Bernie.
samnsara
(17,622 posts)stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)Cha
(297,259 posts)wow.. were you prescient.
msongs
(67,409 posts)delisen
(6,044 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Baseless smears like that are completely unnecessary and cause harm. It divides and weakens our party.
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)Youre a hero unto our cause...Please stay on track and continue your attack on the hateful Right Wing
N oone does it quite like you except perhaps Sen. Warren.
Cha
(297,259 posts)Fascistrumps and we don't need any "elite" buzzword crap thrown at us.. thank you very much, BS.
He should be talking about those "elite" trump MF trying to take down our Democracy.
brush
(53,782 posts)Message to Sanders: Attack the repugs.
Skittles
(153,164 posts)your comment will be removed under the "trashing Democrats" rule, which is odd, since is he an Independent
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)Well Id be ashamed.
Skittles
(153,164 posts)I said I felt that switching to the Democratic party solely to run for president was being an opportunist, and my comment was yanked
JCanete
(5,272 posts)are an abuse of the alert and vote "feature." I personally never use it. Hopefully nobody who votes to ban has the temerity to then complain about how they themselves or their camp's messaging alone is targeted by this system.
Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)If you feel you were wrongly targeted, that is what you should do...I have one, but I deserved it...didn't mean it the way it came out but still it was there in black and white.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)with no other comments at all and it was hidden.
Clearly, stating a FACT with no editorial comments should be a primer candidate for re-instating.
I also had a bland critique of Clinton's campaign (non-inflammatory) hidden, again it was not re-instated.
Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)I would certainly try. But honestly do we need to say things like this? Bernie is considered a Dem in practice according to TOS... and it doesn't help with unity... as you may know I was a supporter of the 'other' candidate...but I want a Dem victory in 18 and 20. Please help us do this. The best thing we can do is ignore this which is provoked and taken out of context in some cases...and I think the media and the righties want a Dem war ...for ratings (media) and for winning (repugs).
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)be cause for a hide. But it was not re-instated.
So it may work occasionally.
But my experience is it does not work.
Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)I do not make any comments on this subject anymore...not because I am afraid of a hide, but because I want to put this party back together...going to be hard enough without fighting over someone who was a previous candidate...lets think about who will run in 18 and 20. Let get on the defeat Trump train.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Just wish he had staff to impress on him how needless his gratuitous insults to the Democratic party are.
Oh well.
Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)as we move into the future.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)appeals get looked at. I've never gotten a response. I"m not saying I should have won every appeal. Some might have been on the line, but a few have been pretty ridiculous.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)is alerted. It is annoying......
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)brush
(53,782 posts)Samantha
(9,314 posts)There are only three labels available: Democrat, Republican and Independent (a collection of all others). Democratic Socialists are basically Democrats who go a step farther and say government should work for ALL of the people, not just the wealthy and the corporations.
Sam
nolabels
(13,133 posts)Humans are basically are just how they are until they are shown how sharing can benefit everybody (like, say in kindergarten )
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)The same people are in this very thread trashing him, just like they do every time his name is mentioned. That rule is applied extremely selectively.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)are being discussed.
He alone is responsible for the words coming out of his mouth.
Quixote1818
(28,942 posts)as an INDEPENDENT he falls outside of the rule
Demit
(11,238 posts)He wanted to leave the Democratic party, after the convention, and so he did. I don't believe he still gets the right to speak as if he is a member of it.
Skittles
(153,164 posts)but don't call him an OPPORTUNIST or someone will TAKE OFFENSE and get your post yanked, even though THAT EXACTLY DESCRIBES AN OPPORTUNIST
Demit
(11,238 posts)And the Democratic party let him in. No way could he have advanced as far as he did if he hadn't been under the party's aegis. But he didn't want to stay. He wanted to go back to being an outsider, and more power to him for that too. But he has to surrender the bennies of membership along with his Dem membership card, in my view.
Skittles
(153,164 posts)aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)I'm sure youre shocked.
Response to Skittles (Reply #6)
Post removed
Tatiana
(14,167 posts)Anyone with half a brain that took a look at Trump, his background, and his lack of intelligence should have come to the conclusion that he was unfit for the Presidency.
Anyone who voted for him knowing how unfit he was, well, that's pretty deplorable.
MBS
(9,688 posts)busterbrown
(8,515 posts)that there were quite a few( mostly economically challenged) not haters, who felt Trump would help them..
Clueless, but not haters.
synergie
(1,901 posts)For years. Clueless yes, but if all that hate, in all those directions, is not a deal breaker, it's hard to say they're not haters. Passive hate is still hate.
Jonny Appleseed
(960 posts)those hats. At least 1/4th of Americans are simply just fucking idiots 2 degrees from being brain dead anyways. It's what brought us reality t.v., and through that, Trump.
synergie
(1,901 posts)Even the hats were the embodiment of racism. They knew what it was, and while I can't argue against the idiocy, or the role "idiot tv" played, still can't deny the outright racism.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)He's being diplomatic, in a way that Clinton was (momentarily) not being when she made that gaffe.
I can't say that either position is superior. Many or most of them are pretty deplorable in at least some ways.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)LenaBaby61
(6,974 posts)I have many Bernie supporter friends, and he's starting to turn some of THEM off with his rhetoric about the deplorable comment, and with other Democratic party comments.
If Hillary hadn't have won the Dem nomination and he had won, I'd have rather have Bernie as president even in an incapacitated state over the piece of disgusting filth we have installed into the White House courtesy putin/GOP shenanigans. But Bernie's rhetoric's now beginning to become stale and off-putting to me.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)all american girl
(1,788 posts)I grew up in a one bedroom house until I was in 6th grade (mom slept on the couch or the end of my bed)...then we moved into low income housing. We were on medicaid...paid for tubes in my ears (I was losing my hearing), braces on my teeth (they were so tight they thought they'd fall out when I was around 35), and paid for glasses so we all could see. We received food stamps and free lunches. Now, my husband is an officer in the army, so financially, we're good, but I do remember where I come from....and there was no elitist in that story.
I'm tired of being call a "liberal elitist" because I think we can lift everyone up, and not just white people...which I am. This is just wrong.
Warpy
(111,267 posts)I will refer you to Phil Ochs over at You Tube, the song is "Love Me, I'm a Liberal." It skewers the breed nicely but contains a word that the SJWs will hide this post over, so I can't post it here.
But yeah, he's worn out the "deplorables" comment. It's time to retire that one. Yes, she was wrong about the percentage, but the ones she was right about deserved the word. And worse.
Perez and Ellison are now working together, draining our swamp and clearing out our deadwood. It's time for the rest of the party to let go of the "Bernie Bro" and "Queen Hillary" garbage and realize we've got a lot more in common than we disagree on.
Sanders and Warren can both help us work toward a new party consensus, something sadly overdue after decades of the Koch funded DLC trying to run things, a consensus that would welcome Democratic Socialists and their ideas rather than snarking at "the left" as having nothing worthwhile to say. Maybe Sanders could join permanently.
Conservatives, at their best, put on the brakes and keep left-liberals from giving away the store. We need them, too, and that should be recognized within the party. The most conservative Democrat in office is twice as progressive as the most liberal Republican. Check it out at Progressive Punch.
It's time to bury the hatchets and rebuild our party the way it's supposed to be, from the roots up. We do that, we can stop losing districts and governor seats. And that is the way toward fixing all the damage to our country that has been done since 1969.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)"Social justice warrior" (commonly abbreviated SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual promoting socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights,multiculturalism, and identity politics."
--------------------------------------------
So fighting for equal rights for Women, African Americans and Latinos is a bad thing and you would use a word that would anger people that do so but for the threat of having your post hidden?
Warpy
(111,267 posts)and raise hell on websites about words they don't approve of.
While a lot of them deserve to fall into disuse, they push for outright censorship. And they've gotten it from time to time.
The video uses one that has certainly dropped out of my own lexicon but wasn't considered all that bad in 1964.
emulatorloo
(44,130 posts)Warpy
(111,267 posts)who spent their time trolling left wing sites over WORDS they didn't like.
emulatorloo
(44,130 posts)"Katherine Martin says that the term switched from primarily positive to overwhelmingly negative around 2011, when it was first used as an insult on Twitter.[1] The same year an Urban Dictionary entry for the term also appeared.[1] The term's negative use became mainstream due to the Gamergate controversy,[10] emerging as the favoured term of Gamergate proponents to describe their ideological opponents.[1] In Internet and video game culture the phrase is broadly associated with the Gamergate controversy and wider culture war fallout, including the 2015 Sad Puppies campaign that affected the Hugo Awards.[2][5][11][12][13] Usage of the term as a pejorative was popularized on websites Reddit and 4chan.[14]"
VOX
(22,976 posts)And not in a good way. It's right up there with "snowflakes" and "Democrat Party" (sic), etc.
Warpy
(111,267 posts)I can't see censoring ourselves just because some idiot out there uses words inappropriately. You know, like "socialist" and "liberal," both also used extensively by the far right.
Language police who advocate censorship are of the same order as the "alt right." I honestly see little difference between them except the level of physical violence.
VOX
(22,976 posts)Nobody's language-policing. Nobody's interested in censoring anything here.
You know full well that the right has their shared vocabulary, which they "throw" like gang signs. To be specific (and I'm NOT talking about you), if I were to read a cluster of posts (anywhere) by any individual that included the use of "Democrat Party," "snowflake," "SJW," "red pill," "feminazi," etc., I could reach a pretty reasonable estimation of their political timber. In spite of those tricky "ands," "ofs," and "ors."
Peace and cheers-
Response to Warpy (Reply #139)
Cha This message was self-deleted by its author.
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)Speaking of terms that shouldn't be misused..
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)seaglass
(8,171 posts)Cha
(297,259 posts)kacekwl
(7,017 posts)are going to realize they were wrong. Instead of condemnation why is it wrong to try to get the 20% to come to the light. I agree that most are deplorable but we need every soul possible if only 35% dems get out and vote.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)has surrounded himself with NeoNazis and colluded with a Russian regime which is filled with NeoNazis.
Seriously, Americans who voted for Trump need to understand who and what they voted for.
And the Media isn't helping because they investigate the Russian connection but are next to mum about the White Supremacists and THAT group is part of the nexus between Trumpland and Putin.
kacekwl
(7,017 posts)for? What happens to them then? Maybe they come over to the side of those who have a better way. Although most are lost some can be saved .
JHan
(10,173 posts)sigh.
(Great post as well)
Cha
(297,259 posts)peggysue2
(10,829 posts)But calling Democrats of any stripe names at this moment in time is deplorable in and of itself. We have a common enemy whether we're Blue Dogs or falling off the Left page. The enemy is Trump, Trump, Trump and his Republican enablers.
They were the enemy before the election and they're the existential threat now. When you've cut an artery, you don't worry about plastic surgery. This name calling and divisiveness only serves an ugly Republican agenda.
We either stick together or we hang together. Personally, I'm not in a hanging mood!
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)nikibatts
(2,198 posts)With all the info out about how Russia, Wikileaks, their gang hacked, stacked, and relentlessly pushed fake news about Hillary that even your fans swallowed whole, your comment is not only unhelpful but divisive.
JHan
(10,173 posts)SunSeeker
(51,559 posts)Ignoring the GOP's unconstitutional gerrymandering and criminal voter suppression is political malpractice.
JHan
(10,173 posts)kacekwl
(7,017 posts)party stands up and fights this they may very well lose.
Cha
(297,259 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)I wish it would stop. The negative effects and the negative results of those words are very obvious. Yet it continues anyway. Why?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)So it's not going to be addressed.
progressoid
(49,991 posts)We lost across the board, across the country. Russia and Wikileaks didn't have anything to do with our state and local elections.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)"Russia and Wikileaks didn't have anything to do with our state and local elections."
How do you know? Some of the things I've read lately tend to contradict that point of view. But none of us really know yet.
Why dismiss that possibility outright just to get a few digs in on the Democratic party?
It's absurd.
progressoid
(49,991 posts)Two things here were very different from 4 years ago.
1. The GOP had upped it's game on the local level. More people and more effective ads.
2. The Democrats were lackluster from the top down to the grass roots level. We had fewer volunteers. The GOTV organization was ineffectual and lethargic.
Russia wasn't the problem.
Cha
(297,259 posts)he's wrong and divisive.
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)There are lots of people who think the party is just swell and willing trash Trump supporters.
I appreciate his criticism of the party.
JHan
(10,173 posts)and if people are supporting a racist president people can't call it deplorable now?
what the fuck world am I living in?
Look, I can accept that many Americans voted for the dude because they just wanted a "change" but I refuse to ignore the ugliness of Trump and the sort he attracted. When Sanders goes on this damn shtick of smoothing over hate and the fact that many Americans will gladly vote for toxic politics, I have a problem. That doesn't help, hiding the truth don't help. Trump centered his message on whiteness - whiteness and by extension Christian authoritarianism. That is the context for his approach to social issues, Trade and to foreign policy - let's not get it twisted. Millions voted for that BS.
Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good.
― Charles J. Chaput
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)And its a different complaint from the RWers. I won't go into it here, but there is something there that's more than a RW echo.
Sure, Trump supporters are racist and misogynist, but so are we, but to a lesser degree and we believe in bettering society while they don't. DU groups dedicated to POC, women, LGBT, and others with minority status have been telling Democrats about our own racism and prejudice for years.
So the question isn't why are they racist and we aren't, but how do we coax some of them over from the dark side of US politics. And that effort might begin where we have commonality such as economics.
JHan
(10,173 posts)I don't know what means that anymore.The only candidate for DNC chair* who wanted to tackle power structures in the party that catered to cliquisms and elitisms was Jehmu Greene and she didn't get any big endorsements.
the soil is tainted - meaning , racism is a societal problem therefore no institution can be been free of it, however I can't recall a single democratic politician running on a platform like Trump's in recent memory. The Democratic party can do better but under Obama alone we had more investigations into cases of racial discrimination, and police brutality, than we ever had before.
It's also not my business to coddle racists and people who want to scapegoat immigrants. Soft Trump supporters might possibly be won over, but you cannot coax people out of their willful ignorance unless they want to be led out into the light. Meanwhile there are millions who could not vote or did not vote - i"d rather we focus on those folks. If our message is good, we'll win over the soft Trump supporters who are slowly coming to realise Trump is full of shit.
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)Elitism as an organizational criticism refers to the upper echelon of organizations or groups should or do run things at the detriment or disenfranchisement of less elite members.
On one hand, we want our best and brightest to rise to the top in any group, but when they become insular and self-referring that can become a problem.
With regard to strategies, I believe we need to do both -- appeal to less committed Republican voters and increase the vote of those who typically vote Democratic. I don't you, JHan, has to do both, but we, as a party, have to do both.
Thank you for talking it out.
JHan
(10,173 posts)....without pretending that Trump didn't expose the ugly underbelly of America.
I am a young black woman, I have no interest in reaching out to bigots who scapegoat immigrants.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)bigotry, while it has certainly benefited white people in the past and still does in a huge way, is never really actually benefitted the white people at the bottom in a tangible way, and is no longer benefitting the white middle class. It is being used as a wedge to keep us divided, and to exploit them along with the rest of us.
Yes the subtle and not so subtle programming is on full display with Trump in the White House, and he's adding new fucked up lines of code to the disfunction, but ignorance isn't something that people simply cure themselves of. It doesn't work that way. They've learned social lessons that have helped them to survive and "thrive" in their contexts, which comes with the bigotry, and a lot of broken "common sense" that is all too common, and goes unquestioned because of the bubbles these people live in.
The thing that does not penetrate that bubble is telling them they are shitty. That only makes the surface harder to breach, and without helping them to come to the conclusion that their misconceptions about others are wrong...without helping to try to kick-start their empathy for others that they see AS OTHER, they will have a much harder time arriving at a place where they see their current and former assumptions and actions as anathema to the sort of decency and humanity they think they have.
One thing I think Sanders is doing, is getting through that bubble. He's not excusing the bigotry. He's not excusing the hatred. He's assuming the best in people at large, because that gives them something to lose and because even the vilest acts are often justified by bad assumptions and ignorance, but not necessarily pure selfishness. We've got to get in there to cause cognitive dissonance. Otherwise the only thing reaching these people is going to continue to be hate speech and scapegoating and factually devoid mischaracterizations and dehumanizations of immigrants and people of color and homosexuals and liberals, etc.
Everybody who doesn't think we need to do this, must think that the world is changing in the right direction, or that one day we are just going to have the numbers and the white racist "dumb-fucks" are going to be outbred and die off, but this election, and the continued loss of Democratic seats doesn't make that hope very promising, and worse, if we don't do this right going forward, with these white people and with everybody, when the current scapegoats no longer work to divide, there will be new scapegoats that work on a different range of people, and ultimately, they will have vile consequences too, and we will remain divided and screwed.
If it came down to it and I was given a choice to save the whole state of West Virginia or Utah, versus any diverse city, I would choose the city every time. At least from my perspective the need to reach out to these people is not because I value them more, or think that they are more valuable currently to the future of humanity than others, and in-fact quite the opposite, given just how indoctrinated they are and dangerous the politics they continue to support is. But that isn't the quandary we face. We are all in this together whether we decide to fight each other(or fight back, which I totally get) or not.
It seems imperative to me that we get them to see what even their own actual interests are, because they don't know it, but theirs are aligned to ours. The stupid that they've draped themselves in is smothering them, it isn't giving them shit, and for all of our sakes they need to see it. I don't know what principle is worth not using the tools that might be functional to get them to see it, given the stakes.
JHan
(10,173 posts)I am not down with pretense.
call it as I see it, sick of the coddling and double standards.
there are millions who did not vote ( and many who stayed home or were in states where voter suppression affected turn out) I'm most interested in those voters.
I am not down with reaching out to bigots. I am not going to psycho-analyze them either. They are who they are. This is not me dehumanizing them, but stating a fact. Bigots come in all shapes and forms, some are great neighbors to people they like, are loved by their children, family and friends. Humans are complex.
However millions who also felt the pinch of economic anxiety did NOT vote for Trump and rejected his BS.
Let's understand the ugliness at work here: Of course there are soft Trump voters, I know some of these voters personally who now regret voting the way they did ( including my cousin) . However there are also many who ENJOY what is going on right now, even if it hurts them, because Trump is hurting others who they detest. Trump's "blue lies" don't bother them at all, because in their warped view, they at the top of his concerns when he actually doesn't care. They are so selfish, unless they are directly impacted, they don't care if others starve or suffer under this administration. There is no kumbaya moment to be had with these folks until they come to understand that their toxic politics hurts everyone in the process.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)that that is what their toxic politics does, all by their own, in their bubble with the propaganda machine in full force, then we are in for a world of disappointment and continued suffering as a consequence of their sustained and amazingly deepening, ignorance...on the level of less informed than uninformed. It isn't about coddling for the sake of coddling. It is about doing the work in a way that is effective, because again, they are screwing us all. We can try to get them to stop doing it WITHOUT abandoning any of our ideals...without using the tactics wishy washy red-state politicians who think it is better to pander to their constituents with those very same broken values, rather than to present a better, more factual, truthful narrative.
Again, it is not about their suffering and trying to privilege it. It is about the suffering they are meting upon the rest of us, particularly on those of us who are among maligned and hate-targeted populations. Getting them to just see their own damn self-interest and where it does not lie, and getting them to see that they are being taken for a ride, is good for all of us. We continue to lose by not effectively breaking through that wall. Writing them off is hoping for something I don't know that we can count on.
But of course, the voters who stayed home may be more reachable, but that doesn't mean the Sanders messaging doesn't reach some of them as well, and the voter suppression and purging and gerrymandering is anti-democratic to the core, and it is destroying our democracy, but we need these people to see that and to want our side to win so that we have the support of stopping that destruction of our society. We can't do it if we have to rely on a little over half the population and a Government that was installed by the very virtue of those discriminating and cheating policies.
For my part, I don't believe anybody is simply what they are. My admittedly basic understanding of psychology and human development suggests otherwise. Some are rooted in racism to the core, absolutely. It is their identity. It is how they derive their own value. They aren't likely to be reachable, even if we reach their friends and loved-ones. But hopefully that percentage is smaller than it appears on the surface.
You are right, we've had this conversation before. My own thinking on it continues to evolve, and I think I'm speaking about it at least somewhat differently than I have in the past, as my own understanding changes. On the other hand, it may sound to you like exactly the same noise.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)The Trump supporters I know IRL and the internet for the most part are not open minded people.
I know that we have to appeal to some moderate gop voters but the bigots will never abandon Trump and we don't want them.
As a gay man I find it difficult to appeal to people who think I am an abomination and consider me a second class citizen, nor should I be expected to.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Sarandon springs immediately to mind......nevermind that she is as deplorable as they come
Cha
(297,259 posts)Mahalo, Me.!
Me.
(35,454 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)elitism he's referring to. He's talking about the elitism of believing that society should and in part does, function as a meritocracy, and that some people really deserve to carve out literal chunks of national and global wealth for themselves because they are simply greater contributors to society than others.
We may disagree about whether or not those people exist among us, or whether that is actually a bad philosophy for that matter, but I would say that's the distinction he is making.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)that a person gets wealth solely on his or her own, Hillary Clinton certainly did not make statements remotely close to what you claimed, neither did other Democrats that ran in 2016. The stuff you described are republican talking points. Democrats believe that people should have the chance to be successful, but that those that are hyper successful in terms of accumulating financial wealth should be honored to contribute to ensuring healthcare for all Americans, safe roads and public transportation, educating the young - because those things make everyone more prosperous, including the already rich.
JI7
(89,250 posts)YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)Cha
(297,259 posts)Langkous
(36 posts)I'm very careful and avoid using BUT
I find usually its a hook and a put down
Kind of a sly aside
eg I like Bernie BUT ...
Do you really ???
It's hard to believe since it reads
Like a disclaimer
I like using AND
to find a way
to connect
I read that you don't really "love" Bernie
AND you could just say that
BUT ....
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)A word which joins sentences or thoughts..
By the way, did you read my last paragraph?
Cha
(297,259 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)There is no reason for anyone to "love" a politician. We agree or disagree with them. Doing both is essential to democracy. If people can't accept that an elected representative is ever wrong, our democracy is in serious trouble.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Thank you. You said what I was thinking, only you said it better.
(I'd give it three thumbs up but I don't have three thumbs.)
Bluepinky
(2,271 posts)The Democratic Party needs to make some changes to better appeal to the working class. Bernie has always talked about issues that real people deal with, he's passionate about his ideas and not afraid to voice them, and his viewpoint doesn't depend on what the poll numbers are. In my extended family, there were several people who ended up voting for Trump because they couldn't stand Hillary; I believe at least some of them would have voted for Bernie, had he been the candidate. Bernie did do the right thing after he lost the primary, as he fought really hard for Hillary. I do believe the DNC is focused on the corporatist wing of the party and not on the working or even middle class people. I think Bernie is right to speak up, and I think the DNC should listen to him.
JI7
(89,250 posts)large majorities of non white people whoa re working class voted for Clinton.
Bluepinky
(2,271 posts)She would have made an excellent president (especially after Bernie helped her move to the left on some of her ideas). I just think that the DNC needs to make sure that the progressive voices are represented. Bernie speaks for a lot of people. And yes, the working class isn't only white people but people of all different ethnicities and backgrounds.
JI7
(89,250 posts)because they are viewed as taking from white people whether they do well or not.
Bluepinky
(2,271 posts)The populist policies brought forward by Sanders would apply to all people, regardless of color. I do think we need changes in our policing policies, justice system and other areas to address discrimination of non-whites. And it's shameful what is being done to voting rights, which affects a lot of people but especially non-whites.
JHan
(10,173 posts)working class people of color don't feature in any of the talk because we still love the myth of the white blue collar worker. He's a politician, he knows the power of words and implied meaning - he has enough experience to know the impact of his rhetoric. He wailed more about "identity politics" in the immediate aftermath of the election than talking about the disgustingly successful voter suppression tactics in the Carolinas and gerrymandering.
He also knows exactly what he's doing when he hangs the "corporate money" anchor round the Democratic party the SAME WEEK that Democrats sought to change campaign finance laws, despite the fact that both he and dems want Citizens United reversed.
so what is the point of it all if not to sling around slogans he threw around during the primaries.
I await being called "divisive"
Bluepinky
(2,271 posts)He says working class. I just reread the article. I don't think you can say Bernie is racist; the policies he speaks of would help all working/middle class people, no matter their color. Why bring race into it?
JHan
(10,173 posts)J17 posited a question to you, you responded, and I'm adding further context in light of Sanders comments after the election.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)"working class" = "white males." No, he doesn't say that out loud of course; it's a dog-whistle. This becomes VERY clear when he's talking about Trump voters. It's soft bigotry, but it's still bigotry.
George II
(67,782 posts)....Keith Ellison?
What has to be recognized is that the so-called "progressives" in and around the Democratic Party (not necessarily in) comprise only about 20% of the Democratic Party. With that in mind, why are so-called "progressives" demanding that they control 100% of what the Democratic Party says and does?
Why should a relatively small sector of the Democratic Party control everything?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Bluepinky
(2,271 posts)More than 20% of Democrats want public option or single payer health care, a higher minimum wage, decreased income inequity (accomplished in part thru more equitable taxation and higher wages), non-privatized Medicare and Social Security, strong environmental laws and regulations, Financial protections for all, etc. These are progressive ideas and I would think are embraced by most Democrats. Bernie talked about these and really connected with people; he doesn't change his views depending on his audience, and he was instrumental in moving Hillary's opinions to the left. As a bonus, he's not a war hawk and voted against the Iraq War.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Where is the beef? I am moderate-progressive and support every single goal that you listed. The difference for me is that I don't insist that I always get 100% of what I want and realize that practical realities often get in the way and have to be worked around.
Bluepinky
(2,271 posts)It would be difficult to get 100% of everything you want. Hillary is smart and ambitious, she would have been great! But Bernie was better at exciting the base, and his goals were/are a lot more progressive than Hillary's. The DNC didn't give him a chance, it was Hillary or no one as far as they were concerned. Just as an example, there were several members of my extended family who would have voted for Bernie had he run against Trump, but voted for Trump over Hillary. Granted, these weren't Democrats, but they wanted a populist and felt that Hillary wasn't one.
George II
(67,782 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....that's still a small part of our Party, they should not insist or demand on dictating 100% of the Democratic Party's policies or positions.
Bluepinky
(2,271 posts)But don't shut out progressives. I reallly resented Debbie Wasserman Schultz, she was so blatant in her favoritism of Hillary, even before the primary. All the Democratic factions need to unite and work together, and all viewpoints need to be discussed.
Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)We need to all be on the same page and fight the GOP...there is a Dem big tent when we are in the majority, and while you have a say...everyone does....that does not mean you always get what you wants. Sure maybe you can take your ball and go home...but at what cost? Time for Democrats top unite and fight the GOP and Trump...he is the enemy not fellow Democrats.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)To insist otherwise is playing loose with the truth.
murielm99
(30,741 posts)for Hillary. Nor do I believe he helped her move to the left. And what exactly is a progressive voice? The very use of that word sounds like a purity test to me.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)ect don't do sweaty, hard jobs and often work multiple jobs. Working class includes anyone that wake up early each day and sweat their butts off all day and often into the night, it has no race.
Bluepinky
(2,271 posts)Working class has no race, so what's wrong with wanting to make things better for working class people (all races). In the article that was posted, Bernie says nothing about white working class, he only says working class. If he specified white working class in the past, he was wrong to do so. Maybe he has learned to address the working class in total and not to separate out the white working class. Why not celebrate someone who connects with a lot of people, especially young people, and wants to make things better for all workers?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)irresponsible idiots who whine about how they have no choice but to vote for anyone but a Democrat because they're being ignored are "working class."
Over 30 million working class Democrat voters of all colors and sexual orientations say this is bullshit.
Cha
(297,259 posts)nini
(16,672 posts)They just dont want to share the working class with non whites so they follow the party that lies to them and pushes their fear buttons.
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)Charles Bukowski
(1,132 posts)Lol
uponit7771
(90,344 posts)Cha
(297,259 posts)Shine the LIGHT!
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)who apparently don't count. At least to some people.
And Bernie didn't work very hard for Hillary. Just as DT's primary win was settled in the spring, so was Hillary's. But instead of dropping out and supporting her once the numbers made a win for him impossible, Bernie forced Hillary to continue fighting on two fronts: both against DT and against himself. And he gave many of his young and inexperienced supporters the false hope that somehow he could eke out a convention win.
Once Hillary was the nominee, did he work hard for her? No, he worked hard on his book. He didn't do any campaign events for her till September, when he did two.
Bluepinky
(2,271 posts)which made it more difficult for Hillary. But his persistence and fighting spirit made him even more popular with his base, especially because the DNC (think Debbie Wasserman Schultz) favored Hillary from the start and gave the appearance of not treating him fairly. I remember Bernie campaigning hard for Hillary after she got the nomination; I don't know how many events he went to for her but he did urge all his supporters to get behind her to defeat Trump. I could try to find some sources to back this up.
I don't understand the implied racism behind so many of these comments about the working class. In your post you said the majority of the working class voted for Hillary, which included many diverse voters, which don't count for some people. I don't know if you're implying that I'm racist or if Bernie is. That seems like a cheap shot.
I don't think it's beneficial for Bernie to criticize Hillary at this point, although DNC is a different story.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)is overlooking the fact that she had huge appeal to working class voters who were black and hispanic. So what they really mean is that she didn't appeal enough to the WHITE working class.
She spent her whole campaign talking about the economy and the needs of working class and middle class voters. But she didn't focus solely on white voters, like DT did.
In the end though, Jill Stein drew enough white college-educated progressives in the 3 critical states to swing the election.
Bluepinky
(2,271 posts)I know we all agree that Hillary or Bernie would have been a great President, and we mourn for our country.☹️
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)between either of them and DT (and the rest of the GOP.)
Response to busterbrown (Original post)
Post removed
Mike Nelson
(9,956 posts)...of Deplorables. Hillary Clinton was correct. I wondered if she might be off by estimating "half" but it looks like that was correct, too.
Charles Bukowski
(1,132 posts)Who are we kidding? Hillary lowballed it.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)I don't think he's playing a positive role at all. It has nothing to do with his positions, it's his complete inability to organize, his negativity, and his lunging away from Hillary's coalition.
Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #63)
Post removed
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)that's a good thing. But his voice of great conviction, negativity and all, does appeal to many. I know I do appreciate his going after wealth inequality, when he does. So perhaps he will stimulate some more people into voting next time around.
As for "loving" him...? Me neither. That would be a very peculiar reaction to all the insults he slings my way as a liberal progressive mainstream "elite" Democrat. I find his kind of ethics distinctly unlovable also. But it takes a lot of kinds to run a democracy.
betsuni
(25,532 posts)I wonder what "liberal elite" means when Sanders uses it as he didn't understand what political correctness was during that town hall with Chris Hays. Like when I learned on DU that "status quo" means "get money out of politics" (but apparently this is really bad only when Democrats raise money, which I suppose makes them liberal elites -- omg, wait wait, that's it!: liberal elites are rich people who contribute to Democrats and since they got those big bucks by selling something they are CORPORATE and everyone is establishment and status quo and bad). I need the True Progressive dictionary again.
And nobody can use the excuse of voting for Trump because they didn't know him. He's been a public figure since the 80s. Suddenly all these people can't remember who he is? No.
Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)seaglass
(8,171 posts)sound like outreach to me. It sounds like cementing support for Bernie. He is actually terrible at outreach, Schumer should rethink this decision.
OR isn't even supporting Jon Ossoff in GA's CD-06. I guess if a D isn't pure enough we'll just let a Republican have the seat. They are fucking useless.
FloridaBlues
(4,008 posts)uponit7771
(90,344 posts)meadowlark5
(2,795 posts)An article said something about Bernie and Biden considering a run in 2020. So there must be talk or speculation in those circles. Bernie is just warming up. How old will he be? Close to 80 by then? Certainly there has to be younger Dems that can run. Or at least a Dem and not one that pretends to one every 4yrs.
Maven
(10,533 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)But, hey! They "sent a message" right? I guess the message from the Sarandon-type voters is "I'd rather brag about how high my standards are instead of making the best choice between the only two candidates who actually have a shot at winning"
------------
Hello again, You! (We meet again!) This post expresses my opinion/s about whether or not Schumer's decision was the best one. My saying that he made a mistake in one of his decisions is not against the rules. This post also expresses my opinion/s about a specific type of voter who refuses to support the Democratic candidate. My contempt for voters who do not vote for Democrats is not against the rules.
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)If it weren't for Bernie I was probably going to declare myself an independent after the GE.
His faith in the Democratic party's ability to adapt inspired me to stay and donate, even to the DNC.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)Cha
(297,259 posts)fight back" and "elite" isn't motivating anyone.. it's wrong and divisive.
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)I think I understand why you find him divisive and even I wish he chose different words at times, but I think you underestimate how many left-leaning independent voters find a voice in Bernie.
ecstatic
(32,705 posts)He wants dems to get off the identity politics train, but every time he talks he references the white "working class." That's identity politics!
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,412 posts)You're drunk.
The primary and election are over and we lost. Got to get to work to clean the TrumpGOPstain out of the country. Keep the disparaging comments to yourself.
Response to busterbrown (Original post)
Post removed
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)True_Blue
(3,063 posts)3 million more people voted for Hillary over Trump. IMO Hillary would've easily won if the Russians hadn't blatantly interfered in our election.
still_one
(92,202 posts)are just that
Paul Krugman analyzed this far better than you have Bernie:
Paul Krugman's take on why people vote against their own self-interest
"'Coal country' residents weren't voting to preserve what they have, or had until recently; they were voting on behalf of a story their region tells about itself, a story that hasn't been true for a generation or more"
"Their trump votes weren't even about the region's interests; they were about cultural symbolism"
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/paul-krugman-reveals-why-so-many-trump-voters-appear-vote-against-their-own-self
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)Cha
(297,259 posts)SunSeeker
(51,559 posts)comradebillyboy
(10,150 posts)he gets more attention that way.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)Thanks Bernie!
Cha
(297,259 posts)doing.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Cha
(297,259 posts)delisen
(6,044 posts)Cha
(297,259 posts)Response to busterbrown (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed