2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNothing disgusts me more in politics than exploiting race, ethnicity
gender for political advantage. It's so republican and so Clintonian. It reveals a lack of a moral and ethical center. Hillary's campaign fell back on that stinking shit in 2008 against Barack Obama, trotting out surrogates to do the dirty work. And here we are 7 years later and Hillary's shiny new campaign is pulling the same ugly lying tricks.
It's not coincidental or accidental, it's just politics as usual for Hillary.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 31, 2015, 10:03 AM - Edit history (1)
Maybe you should post a link to the story before you get accused of smearing Hillary.
eta link showing Hillary's surrogate lying about Bernie
cali
(114,904 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)
cali
(114,904 posts)
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)period.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)it is going to really hurt to do it.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Not all of us are party puppets. I would never compromise my deeply-held principles just so I can advocate someone just barely to the left of Donald Trump. Barely, as in, you'd have to have a microscope to detect it. The "who else you gonna vote for" bullshit is just one more way of maintaining the status quo.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Hillary, on the other hand, has never met a war-for-profit that she wouldn't wholeheartedly support.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)I have a fully functioning brain and I try use it regularly. There are no party puppet strings attached to me which means dog whistles are wholly ineffectual.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)the expense of lives of others.
we do what we gotta do.
that doesnt make sense to me by the definition of principle, but we all have different views of the world. i often get into discussions about philosophy with son, as the is his major. these are the kinds of conversation we have
i think saving immediate lives is greater than getting the candidate i want.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Hillary actually has higher negatives in the swing states and tends to agitate and activate conservatives more.
Even from a pragmatic perspective she isn't as good a candidate.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)So much of what I see is that "only hillary can win..." I just think it is important to point out that this is simply not the case.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that is what my post is about.
talking about principle. saving lives, i think, is principled.
coyote
(1,561 posts)She does not differentiate herself enough from Republicans that I do not see a big difference in who wins. Again our choice Republican and Republican lite and I will not support any candidate that does not have solid Democratic principles.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)Reap what you sow.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)policies.
Some people won't vote for Bernie because they feel his policies are too close to Democratic policies.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)Not voting, which only helps the theocratic fascists foaming at the mouth to take over our govt.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Maybe you meant to respond to another post?
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Let's see, you make a post saying why some people won't vote for Bernie--"This is why Hillary supporters will not vote for Bernie if he wins nomination"
Then scream about how some people won't vote!--"Some people have the privilege of sitting home and not voting"
This follows the patterns of your other posts such as "Bernie is too hawkish, vote for Hillary" and "that poll sucks, but it shows Hillary ahead so yay!"
Maybe you should stick to trying to make Bernie out to be a pedophile.
Response to LondonReign2 (Reply #198)
Post removed
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)to scream about those that don't vote!
And now back to the pedophile nonsense ranting.
I gotta say, you are a fine torchbearer for Hillary.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You do realize that the Republican who said that is a convicted criminal, right?
And how'd posting the video that calls him a pedophile work out for you last time?
840high
(17,196 posts)
stranger81
(2,345 posts)people should vote for her in 2008 because someone would surely soon make sure that Mr. Obama went the way of Bobby Kennedy.
It's so craven it makes me sick.
onecaliberal
(32,865 posts)They're going to need the people they are now alienating. I already know some people who said they won't vote for her no matter what.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)More
sibelian
(7,804 posts)The central thesis of the Third Way is not pragmatism, as they tell themselves, it is cynicism.
cali
(114,904 posts)What are we to surmise from those who deal in suggestion and innuendo?
All we can suppose is that they assume others think and act the way they do.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... spent the last six years bashing Obama now pretending to be upset about something that happened in the 08 primary?
It's rather amusing.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)I love DU.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Obama will cut Social Security.
I'll open with those.
There are plenty more.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)You have anything else that's not made up?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Those were angry DU common wisdom attacks. Bernie's angriest DU supporters were sure those things would happen and they were very very pissed off about it.
And for all their endless hair on fire screaming, their breathless admonitions, they were wrong.
And here they are again, with their hair on fire claims.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Were you not mad that he was okay with making cuts to Social Security?
And, it was the Republicans that kept Obama from making those cuts, not liberals.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/02/21/liberals-didnt-kill-obamas-social-security-cuts-republicans-did/
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)They said that's why he created the CAT FOOD COMMISSION.
They said that was why he suspended the Social Security tax briefly.
They said his GOAL was to cut social security. Screamed it. Predicted it. Over and over and over.
Dozens of OPs. Probably more.
Said the same about DADT. And DOMA. He'd never end either one.
And the Bush tax cuts. He was going to make them all permanent.
Said he'd never leave Iraq. Said he'd invade Syria, Egypt, Libya, and Iran. Puppet of the MIC!!!
He was fast tracking Keystone.
Screamed that all of these things would happen.
And they have been wrong over and over and over.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that consistently anti feminist and what i have noticed.
ya. that.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)I watched all of this nonsense play out right along side you, JoePhilly.
Exactly as you described, right down to the same cast of characters.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"Well, he would'a if we hadn't a'stopped him" ... which only served to transition to their next (and sometimes, same) angry, and equally wrong, prediction.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)The idea that the aliens do not exist, or decided to not invade us on their own, is just silly.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Pretend it's a talking point all you want. It happened.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/02/21/liberals-didnt-kill-obamas-social-security-cuts-republicans-did/
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Republicans killed it because there was no way they could accept the offer, even as he offered them what they claimed they wanted ... there were, literally, hundreds of pundits commenting on it at the time.
The deal was like, "I will kill myself, if you agree to kill yourself first" ... no matter how much you want me dead, that is a deal that you are really, really, really ... to the point of a certainty ... unlikely to accept.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)I'm on their side. Wish you were.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Obama dangled a carrot in front of the GOP ... and dared them to try and take it.
You should also recall that the hair on fire screaming about the cat food commission, and suspending the social security tax, and predictions of how those actions proved Obama was definitely, absolutely, positively going to gut/slash/destroy Social Security all PRECEDED Obama dangling that carrot in front of the GOP by a few years.
The DU prediction was that Obama was going to CAVE on Social Security .... that term was used repeatedly ... long before he dangled a carrot in front of Boehner.
And the OPs that used that term, and made that prediction, were rec'd straight to the DU home page, over and over and over.
Many of those Doom and Gloom predictors are now among Bernie's loudest DU supporters. And they are very happy to pronounce what Bernie, or Hillary will do in the future.
My conclusion from those failed predictions, however, is that those folks aren't terribly adept at predicting what any politician, or candidate, will do.
What they are good at ... is hair on fire OPs.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"sophisticated" followers of politics, simply, shut off their real life experience for partisan reasons.
{ETA:} The deal was like, "I will kill myself, if you agree to kill yourself first" ... no matter how much you want me dead, that is a deal that you are really, really, really ... to the point of a certainty ... unlikely to accept.
cali
(114,904 posts)
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)Who bashed who ...? Although if I know the one who I might be able to figure out the other who. I am confused.
Response to cali (Reply #24)
George II This message was self-deleted by its author.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)It does have a certain kind of irony to it, doesn't it?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... "Who me???" ... responses.
Some of Bernie's loudest DU supporters have been incredibly wrong over and over.
But they still want to sit on high and pronounce their political judgements.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)(mis/dis)interpretations of what (a majority of) Communities of Color REALLY MEAN, when we say, repeatedly, and clearly, ...
And:
In response to:
No ... it's a "dog whistle" thing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=561374
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Black Sabbath - Paranoid 1970
Finished with my woman
cause she couldnt help me with my mind
People think Im insane
because I am browning all the time
All day long I think of things
but nothing seems to satisfy
Think I'll lose my mind
if I dont find something to pacify
Can you help me
thought you were my friend
Whoah yeah
I need someone to show me
the things in life that I cant find
I cant see the things
that make true happiness, I must be blind
(Instrumental)
Make a joke and I will sigh
and you will laugh and I will cry
Happiness I cannot feel
and love to me is so unreal
And so as you hear these words
telling you now of my state
I tell you to enjoy life
I wish I could but its too late
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Romulox
(25,960 posts)What a classic track.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the power of self-delusion.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... reading extra, no "coded", meaning into every Obama utterance.
So its not surprised to see them apply it here, there, everywhere.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)reveling in the "skill" that could be identified by a clinical term, and a lay term or 2, that would certainly earn me a hide, if I were to use them.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)push policies they were supposed to be opposed to. Like Offshore Drilling eg. Should the people remain silent when politicians do things that are against the best interests of the country?
And ONLY speak out when it's someone we don't like?
Sorry, that isn't how things are. First and foremost is how policies affect the country. And bad policies are bad policies no matter who is responsible for them.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)sort of ritual whipping child to trash talk for the benefit of their super religious ultra fans in the Donnie McClurkin South or the Rick Warren West, there is not a politician today that does not pander and exploit anti gay sentiments and conservative clergy.
Of course straight people overlook the bulk of it.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Not enough votes, barely worth the bother.
It's not just the right that's guilty of it.
This tends to open one's eyes, somewhat.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)simply based on how even LGBT use descriptors of the mentally ill with impunity as adjectives for the wrongness of LGBT opponents
sibelian
(7,804 posts)I can only speak for myself. There has been mental illness in my family.
I am continually appalled at the casual and silly use of the attribution of mental health problems like narcissism, obsession, mental instability and suchlike things, all of which are diagnoses that actual psychiatrists are very careful about making.
It's been particularly bad on this site for a very long time and the denizens of DU seem to wish to cling to it as firmly as their evident and revolting delight in men being raped in prisons.
I don't know if there is a general trend particularly amnong LGBT to use such terms.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I don't want to paint broadly, you can watch and judge for yourself.
I won't challenge that LGBT are a low rung re social dominance, but I have the feeling the mentally disordered don't really get a foot on the ladder.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)I agree entirely.
The thing is, oppressive social structures need to be accurately described before they can be managed away, and it's going to be extremely difficult to characterise what structures the mentally disordered face that people won't simply accept as normal reactions to mental illness. There's this utterly destructive "ick" factor that seems to be to be a twisted descendent of "there but for the grace of God go I..."
I spent a while as a policy officer for a third sector interface and discovered all sorts of stuff going on with demented people that was just awful. Incredibly simple things we take for granted are just completely alien concepts to those near the mentally ill. They're treated like sausage meat in a sausage factory, it's horrible.
I also worked for a while as an administrator in a psychiatric hospital. Psychiatrists are lovely... the general public... not so much. The patients were fine! Not one of them made a word of sense, but they understood things that mattered like feeling bad for you if something bad had happened to you, or wanting to help you if you needed help. They were all still very human.
Anyway, this is probably all irrelevant as I don't even live in the States, but I can't imagine the situation would be all that different over there.
The most awful things you hear about are these poor men and women (mostly men, really) with disordered thinking that no-one could possibly call their fault sitting in police cells or jails for days or weeks or months on end after havng done something completely inappropriate but entirely normal for them, sometimes with no-one having any idea what to do... It's just gut-wrenching. I heard so many of those stories. Everyone always had this "don't wanna deal" kind of attitude. Just utterly awful. You would feel so sorry for them. Just left there to rot because they're "icky".
Sigh...
cali
(114,904 posts)I know of plenty of politicians what haven't.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)always anti gay, always have been. Bernie is ok about it. But his campaign still keeps quoting the Pope, and the Pope is an anti gay bigot. I managed to have a fine career myself without ever once praising an anti-Semite, racist or homophobe.
demwing
(16,916 posts)he's clean
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)Correct me if I'm wrong.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)gun-owners as "ammosexuals." I suggested that the term was and is a point blank slur of people based on some fanciful sexual proclivity. I don't think there is much of an argument there. What folks don't realize is that slur could not have a negative effect unless it were based on previous uses of words often used in a negative manner:
"Homosexual."
Try alerting that and see what happens. 
marble falls
(57,112 posts)sole issue. That's the only reason I can see for her support of IWR, TPP, death penalty, mandatory minimum sentencing, three strike laws, fracking, Keystone, NSA intercept of American phone calls and e-mails.......................
Aren't we Dems and progressives against that stuff?
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Fear of losing.
One cannot expect one's enemies to ignore the primary motivation behind one's strategies. If your enemies can see that you are acting in fear, they will look for ways to exploit those fears.
marble falls
(57,112 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Leaning-in to voting blocks is common, whether it's a geocentric block like Iowans, being stroked with promises of support for biofuel or Hispanics for immigration reform.
And it works best when it isn't seen as divisive pandering but as 'party platform planks'.
It's a shame when it's based on lies but people are willing to lie to get things they think are important. That's why politicians lie.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)That she pays? They grind out reams of look how wondrous Hillary is on issues.
That is not a game-changer or a vote-changer. Was there anything incorrect in that article? No, there was not.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)or is a better advocate. and certainly not say that stupid out loud.
all one need do is look at the two's history.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)then people have to spend time and effort addressing. then we will do it all over again in a handful of days.
done
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
dsc
(52,163 posts)Sanders supported abortion restrictions, when?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Q: Are there circumstances when the government should limit choice?
LAZIO: I had a pro-choice record in the House, and I believe in a woman’s right to choose. I support a ban on partial-birth abortions. Senator Moynihan called it “infanticide.” Even former mayor Ed Koch agreed that this was too extreme a procedure. This is an area where I disagree with my opponent. My opponent opposes a ban on partial-birth abortions.
CLINTON: My opponent is wrong. I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. I’ve met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course it’s a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a woman’s choice.
Source: Senate debate in Manhattan , Oct 8, 2000
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)but, that does not make it so.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Sanders simply has a better record on the issues. Maybe it's a small lead, but it's a lead.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)story to a lot of people that see it differently.
i have said repeatedly. these two are much more the same, simply because they are both progressives.
you and others do not think she is progressive.
so you walk into the discussion see that.
we hold two different views. in this, i see
omalley
clinton
sanders
all dem, all good, but this is the order i see.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)so you walk into the discussion see that.
we hold two different views. in this, i see
I realize Sanders has a better record on the issue being discussed. That puts him ahead of Clinton. As I said, it might not be a huge lead - she's certainly no Republican here - but it's a lead nonetheless.
clinton
sanders
all dem, all good, but this is the order i see.
That's lovely. Though I don't think I've seen you post anything in support of O'Malley. Gotta admit, I don't read your posts religiously or anything.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)this is why i tell you that your facts... are assigned with all kinds of shit. you do not see it? you were in a thread the other day, yesterday.... with me declaring it all over the place.
i have been all over the board making statement
i have been in omalley thread for the last handful of days, cause he is mocing and doing and it is a blast.
i jumped into omalleys group day one and started to get informed. a lot of people educating me. want to take me on about omalley? that is fine. i have been following him for months, a couple months? .... right before i got kicked off for 2 and half months for being disillusioned with sanders, walking away, and bumping into omalley
you know
hey guy. you are really doing it for me.
i think i fell a little in love with that smile.
so do tell me why...... you have NEVER seen me mention omalley
why would i put the time in, when i have to do so much work, to convince YOU, i support fuckin omalley
do tell?
done.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Like I said though, I'm not running around looking at ll your posts for the last five months 
Hopefully I'll bump into one of these O'Malley advocacy posts of yours.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)O’Malley Hires Former Obama Hispanic Media Director For Senior Campaign Role
How dare Heather advocate for Bernie with other women?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)than obama, then ya.... something like that
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Obama isn't running.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)If you condemn Bernie for hiring a woman to promote him with other women then you have to condemn Hillary and O'Malley for doing the same thing with Latinos.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #39)
Puglover This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)left out.
you and beam create an argument i am not in.
go at it.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)but, it is not what i am saying.
politicians get and hire surrogates. cool
it was cool that sanders hired an AA public relations spokesperson. and it was cool he hired an AA man who does something. excellent. i am down with that.
you all have people for clinton up, i see. i am not interested. cause i generally do not pay much attention to these people. that is not where i gather info. it is marketed.
good.
what i am saying
sanders saying he is better womans advocate than clinton.
compares to sanders making the statement thru his AA rep, he is better at race issues than obama
i am not talking about people having surrogates.
i am talking about the condescending arrogance to suggest he understands and has done more for womens issues than clinton.
you two women do not have an issue with a 70 yr old man telling you that he gets me..... more than clinton does.
i get that does not bother you
it bothers me.
that is my statement
you are allowed
i am allowed. i cannot simplify it any better to my bottom line.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)I don't think Clinton "gets me" at all. and I think she is the condescending arrogant one.
So, yes, if that is where you are coming from then we are most certainly done here.
To me, Bernie is one of the most humble politician that I have seen in a very long time.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Bernie IS a better advocate, he doesn't pander to pro-lifers and religious bigots when he's running against them like Hillary did.
He doesn't cave, he stands firm on civil rights.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Gothmog
(145,340 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)ieoeja
(9,748 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)have a reasonable discussion. i am there. we creating shit doesnt do it for me.
the only vote i find, she voted against late term. her recently she made another statement.
i wont be playing this game for oneupmanship. at all. i recognize it well.
not gonna play.
clear?
done
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)lets take out a whole lot of time in our day, whenever. and have a thorough conversation on this video. and we will move thru the next decades as slowly as you like.
damn straight words matter
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)On the other hand if you support my rights by actions AND words, you got my vote:
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)ieoeja
(9,748 posts)FYI: you have a serious problem with polite conversation.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
TheFarS1de
(1,017 posts)It look's like they are having about as much luck too reeling one in 
Autumn
(45,109 posts)Hispanic community? Bernie is not a woman and Hillary is not a Latina. So what's your point? Hillary needs to hire only white women and has no business speaking about any issues for men and Bernie needs to hire only white men and has no business speaking about women's issues? Do you even understand that's what politicians do?
SouthernProgressive
(1,810 posts)His blanket statement that guns are a problem in LA and Chicago, not the rural gun owners of Vermont. The comment is amazingly short-sighted and based in keeping people in fear of urban America. It is a straight NRA talking point that has really permeated in society. Sanders himself says he doesn't do demographics, well, except until he does do demographics.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)His comments come in the wake of the shootings last month in Newtown, Conn. The killing of 20 children in the town has spurred gun-control advocates to seek restriction on the ownership of certain firearms such as military-style assault rifles.
"Part of being able to move this forward is understanding the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas. And if you grew up and your dad gave you a hunting rifle when you were ten, and you went out and spent the day with him and your uncles, and that became part of your family's traditions, you can see why you'd be pretty protective of that.
"So it's trying to bridge those gaps that I think is going to be part of the biggest task over the next several months. And that means that advocates of gun control have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes."
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/01/27/170393072/gun-control-advocates-should-listen-more-obama-says
SouthernProgressive
(1,810 posts)The NRA has done an amazing job of getting people to believe differently. While there are difference, there are also huge connections. The NRA has dumbed people down with respect to those connections. They have also done a great job at whitewashing the unnecessary deaths in rural America at hand of those holding guns.
agreed, sea!
Divernan
(15,480 posts)What I'm saying is that they learned to rationalize whatever policies brought them the most $$$$. When I worked with/for a state legislature for 10 years, I saw the transition for many of them - in both parties. The party leadership for both Dems. and Repubs. played into that mindset.
The leadership got the really big bucks from special interest groups to deliver the votes from their members, and rewarded members by direct contributions to members' campaign funds, as well as appointments to key committees (hey, you'd get a lot more lobbyist bucks re bills before the finance or transportation committees, than on local or state government committees), or via appointments for the board seats reserved for legislators on organizations like PHEAA or transit authority. And those were "sweet" because of their multiple golf outings, spa getaways, pro football/college football box seats, overseas boondoggle trips.
They may have started out with some good intentions combined with a need for public approval/acceptance - but the economic realities of running for office every 2 or 4 years, and the constant donations/checks being waved under their noses by lobbyists for Big interests, corrupted so many of them.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)claims in opposition to a major Democratic candidate and even a duly-elected Democratic President to be worse somehow. I'm funny that way, I guess.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)MineralMan
(146,317 posts)But you knew that.
cali
(114,904 posts)No wonder you support Clinton. She's perfect for you. You can't even bring yourself to condemn the ugliest political gunk.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Are always right and should never be criticized. It shows lack of team spirit.
Party loyalty is more important that policy.
Benito said it best...Mosolieni is always right.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and must be criticized every time. When you have posters like that, you have to wonder. You'd think occasionally they would agree - if the POTUS happens to be a Democrat, he'd be right SOME of the time. But when he's never right, you have to wonder.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And cannot stand any criticism of the leader.
And it makes triangulation possible and effective.
The things you do right are not as important to talk about as the things you do wrong. It is why the unexamined life is not worth living.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and dwell on what they do wrong. Not inspirational. Very old fashioned too. I hope you don't have kids.
I can stand criticism, that's ridiculous. You're ignoring the point. Some people happen to never find a D leader in the right, which is suspicious.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)To correct something you must first recognize that there is something wrong.
History if full of people put to death for saying the emperor is nakid...at the hands of those unable to trust their own eyes and judgment.
And we are not talking about children here...children are learning...adults should have already learned right from wrong. And I suppose they never learned it if they had parents afraid of critical thinking. They produce dysfunctional children the same as parents who do nothing but criticize. And the reason is simple, because both are dishonest, and growing up in dishonest world fucks with the mind.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)
RandySF
(58,935 posts)gotcha.
cali
(114,904 posts)that I didn't come close to saying. I'm sick of dumb red herrings. And I'm totally sick of people excusing Hillary for this kind of shit.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)That's always a true statement.
cali
(114,904 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 31, 2015, 01:13 PM - Edit history (1)
arcane1
(38,613 posts) LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)WTF does Hillary being female have to do with the sleazy campaign she is running?
RandySF
(58,935 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)RandySF
(58,935 posts)And what did they do?
RandySF
(58,935 posts)I would like to hear which surrogates are being discussed. If you can't name names then you're making shit up.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)"Good heavens! Whatever does THAT mean?"
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Unless the poster is feigning...
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Wait, did I leave anything out?
davidpdx
(22,000 posts) seabeyond
(110,159 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Some people DO want to make it about that.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)you know it is much greater than just a vagina or penis. but wtf, ... lets pretend there has never been that forever oppression and discrimination of a whole gender.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I'd gladly vote for a woman president IF there was one I could support. I WON'T overlook policy and political stances in exchange for gender. Period.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and ya.... it absolutely is. when you and others dismiss the huge womens issue with simply voting for a woman for the sake she is woman, THIS is why people say sanders campaign is tone deaf. all you are is turning a blind eye to focus on your prize. other people are looking at other prizes as much as you may not want the to
you can put period at the end of your conversation as many times as you want. wont make all people adopt your opinion
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)That's akin to calling someone a Republican. Pretty nasty even by DU standards. I fully support women's issues. The reason you want to make a big fuss out of it is because people won't bow down and support Hillary Clinton. That's a POLITICAL issue, not a social issue.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)by dismissing the significance of electing the first woman president when a strength in moving womens issue forefront to mere, vaginas.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Do you think I voted for President Obama because he's African-American? Please answer that one carefully because I supported him in the primary against Hillary Clinton. So I guess I must have wanted to suppress women because I only like African-American men. Is that the way it works?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and there is not a chance in hell you will see me bottom line that accomplishment for the black community over the last 7 yrs with a black man in the whitehouse anyting less than huge.
fuck ya that is a consideration. for real?
it is these comments which lead to the feel of tone deafness.
though there has been incredible backlash because we have had a black family in the white house, it has been HUGE gains, for the black community. forget ALL he has done. SIMPLY being a black family, representative of the black community, a visual for the nation, of the most powerful man in the world. FUCK YA it is significant.
i had to weigh, ... first black man, not voting for a first woman, that wil give us the same
do not allow your own limited opinion of who clinton is to assign it to all voters. not everyone sees clinton as a pos human being. they look at her policies, they look at her accomplishments, they look at her credentials, AND she is a woman that would be the same thing to the nation that the first black man brings to the nation
HUGE
and you want to dismiss it as a mere vagina
fuck that.....
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i did an OP in the feminist forum. to be gentle with me, because my decision to support someone other than a QUALIFIED and CAPABLE woman to be the first woman president was very challenging for me.
being that womens issues is a top priority for me
then supreme crt and states.
then economic.
i at least recognize and acknowledge the significance and not readily dismiss it.
even now rooting for omalley, i am still reconciliation with self the hugeness of a first women president that would be an outstanding representation of a my issue that take priority for me.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)insinuated that an author that wrote a opinion piece in favor of Sanders was a shill. The woman who wrote it is a professor, author, and scholar. I'm sure dismissing people like her does a lot for women's issues.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)with womens issues ignore clinton history and work.
so you all got me one a gotcha. if that floats your boat, go for it. really.... continue to promote sanders is the best for women and see what it gets you. kinda like promoting sanders is better at black rights than blacks are.
brilliant strategy. i do encourage you all to move along with this. it will show the women into both women and black votes.
cause it is not really all the necessary sanders campaign starts making roads into these demographs. instead, you all can giggle with your idea of a gotcha.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)It's about seriously dismissing the abilities of a researcher who has studied their ass off for likely a decade or more to get where they are. You think it's a joke and write it off politics, but you know what it's not. Some of us actually fucking care about policy. You don't know what contributions that she's made to research that could help women and don't give a shit. That's honestly what I think is sad.
By the way, when I say "studied her ass off for likely a decade or more" I know she did not only by her CV, but because I have similar qualifications (not nearly as much in the research field yet). If I were in the same field I'd be proud to have her as a senior colleague.
As for the other post....forget about it.
By the way in research interests she lists............
social and political inequality
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)you want serious consideration to her piece? read baines response who actually took the time to address what the woman was paid to write about sanders being best on womens issues then get back to me, with your serious discussion, as you dismiss a first woman pres as a vagina
are you getting yet the feel of dismissal to a huge issue with women?
sanders has had ONE opportunity to stand up for women this primary, so far. he failed.
the ONE time we needed him to stop what he was doing and actually be a voice for women, and he failed.
first you tell me to ignore clintons history and lifetime work with women and girls around the world
then you tell me to ignore the ONE action sanders lacked effort in speaking out for women.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)"then you tell me to ignore the ONE action sanders lacked effort in speaking out for women."
WASHINGTON, July 29 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement today as Senate Republicans pushed for a vote on legislation to cut $500 million in annual funding for Planned Parenthood:
“The attempt by Senate Republicans to cut off support for Planned Parenthood is an attack on women’s health. Stripping funding for Planned Parenthood would punish the 2.7 million Americans, especially low-income women, who rely on its clinics for affordable, quality health care services including cancer prevention, STI and HIV testing and general primary health care services.
“The current attempt to discredit Planned Parenthood is part of a long-term smear campaign by people who want to deny women in this country the right to control their own bodies.
“Let’s be clear: Federal funding for Planned Parenthood does not pay for abortions. The vast majority of government funding that Planned Parenthood receives is through Medicaid reimbursements. Cutting that funding will be devastating to the health needs of millions of women who desperately need the quality services Planned Parenthood provides."
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-statement-on-planned-parenthood
Here is what Hillary had to say about the video:
Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that Planned Parenthood has some questions to answer regarding graphic undercover videos that accuse the women’s health organization of selling fetal tissue.
“I have seen pictures from them and obviously find them disturbing,” Clinton in an interview with the New Hampshire Union Leader.
But Clinton, who has collected campaign donations from the people connected with the organization, also praised Planned Parenthood’s work, even as she distanced herself from the broader questions surrounding the use of fetal tissue.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-questions-planned-parenthood-videos-disturbing-120768#ixzz3kNM01Ged
You really should familiarize yourself with the facts before you go saying things like that.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)lets start from the beginning until his handlers tell him how he fucked up.... again
you know. the part you left out
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I'm posting facts, something you don't seem to be able to do.
You keep saying he failed women and was opposed to same sex marriage but you never put your money where your mouth is.
You want to keep making those claims about Bernie without backing them up don't get upset when you're called on it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders told reporters Friday that the "tone" of a video of a Planned Parenthood executive talking matter-of-factly about the organization's participation in tissue-donation programs was "terribly wrong."
At a press conference here, where the 2016 presidential candidate is campaigning, Sanders responded to a question from CNN by saying he had not watched the video, but that he had read coverage of the story.
"Obviously, I think Cecile Richards apologized for the tone of that video," Sanders said, referring to the group's president. "I think her apology was exactly right. I think that the staffer, the tone was terribly wrong."
july 17. got that. then...
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
he FINALLY took the time to oh... research, become informed and addressed the issue
FAILED
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)before speaking
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)It comes down to their records, sea.
And Bernie is better when it comes to supporting women's rights.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that Planned Parenthood has some questions to answer regarding graphic undercover videos that accuse the women’s health organization of selling fetal tissue.
“I have seen pictures from them and obviously find them disturbing,” Clinton in an interview with the New Hampshire Union Leader.
Bernie has always supported women's rights
Always.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)here is clintons first statement out of the box compared to sanders "Obviously, I think Cecile Richards apologized for the tone of that video," Sanders said, referring to the group's president. "I think her apology was exactly right. I think that the staffer, the tone was terribly wrong."
“I think it is unfortunate that Planned Parenthood has been the object of such a concerted attack for so many years,” she added, according to multiple reports.
“And it’s really an attack against a woman’s right to choose, to make the most personal, difficult decisions that any woman would face, based on her faith and the medical advice that she’s given."
“I don’t have all the facts, but Planned Parenthood has apologized for the insensitivity of the employee who was taped, and they will continue to answer questions from Congress and others," Clinton said Thursday.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/249033-hillary-clinton-defends-planned-parenthood-amid-video
a week later or so, she continued with your gotcha moment saying pictures of aborted fetus's is disturbing..
“Planned Parenthood for more than a century has done a lot of really good work for women: cancer screenings, family planning, all kinds of health services. And this raises not questions about Planned Parenthood so much as it raises questions about the whole process, that is, not just involving Planned Parenthood, but many institutions in our country,” the Democratic frontrunner said. “And if there’s going to be any kind of congressional inquiry, it should look at everything and not just one (organization).”
“I’m well aware that passions are very high,” Clinton said. “I have said for more than 22 years that abortion should be legal, safe and rare. As first lady, I led an effort to try to lower the number of teenage pregnancies and we succeeded, and as president I will continue to work toward that so that women are fully empowered, they can afford to make responsible decisions, and I hope we will be successful at that.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-questions-planned-parenthood-videos-disturbing-120768
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Only one wanted to restrict my reproductive rights.
That makes Bernie's record on women's rights superior.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)agreed with richards apology about tone. he would have at least been neutral saying nothing. he damaged the defense simply agreeing with the need to apologize about the tone of the video. going no further. not discussing or acknowledging all the other shit richards ALSO said about plan parenthood. because he did NOT bother to be informed.
"I want to be really clear: The allegation that Planned Parenthood profits in any way from tissue donation is not true. Our donation programs -- like any other high-quality health care providers -- follow all laws and ethical guidelines."
"GOP leaders, including most of the '16 field, are tripping over themselves to attack PP because they think that's how to win elections," organization president Cecile Richards said in a series of related tweets Wednesday. Her comments were her first addressing a video showing one of the organization's top officials discussing the organs and tissue or aborted fetuses.
"Spreading false information is an age-old strategy of people hell-bent on denying women care & shaming them for exercising their rights," she tweeted.
Reminder: 1 out of every 5 women has been to PP in her life. Threatening our patients' care & rights will get politicians nowhere real fast," she tweeted. "We've fought for our patients before, and we'll fight for them again and again."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/16/politics/planned-parenthood-president-criticizes-gop-candidates/
sanders could have thrown in that he also agreed with everything else she was stating but he didnt know. it was not important enough for him to get informed before making an asinine statement.
sanders statement and being informed is not comparable to clinton.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)If he had supported a ban on late term abortions you'd be harping on that 24/7.
But he didn't so this non issue is all you've got to "prove" he "failed" women.
When Hillary is the one who failed more than once to support civil rights.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)go back to the rhetoric
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Bernie Sanders is an enthusiastic advocate for women. He has consistently voted pro-choice and for the availability of contraception. He has long fought to protect women from domestic violence and sexual abuse, and promotes equal pay in the workforce. His main stances on women’s rights are:
Sexual & Reproductive Health: Women’s bodies are theirs, and they deserve access to high-quality reproductive and sexual healthcare. This includes access to contraceptives, and the right to choose a safe abortion.
Pay Equity: Women deserve equal pay for equal work — end of story.
Sexual and Domestic Violence: Sexual and domestic violence must be addressed. By strengthening the laws on stalking, allowing battered illegal immigrants temporary visas, and increasing funding for domestic violence programs.
Sexual & Reproductive Health
Women have the fundamental right to control their bodies when it comes to sexual and reproductive health.In recent years, there has been a wave of legislation at the state level to prevent women from accessing safe abortions. Bernie believes in a woman’s right to choose, and as such, firmly objects to such efforts and has co-sponsored and supported legislation to lift such restrictions. In addition, he supports increased funding for family planning and contraceptives.
Where does Bernie stand with regard to women’s reproductive health?
Bernie believes in protecting a woman’s right to choose and has a lifetime pro-choice record. In 1993, he co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act, which aimed to bar states from restricting the right to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability or at any time when a termination is necessary to protect the health of a woman.
In an op-ed for the Huffington Post published in April 2012, Bernie wrote “We are not returning to the days of back-room abortions, when countless women died or were maimed. The decision about abortion must remain a decision for the woman, her family and physician to make, not the government.”
Give me the legislative download on his reproductive rights record in Congress.
During his 16 years in the House of Representatives and 8 years in the Senate, Bernie has consistently supported a woman’s right to choose a safe abortion.
In addition to co-sponsoring the 1993 Freedom of Choice Act, Bernie voted numerous times to allow women to travel interstate for abortions, supported permitting federal funding of organizations that conduct abortions, voted to increase access and funding for family planning for women, and co-sponsored the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2013, which prohibited many limitations on abortions. In March 2008, Bernie voted against defining an unborn child as eligible for State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and in turn defining life as beginning at conception.
In light of these votes, Bernie has repeatedly received ratings of 100 percent from NARAL Pro-Choice America, and ratings of 0 percent from the National Right to Life Committee, indicating a pro-choice stance.
So, Bernie is pro-choice. Where does he stand on access to contraceptives?
In addition to being a strong proponent of access to safe abortions, Bernie has been a vocal advocate for family planning and funding for contraceptives. In January 2009, he supported the Prevention First Act, which includes grants to states for family life education. These programs expand funding for family planning and access to contraceptives, and are aimed toward teens to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs.
Bernie has been involved in lots of reproductive health legislation in recent years. Why is there so much congressional activity in this area?
Over the past few years, there has been an “unprecedented wave of state-level abortion restrictions” rolling back progress on women’s reproductive healthcare rights. Access to safe resources for healthcare have been more limited than in the past, including a law in South Dakota that forces a woman to receive state-directed counseling that is designed to discourage her from having an abortion. She then will have to wait 72 hours before the procedure is provided. Bernie has actively worked to combat these restrictions by co-sponsoring a bill that would lift restriction on abortion, known as the Women’s Health Protection Act.
More: http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-womens-rights/
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Voted NO on restricting UN funding for population control policies. (Mar 2009)
Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted NO on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Emergency contraception for rape victims at all hospitals. (Sep 2006)
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
Provide emergency contraception at military facilities. (Apr 2007)
Require pharmacies to fulfill contraceptive prescriptions. (Jul 2011)
Ban anti-abortion limitations on abortion services. (Nov 2013)
Protect the reproductive rights of women. (Jan 1993)
Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception. (Jan 2009)
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/bernie_sanders.htm
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Move over, Hillary Clinton. Now that Bernie Sanders has entered the 2016 presidential primary, Clinton is no longer the only Democrat campaigning for women. Sanders, the Independent senator from Vermont who is often described as the most left-leaning senator, is also very pro women’s rights and gender equality. And, as most might expect of the liberal Democratic candidate, Sanders' opinions on abortion are that it should be a decision made by a woman, not the government.
In June 2012, Sanders wrote a piece for The Huffington Post titled, “United Against the War on Women,” in which he claimed the right wing was waging a war against women and women’s rights. Because, according to Sanders, while there may be many things against which we should “wage a moral and political war,” women do not count as one of them. Sanders instead pushes for forward movement in women’s rights, particularly on the issue of abortion:
We are not returning to the days of back-room abortions, when countless women died or were maimed. The decision about abortion must remain a decision for the woman, her family, and physician to make, not the government.
The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) gave Sanders a 0 percent rating, while NARAL Pro-Choice America gave Sanders a 100 percent rating. According to the website LifeNews.com, Sanders has a 6 percent pro-life voting record. Out of 101 votes on issues concerning the abortion debate, Sanders has only voted in line with pro-life supporters one time, when he supported a ban on human cloning. However, on every other vote, Sanders has remained staunchly on the side of the pro-choice. He has voted “no” on banning family planning funding in U.S. aid abroad, on banning partial-birth abortion, and on funding health care providers that do not offer information on abortions.
http://www.bustle.com/articles/80644-bernie-sanders-stance-on-abortion-is-exactly-what-youd-expect-from-the-progressive-candidate
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Last edited Thu Sep 3, 2015, 06:26 AM - Edit history (1)
1) "You and beam do a little dance as if it is..." I did no such thing. Please point out where I did.
2) I did not dismiss women as vaginas, I said "So it should come down to a choice between a penis and a vagina" in response to people insisting that they must vote for Hillary Clinton.
3) "First you tell me to ignore Clinton's [sic] history and lifetime work with women..." I did no such thing. Please again point out where I did.
I really think you are living in lala land because none of these have anything to do with my posts.
I honestly don't give a shit what Baines Bane wrote about the piece, she has gone over the edge the last few months on this board.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)you lecture me on taking a woman seriously who is being paid, has an agenda, writing a piece that is obviously a fail, on paper.
and i am not even supporting clinton this primary, any more than i did in 2008. merely calling out the bullshit
MoveIt
(399 posts)
earthside
(6,960 posts)Democrats may not like to hear it ...
... but Identity Politics and what the right calls 'Political Correctness' will lead to defeat in 2016.
RandySF
(58,935 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)And these are two different things.
MuseRider
(34,111 posts)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Or any other issues, come to think of it. And especially not minorities. Lations are definitely not allowed to talk about how they feel Bernie relates to issues they care about. Doing that would be race-baiting.
Because Bernie is obviously the best candidate for every voter of every race, gender, or economic background. And if you disagree then you're a Hillary operative and you are race-baiting.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)But it shouldn't be a surprise. Clinton used racist dog whistles in '08 and she is doing it again for '16. Her supporters excuse her, which tells you everything you have to know about them and her.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts) LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)The don't like to be reminded how she used racist dog whistles against Obama in '08
earthside
(6,960 posts)Democrats will win the national presidential election and many Senate and House elections in 2016 if they and their nominees seriously address the economic issues facing most poor, working and middle class American.
If you think the recession is so over and that we are all becoming so prosperous that we have the inclination to now to just spend our time getting worked up over all the perceived slights and offenses allegedly directed at every minority group, well, you are living in a fantasy world.
The main Sanders' message about economic populism and getting the government working for average folks is what will win for Democrats in 2016. Period.
In the end, even Hillary, whomever is the Party's presidential nominee, will have to articulate a message of economic populism if they are going to win. That is it; that is all there is.
All of this angst and distraction driven by Identity Politics is a loser.
Gender, race, ethnicity, etc. are just not that important to 90 percent of Americans.
We want a raise; we want to be able to afford our health care; we want a better job; we want a clean environment; we want our kids to be able to afford trade school or college.
So, go on talking and arguing about BLM or the confederate flag or whose statue should be removed or what words are to now be forbidden and Democrats will lose. Speak to my pocketbook and Democrats will win.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Now, sadly, I am mostly mildly amused as some white liberals argue that Bernie has done enough (in terms of results, out-reach and messaging) for non-white folks ... despite what majorities of non-white folks say.
There is a term for that ... a term that gave some white liberals the vapors when Marissa used it.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I'm amused by how many people insist that the Jewish candidate cares about nothing but money and harbors antipathy for black people. Straight out of NoI's "The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews."
There's a term for that, too
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)something that HASN'T been said, in response to what has.
But yes ... that's okay, and par for the course.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and suggest that you (and some of DU:Bernie) take it to new, and dizzying, heights.
You take/have taken the disinterest of majorities in communities of color for Bernie's economic primacy message because economic justice is not chief among our concerns (except for where that injustice is a resultant of racial/ethnic injustice) ... whirled it around in your liberal head ... and out pops, "they're calling Bernie a racist!!!! ... Well, they really aren't; but, that's what they really mean ... you know, it's 'dog whistling'."
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Then you understand that a message need not be spoken verbatim for the message to still be stated.
So then. Let's review:
There's a term for that, too
When I am told that Sanders is only interested in economics, and when I am told he is indifferent to (and should not be trusted by) African-Americans, I know exactly what I am being told. It's not clever and it's not subtle.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)This:
Is, almost (as I am starting to shy away from absolute-speak) entirely in your own head ... No one (few) is/are saying that. One more time, as if I thought it will penetrate the 100th time, as better than, having said it the 10th time ...
No one has said Bernie "is ONLY interested in economics" ... what folks have said/are saying is, Bernie prioritizes economic just over social/racial justice, and that message does not resonate among majorities of Communities of Color.
No one has said Bernie "is indifferent to" African-Americans; nor, that he should not "be trusted by" African-Americans ... what folks have said/are saying is, Bernie prioritizes economic just over social/racial justice, and that message does not resonate among majorities of Communities of Color.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i am wrong.
blatant statements like
sanders is not a racist
no one has ever stated, implied or suggests sanders is a racist
everyone KNOWS sanders is not a racist
just looking at votes, history and what he has said makes it clear, he is not a racist.
then the person says.....
are you saying he is a racist?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Discount/delegitamize what is actually being said.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)there are two terms, for that ... one clinical, the other, a lay term; both of which would get me a hide, if I were to write them out.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The "arguments" I have been seeing presented against Sanders follow certain well-established tropes.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)No one has said Bernie "is indifferent to" African-Americans; nor, that he should not "be trusted by" African-Americans ... what folks have said/are saying is, Bernie prioritizes economic just over social/racial justice, and that message does not resonate among majorities of Communities of Color.
Which can be summarized from the first part:
Which is simply someone with a good vocabulary saying "Bernie cares about money more than he cares about black people."
Now, I have no idea about someone's true intent when they say stuff. But I do know that when I see this argument thrown at a jewish candidate for political office, there's a very strong chance i'm looking at something very, very different from ap olicy critique. When I see promoters of this idea engage in constantly pushing of this meme, immune to refutation or counter-argument, to the point of irrational hysteria? Well again I'm no mind reader, but the optics look pretty bad, there.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And I am fully aware of the direction these arguments have been pointing, and where they originate from.
But thank you for your effort to 'splain to me my own experiences and knowledge.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)where a DUer of Color has said anything approaching:
That's right ... You can't because it hasn't been said; but, I have no doubt that you will come up with some excuse for why you won't.
Gothmog
(145,340 posts)
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)I have been berated insulted, called a liar an dishonest simply for pointing out that I don't care for Sanders on immigration reform, and that his YES vote on an amendment in support of the racist vigilante group the minutemen bothers me immensely.
I'm supposed to be a hill-bot for noticing -the day after he launched his campaign- that his website didn't mention immigration reform . not a single word. *I* noticed that on my own, but of course I was told this was pure manipulation from the Hillary camp.
I'm not supposed to see, hear or mention anything about it. If I do, I'm a race baiter.
Number23
(24,544 posts)want to discuss things important to our communities are always branded "race baiters" or accused of tossing "the race card" but white people who dismiss these concerns and issues and demean the people of color for daring to talk about issues important to their communities as "stupid," "dishonest" and "lacking a moral center" are never called these names??? 
I honestly don't know much about the issues that you're speaking of ie the Minutemen but I am sincerely sorry you have to be surrounded by these good "liberals" who have decided your issues are unimportant because you dared to come up with them yourself instead of waiting to be told what should be important and what you should care about. Welcome to the club.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)I innocently, honestly, and without any malice asked why he didn't mention immigration reform in his announcement speech, and why sthere wasn't a single mention of it on hos campaong website. I was immediately jumped on, accused of calling him a racist, a xenophobe, and all kind of insults just for asking a question and daring to say that it concerned me.
What an eye opener!
Just in case you want to know more about the minutemen project and Sanders, here's a link to an article about it.
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2015/7/17/gun-loving-progressive-hero-bernie-sanders-voted-to-protect-racist-vigilante-border-militia
Something that the article doesn't mention, and I wanted to add...his YES-vote to protect the Minutemen solely on the southern border three years later resulted in the murder of two American citizens with Spanish last names of which one of those Americans was a nine year old girl, Brisenia Flores. A real tragedy.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)What I'm really sick of is people acting as if their candidate can throw a stone or people shouldn't care "that much" about issues this
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)Thus far these things have not happened.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)And by now, no one is surprised by this idiotic, revolting little exhibition.
They scream like this every single time anyone even asks a question about Sanders and then turn around and wonder why he has so little support in minority communities.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)jalan48
(13,871 posts)Response to jalan48 (Reply #73)
Recursion This message was self-deleted by its author.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)I've heard many times here that that is not "rich".
Romulox
(25,960 posts)No. It doesn't. You've twisted the definition of "the 1%" to suit your own agenda.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Interesting.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Since I haven't changed anything, I'll take this answer as a proxy for your biases.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)It's not convincing anyone, which makes you look like an unserious poster.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I've always looked at inequality from a global perspective, in which the vast majority of Americans are the 1%.
Why should the 1% within the US give up some wealth to help the 99%, but the 1% globally should not?
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Response to Recursion (Reply #92)
1StrongBlackMan This message was self-deleted by its author.
jfern
(5,204 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
jalan48
(13,871 posts)Here's an article from Forbes that's very educational. The majority of the US is in the 1%? That makes no sense.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneywisewomen/2012/03/21/average-america-vs-the-one-percent/
Romulox
(25,960 posts)jalan48
(13,871 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)What percentage of the US do you claim is in the global 1%?
sibelian
(7,804 posts)I'm not quite sure why you tried to pretend that "1%" as used by the members of this board means the global 1%, Recursion?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts) sibelian
(7,804 posts)Three quarters = 1%.
Hm.
historylovr
(1,557 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Your opening post essentially dismisses the concerns voiced very early on about Sanders and which still remain.
And that is par for the course amongst many Sanders supporters on DU.
Not all. I have gained quite a bit of respect for some DU'ers over the month or so.
Nothing laudable about pretending Sanders did not have a major weakness in his campaign concerning minorities and minority outreach from the beginning.
What's even more disgusting is trying to project the problem onto those of us who simply bring the subject up.
cali
(114,904 posts)uponit7771
(90,347 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)focus on economic issues were dismissed as saying "Bernie is a bigot".
Lots of straw, indeed.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and we (the majority of those of Communities of Color) should be happy with that ... he has done enough on that front!
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but what does that have to do with Communities of Color speaking to his lack of (effective) out-reach, today ... during his current campaign?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)or are you blaming him for what state he lives in and has had a duty to represent?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)nor, am I blaming him for what state he lives in and has had a duty to represent ... I am saying, and have said, HIS CURRENT out-reach to (the majorities of people in) CoC and/or PoC, is ineffective, primarily because his economic primacy message isn't resonating with the majorities of those in CoC and PoC ... regardless of his history and record.
I ate something yesterday and this morning (I am truly thankful for that) ... but guess what? I want to eat something this evening and tomorrow.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)give you something to eat tomorrow?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)He is/has been (until recently) telling me that his is going to give me something to drink; rather than, the something to eat, I have told him I want/need.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)He even talked about both food and drink even early on, though he was emphasizing the drink because economic justice is the focus of his campaign.
Economic injustice, as you know, includes racial inequality in economic opportunity, and that sort of inequality, as I am sure you also know, kills far more AAs than racist cops do.
Reasonable people can disagree about how to rank issues such as racial inequality in the distribution of economic opportunity, mass incarceration, prison reform, police reform, and voter rights (personally, I rank them in that order), but I see no reason Sanders doesn't want to address all of these issues. Maybe you would say that because you think racial inequality in economic opportunity is less important than some of these other issues, you don't like his priorities. I can respect that position.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)to try to separate the two, disparaging any talk of populist economic issues while trying to divide us regarding social disagreements that do not even exist along racial or gender lines as they are trying to do with Sanders.
For the followers of this hybrid Democratic path (first proposed by the DLC/Third Way branch of the party), It is important to support (or at least appear to support) certain social issues in order to retain some key demographic votes with long ties to the party while embracing a neoliberal approach to fiscal policies, free trade, and privatization.
Their theory simply was/is to adopt certain policies they felt would gain votes from the Reagan supporting Demographic (and also attract large donations from special interests that prosper from neoliberal policies) while keeping the minority, feminist and LGBT vote.
To see supporters of such politicians twist themselves in knots to separate the two falls neatly within the game plan. It is hard to say if vocal supporters of candidates that follow the hybrid path do so deliberately or unwittingly. I imagine that would depend on the individual.
It is the only way they can win, they need the minority vote but they are fiscally committed to right wing policies that lead directly to income inequality and economic injustice. They have in fact already lead us with help from the extreme right wing Republicans directly to a new gilded age we "enjoy" that is reaching Dickensian proportions.
The Left is just a hated thorn in their side at this point and economic populism is the threat they fear the most.
They must divide us along social and economic lines in order to conquer us.
Hence the barrage of attempts (some of them rather nasty) to separate issues that are really two parts of a whole needed for both the social and economic equality that is required if we are to have a healthy happy and just society.
I wrote an OP once that explained these hybrids for those less aware of the party's history and the rise of this faction.
New Democrats, The DLC and the Third Way
Here is a relevant snip:
Vattel
(9,289 posts)It seems to me that (unless I misunderstand him) 1strongblackman sincerely believes that economic injustice should take a back seat to certain other forms of injustice towards AAs. I disagree.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)A diverse neighborhood where the majority are PoC. There are important reasons that so many in the poor community are PoC. Addressing poverty would help us all here in my neighborhood including those in most abundance. They face other problems beyond poverty which must also be addressed, only one candidate on my radar would address all their needs (social and economic) and has tried his entire career to do so and it is not Hillary.
Autumn
(45,109 posts)Enough as in adequate for the want or need, sufficient for the purpose or to satisfy desire? They were wrong and I can't imagine someone saying that, there is always more to be done, on all issues. Do you remember who said Bernie has done enough?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I will not post a link; but, you should get there by searching: "They will never be satisfied".
Autumn
(45,109 posts)not that he has done enough. And some will never be satisfied with what he has done. I found nothing on that other than Glen Fucking Beck saying it so...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Read the comments in that thread.
Autumn
(45,109 posts)5 results (0.54 seconds)
Search Results
To The Dem Strategists, Don't Fool Yourself About The Fundies ...
www.democraticunderground.com/.../duboard....
Democratic Underground
Nov 11, 2004 - 43 posts - 37 authors
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore, Thu ... They always eventually eat their own. They will NEVER be satisfied.
-1 - Democratic Underground
www.democraticunderground.com › DiscussDemocratic Underground
Jul 21, 2009 - 62 posts - 35 authors
To many they will never be satisfied that's the bottom line. .... creates a new system of land conservation for the Bureau of Land Management.
Tillman/Lynch Hearing - continued - Democratic Underground
www.democraticunderground.com/.../duboard....
Democratic Underground
Apr 24, 2007 - 100+ posts - 33 authors
They will never be satisfied because they're not Christians? valerief, Apr-24-07 11:47 AM, #73. - ugh... not ..... blm Donating Member (1000+ ...
Who do you think would have been a better President ...
www.democraticunderground.com/.../duboard....
Democratic Underground
100+ posts - 80 authors
Edited on Fri Aug-27-10 08:56 AM by blm ...... They will never be satisfied, because there's no general population support for the candidates and policies they ...
Democratic Underground - er...AMEN! - Democratic ...
www.democraticunderground.com/.../duboard....
Democratic Underground
Nov 11, 2004 - They will NEVER be satisfied. Don't go ... I say we give these fundies a real loud MICROPHONE so people can, blm, Nov-11-04 11:54 AM,
Either I have the right people on ignore or my site search doesn't work. That was all I got
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)that self-advancement by whatever means are lying around to be used.
If you haven't figured that much out yet, there's no hope for you.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)They are as morally and ethically corrupt as republicans, and I suspect that many of them were republicans until fairly recently.
If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, I will be terminating my over 4 decade membership in the Democratic party after the General Election.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Oh, the endless nagging...
If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, I will be terminating my over 4 decade membership in the Democratic party after the General Election.
Promise?
Bookmarked and noted.
Response to cali (Original post)
George II This message was self-deleted by its author.
Autumn
(45,109 posts)for political advantage and to score points is morally depraved. By any campaign or any supporter of any candidate.
SouthernProgressive
(1,810 posts)So I'm going to go ahead and exploit that which disgusts me here in order to attack Hillary. Serious disconnect with consistency and within a handshakes reach of hypocrisy.
https://www.google.com/search?q=cali+disgust&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&gws_rd=ssl
Interestingly enough, this isn't the first time you have said "nothing disgusts me more" when referencing a democrat. Last time it had nothing to do with race. But the disgust is apparently very real and covers just about everything. according to the link.
cali
(114,904 posts)Interesting contortions on your part.
polly7
(20,582 posts)
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)but thanks for sharing your daily anti-Hillary hate rant!
You should try jogging, or gardening, something to take the edge off...
cali
(114,904 posts)Then I had a horrible accident which left me disabled and in constant pain.
This endeth your little lesson in why being personally snarky and assuming you know anything about someone else, is foolish.
Oh,and your refutation is laughably bad.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)And you should know about snark and ill mannered posts, you are after all the expert in that area.
Keep that Hillary hate pumping! It's so becoming on you...
Lastly, the only one that needs a lesson here is you. You cuss at people, are often times fact free when it comes to responding to posts you don't like, and come across as one of the most mean spirited people on this board most of the time.
If you are disabled and can't bike or garden, I'm very sorry for that. I have a disability myself that does not allow me to run so I have some idea of what you are talking about. My joke, which you took as snark was meant to be light-hearted and say, "Calm Down!" Obviously I missed the mark, sorry again for that.
Feel free to fire back in your usual way, I would expect nothing less from you.
randys1
(16,286 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)
Metric System
(6,048 posts)Castro was speaking on his own feelings? Or are minorities so easily swayed and coerced into service by Hillary?
cali
(114,904 posts)And no, high profile surrogates do not make comments like his without, at the very least, approval from the campaign. Furthermore, it's well documented that her campaign is a very tight ship. They hand out talking points to surrogates. Add to that that there is already a pattern of this and that her 2008 campaign used surrogates against Obama in the same way, and it's laughable to suggest he was simply expressing his own feelings.
SouthernProgressive
(1,810 posts)SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)This place is making your blood boil. We can see it in your writing, it can't be good for you physically or emotionally.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)everywhere else in the US, that it is just crass to try and claim they don't.
and work to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)a situation in which the word exploitation may be used:
Many Helen Bush supporters deceitfully implied that Brad Feingold, and all his supporters, are racist, and used this implication as a propaganda tool for exploiting the ignorance of low information voters, in order to deceive low information voters into voting for Helen Bush.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Yes?
No?
"Exploit: to use (a situation or person) in an unfair or selfish way."
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Enjoy your day.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,992 posts)
The irony..
cali
(114,904 posts)political surrogates. It would be ironic if Bernie used political surrogates to smear Hillary.
So, fail.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)I'm not going to make it through this thread without getting hiccups.
ismnotwasm
(41,992 posts)Too freaking funny, I mean it's sad as well but mostly
sibelian
(7,804 posts)?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)equality on various issues?
When we talk about the war on women, don't Republican pundits accuse us of exploiting gender?
When we talk about race issues like police brutality against African Americans, that's all I hear from Republican pundits, that we are cynically exploiting race.
I really did not expect to see this kind of a pronouncement here.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Only they call it "race-baiting." I've also seen that term thrown around here with some frequency.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)sheshe2
(83,793 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)Just because Republicans falsely accuse people of cynically exploiting race and gender doesn't mean that no one ever accurately accuses others of cynically exploiting race and gender.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Metric System
(6,048 posts)minds of their own? Maybe just maybe this is how Rep. Castro genuinely feels about Sanders.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Let the oh, so wise-ones decide for us.
After all, if it benefits them, it will sure trickle-down on us...ummm where did I hear that one before?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts) sibelian
(7,804 posts)?
Metric System
(6,048 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)?
Metric System
(6,048 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)?
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)Bernie is better on race issues than our first Black president, Bernie shouldn't be protested because he's minorities best friend! Bernie is better on guns because his tiny state has guns. Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Me feeling vaguely uncomfortable when when challenged by persons of color to change my world view? now I can actually handle that like a pro.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)a democratic primary.
Nice try at deflection though.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)this OP, was it not?
cali
(114,904 posts)It was about Hillary's surrogates lying and smearing. She used racist dog whistles in 2008 to smear Obama with whites. Now, hilly has done a 180 and her darling surrogates are smearing Bernie as being insensitive or worse to minorities.
It's the same ugly unethical shit. But that's your hilly.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
"Nothing disgusts me more in politics than exploiting race"
for an agenda
cali
(114,904 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)with whistles.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)This disgust has little, if not, nothing, to do with being challenged by persons of color to change my world view ... and everything about support for/opposition to a specific candidate.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)is the same as voting for someone because he's a man or he's white.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I'll stick to the obvious comparison between them. There is none.
840high
(17,196 posts)
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I can't believe the alert, for crying out loud…
I will vote for her because she's a woman or I will vote for him because he's black
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=561872
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
No comments added by alerter
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Sep 1, 2015, 12:03 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Meh
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is a ridiculous waste of an alert
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Absolutely infantile alert. There is nothing over-the-top in pointing this opinion out. Jeebus, people… pay attention.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Curious...
And now they have to go sit in the corner.
Pity.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Where has all the reason gone on DU?
I think the reason people blow through the "leave it"s is that they are so tired of seeing yet another frivolous alert.
As usual, I say more than I have to, but I don't care. If I'm gonna be chosen, I'll give it a reason.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)"no it is not. not even close. and if you need that explained to you, i do not have the time"
Pretty sure they alerted on the BOOBS2016 thread too.
Some people know they can't make their case so they alert and try to silence the other person.
Jurors resent it and it shows. I've read some pretty funny comments about frivolous alerts, though.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And you just accused me of "doing a little dance" with another poster because we both replied to you.
So say hello to kettle.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Ignore this bullshit from these slimeballs. They just want to bait people into a reaction so they can say " see how awful those Sanders supporters are???" Let Sanders keep speaking and people will judge it all on its own merits.
Gothmog
(145,340 posts)I will be meeting her Political director who is a Latina http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=edit&forum=1251&thread=560642&pid=562222
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)http://www.latina.com/lifestyle/politics/ted-cruz-accuses-barack-obama-dividing-country
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/03/10/jeb-bush-obama-won-reelection-by-dividing-the-country/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/1/obamas-divided-america/
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)No substance, just throwing everything, but the kitchen sink, at her opponent.
Back in 2008, it was Obama.
Today it is Sanders.
It's not coincidental, it's by design!!
eridani
(51,907 posts)
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)"...Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
-Hillary Clinton, using a dog whistle loud enough to be heard on the planet Jupiter.
See, it's only (those people) supporting Obama, I've got the White vote all sewn up.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)It is because only by winning a certain group of demographics while desperately avoiding or merely pandering to economic justice issues can they win in a primary. They are hybrids and fiscally more in line with Republicans, so they must exploit the only issues they have that are liberal. If facing a candidate that is strong on both social and economic issues, there is no other path for them but to divide us along those lines.
Explained further here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251560816#post364