What do my fellow Sanders supporters say to this?

[stage left]

Today I alerted on a thread that advocated that the left ally itself with the religious right in order to form a "winning" team that would tear down the corporate oligarchy at the expense of the civil rights of women, lgbt, and people of color. And maybe a few southern states which would end up as fascist theocracies. But who cares about them, right? It was allowed to stand. Some of the people who recommended it I've seen post as Sanders supporters. I'm a little dismayed that I seem to be grouped with people who would agree with this op and support it. It has caused me to consider if I'm in the right place as a member of this group. I'm a low key poster and likely I wouldn't be missed. Wherever I am, I will support Senator Sanders who I don't believe would advocate throwing anyone under the bus. I believe he wants everyone to have a seat, and, if he didn't, I would never vote for him.

Below are the results of the alert. What say you?





On Sat Sep 26, 2015, 10:31 AM you sent an alert on the following post:

What if the Religious Right allied with the Working Left?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027204545

REASON FOR ALERT

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

YOUR COMMENTS

This is the most vile and evil post I've ever seen on Du and i've seen a lot of vile stuff. Throwing fellow Americans under the bus is not a Democratic value. it's not even a human value.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sat Sep 26, 2015, 10:48 AM, and voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This alert has to be the dumbest I've seen in a month. The post in question is not a violation of community standards.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The premise of the OP is a bad idea, but I think it sparked a good discussion and those opposed made a great case for why the premise of this post is a bad idea which is why I'm voting to leave it.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: And people wonder why women and POC feel like they are being under the bus here at DU. And this is from people who actually think they are MORE principled. Screw that- you're not going to use us as a wedge issue and destroy the party. Go join the loser libertarians or greens. You don't belong here.
This is disgusting.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I can not agree with the alerter, in fact it speaks a true possibility.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The alert message seems to bear no relationship to the post. It seems like the person alerted on the wrong post.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Go argue in the thread. Posting ridiculous ideas is not a hideable offense.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Funny, this post does not surprise me, as vile as it is. I've been expecting something along these lines since mid August. People have lost their minds. Many have just become brazen.

[sarge43]

1. A quote from the novel Dune

"When religion and politics ride in the same cart, the whirlwind follows."

For the record, I would have voted to leave it. Censorship doesn't change minds and doesn't resolve conflicts.

[stage left]

6. On second thought

I'm glad, too, that it was allowed to stand. Religion has no place in politics in my opinion. Which is the only opinion I have.

[Demeter]

2. I think you are barking up the wrong tree

and alerting on that thread was a dumb thing to do, because the reason is non-functional.

Bernie's going to win this BECAUSE he speaks to everyone, including the earnest but low-information voters in the Religious Evangelicals, who underneath it all, still are FDR Democrats. Socialists, if you will. They are afraid of the name, but they believe just the same.

[stage left]

4. Did you just say the relgious right are really FDR Democrats?

They could have fooled me. If they are then I wonder what that makes me?

[Demeter]

8. I'm willing to bet you aren't even 30 yet.

[stage left]

15. why thank you.

You'd lose that bet. I just missed FDR. One of my heroes. I'm willing to bet,though, that the op we're discussing is nowhere near thirty,not that it matters. Furthermore, putting on my Holmes deerstalker, I would say he's male, white, a libertarian, and walks with a limp. Maybe not that last part.

[HooptieWagon]

5. I don't think it was a good alert.

Sanders made a good impression at Liberty U, allowing that bridges could be built on policies of agreement. However, he said at the beginning that there were policies of his that wouldn't be compromised. Even if he got a majority of the evangelical vote, he won't sell out on social issues.

[stage left]

10. Ok.

Pehaps not a good alert. Do you think it was a good op? Do you think we should compromise on social justice for gays, for women, and for African Americans to win.

[HooptieWagon]

17. Bernies not going to compromise...

...and I agree with him. However, if there are issues important enough to Christians where they find agreement with Bernie and want to vote for him, then I welcome them aboard.

[Scootaloo]

7. The poster had a bad idea, but it wasn't worth an alert.

[stage left]

16. I don't know.

Post seemed somewhat bigoted to me.

[JDPriestly]

36. I agree with you that the idea expressed in that OP for that thread was just ridiculous.

We do not give up our moral standards which support equal rights including a woman's right to choose and our strong stances on economic issues and civil rights. We cannot compromise our core moral beliefs.

But I probably would have voted to leave the post because it is an expression of an opinion, an opinion with which I disagree, but an opinion within the scope of the discussion that this website supports.

Thanks for expressing your point of view. I understand where you are coming from.

When I read a post like that with which I strongly disagree, I either ignore it or if I feel so moved, I challenge it with solid argument. I like to see different points of view expressed. The expression of some crazy point of view gives us the opportunity to explain why it is wrong. If we remove that point of view, then the people who think it is good do not have the opportunity to learn why it is bad.

[mak3cats]

9. There were only 5 recs, and no one that I recognized as a "regular" Bernie poster...

...so your concern about belonging here is unfounded, I think. Also, it was best to let the OP stand because most disagreed with it. And you came to that conclusion yourself in your post #111 in that thread.

There are overly militant people in every group, but there are truly not many here (I can't even name one).

[jfern]

11. Of course we shouldn't ally with the religious right

We shouldn't sacrifice our principles for our votes. However, we should do what Bernie did at Liberty U, and reach out to them on common ground, and hopefully get the votes of some members of the religious rights, who realize that helping the poor, the environment, or whatever is more important than opposing abortion and gay marriage.

[stage left]

13. I agree completely.

We shouldn't sacrifice our principles or our Democratic allies. That would be women, people of color, and gay people. I live among members of the religious right and I don't believe they will ever change their spots. They are mostly one issue voters down here and that issue is abortion. If they have another it is gay marriage. They're against it.

[jomin41]

12. It's only a bad idea. Not alert material, imho

People need to develop thicker skins. Also, politics means dealing and compromising. Otherwise, as we are seeing, nothing gets done. The perfect is the enemy of the possible.

[stage left]

14. I don't want the perfect. I don't expect the perfect.

Deal and compromise ok, but not with my constitutional rights. I would not be very happy if SC became a fascist theocracy.

[LiberalArkie]

18. The morals of the real left and the morals of most of the religious (not the political right) are

close to the same. The problem is the American Christians are so far removed from the morality of Christ that they do no even know what Christ was teaching. They are so distant from Christ that they became anti christ (Opposed to the gospel of Christ.)

[stage left]

20. The moral high ground would be sacrificing for others, shouldn't it?

Not asking others to sacrifice for you. This is the postion of the op that I am so opposed to. He suggests sacrificing certain states of these United States and certain of its people(those groups of people to which he himself does not belong) for the greater good. That is why I alerted on this post. Not because I think we should not seek common ground, though we should seek common ground first with those more likely to listen. Religion doesn't really have that much to do with it. I don't want to see anyone sacrificed. The term "Greater Good" makes me shiver.

[LiberalArkie]

22. When you look back to the 50's and even before, the Progressives had the Catholics,

the Presbyterians, just about all faiths except the southern Baptists and the Pentecostals as they were mainly southern faiths. Hence racist faiths. When you look at pictures of protest marches back then you always saw nuns and priests right front and center. It was the Nixon southern strategy that separated the Progressives from the religious faiths. It was the abortion fight that continues it because of the way they have framed it and the Progressives have never re-framed it.

I think it is wrong to try and separate out groups from the movement. The progressives have the high ground by being united. If we start to discard the moral high ground to just to win. What have we won? That is where the party has been. That is why the wealthy control both parties because the Democratic party decided to win at any cost. I believe we can take everything if we take the moral high ground again like we used to do. All of us win or none of us do.

The Democratic party in the last few decades have thrown labor, people of color, the poor, the sick, the people at the bottom under the bus just to gain power. We elected a black man. How much did the help the blacks? None really. If women think that just by electing a woman that they will get the ERA passed or rules changed to benefit them, that are being fooled like the blacks were fooled by electing Obama. Obama has done some good, but not what people expected. I think that is why the youth and the people who have no one on their side support Bernie. He is our last hope. I think it is up to the kids to decide if they want a change, they are the ones who can pull it off.

I have a general rule that I never alert on any one, if I am in a jury I vote "Leave it alone". Sometimes it turns my stomach to do that, but everyones (well most everyone) viewpoint is important. A lot of the time it shows how much a fool they are. But it is getting bad around here lately. I have been finding solace over on the reddit/r/sanders group. I guess the group that stated it all.

[stage left]

24. Martin Luther King was a preacher.

You can't have better cred than that, that's for certain. As a woman, I don't expect to get rules changed to benefit me, per se. I would just like to see women not go backwards. I would like to see them continue to have autonomy over their own bodies. I was there for Roe vs Wade. I cried. I have some idea what it was like for women before that decision. The religious right has been cutting away at those rights for years, so it really shouldn't surprise anyone if a good many women and poc aren't ready to get onboard with religious extremists. I'm okay with the mainstream religious people. Thanks for your well considered reply. I appreciate it.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

19. I think Sanders would disagree vehemently with the notion that he should or would abandon the civil

rights of any group, even in some sort of 'trade'. And I think if he did do so, he'd lose massive numbers of current supporters.

As I said in a thread over in the AA group about that same OP, the original poster obviously doesn't understand Sanders or most Sanders supporters at all if he thinks many people would simply be willing to trade away civil rights for economic gains. Indeed, it's such a ludicrous misunderstanding of Sanders' views that it actually WAS the caricature of which Sanders' supporters have been constantly accused, of being people who 'only' care about economics and not about justice. So really, it read as a troll OP to me, and I was glad to see most Sanders supporters treated it like the dead skunk it was.

[stage left]

21. I don't believe he would either.

I heard him speak here in Greenville and he addressed social issues directly. That Op was indeed a stinker, but I don't think it would have hurt anything if a few more Bernie supporters had nipped in and said it was bullshit. It might have actually helped.

[sarge43]

26. Some OPs are such train wrecks that you just stare, shake your head and move on

They fade away so quickly that they're not worth the effort even to type one sentence snark. If they're flame bait and that one has the ear marks, don't even think about answering.

[stage left]

31. yeah

This one made me see red.

[LostOne4Ever]

23. I have mainly been trying to stay out of the primary wars going on

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]But I want to say that I fully believe that Sanders would NEVER support such an evil proposition. Look at his record and his history. He has been an ally for social justice for decades upon decades!

• He marched with MLK.



• He took a stance in favor of LGBTQ rights back in the 70's



• He has and remains a staunch supporter of women's rights

Nor has his service to social justice gone unnoticed. Look at his scorecard from NAACP, GLAAD, and the ACLU. All of them gave him sky high marks for his positions and votes in congress. It is his record of social justice and his insistence on accepting financial support only from people that are the main reasons I finally got off the fence and decided to support Sanders. With Sanders, I firmly feel that the issues most important to me (Social justice) he won't be throwing us under the bus for short term political gain.

As for the post you are referring to, I find it disgusting. There can be no economic justice without social justice and suggesting that we throw people's LIVES under the bus just to spite corporations is one of the most vile things I have seen on DU.

If I would have been on that jury or the one for the post where the OP accused another poster of being part of the Taliban left I would have voted to hide both times.

I will never support sacrificing innocent people lives and rights for my own economic gain. The very idea infuriates me beyond what I can describe in words!

Who need enemies with allies like that?

[/font]

[stage left]

25. I've been trying to stay out of the primary wars, too.

Obviously, I didn't make it today. Allies like that are indeed the enemy. i believe in social justice and economic justice. We need both imo.

[JoePhilly]

27. This was my response to that OP ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7205239

The OP was not alert worthy ... but it was also nonsense. The religious right has been losing the social issue wars, so its no surprise they would try to regain that ground through some other means. I won't call that OP a troll ... but there might be a bridge in the vicinity.

btw ... I'm a Hillary supporter who would happily vote for Bernie if he wins the primary.

[stage left]

30. And it was a great one.

Btw I'm a Bernie supporter who was in the past a Hillary supporter and I would happily vote for her if she wins the primary.

[tularetom]

28. It was a dumb post, but probably not worth your getting upset about it

From your responses in this thread, you seem like a genuinely good person. Don't let fools upset you. They are entitled to their opinion as well.

[stage left]

32. Thanks.

I guess we're fortunate that the fools often out themselves.

[malokvale77]

29. My opinion...

I do not want to see religion anywhere near government.

Every time religion rears its ugly head my rights are compromised.

Keep your make-beliefs to yourself.

[stage left]

33. Me, either.

Sharia law and the law that some of the religious right would like to put us under is the same thing, imo. Fanatics are fantatics. And they are all dangerous.

[malokvale77]

34. Yes, they are all dangerous.

I do not want my life beholden to myth and fairy tales.

Thank you stage left.

[restorefreedom]

35. campaign strategy

unless comprised of personal attacks (as in the disgusting current attacks on bernies wife) are not usually hideable imo. bernie might very well appeal to some on the right. if so, they should vote for him and we can be glad about it. it will not cause anybody to go under the bus cuz that is not what bernie is about.

and this scenerio would never play out anyway

[stage left]

37. Bigotry is not a viable campaign strategy.

In my opinion. And not one Bernie Sanders would embrace. Also in my opinion. Calling Duers theTaliban left was a personal attack. I should have alerted on that one. I have no objection to the Senator trying to change hearts and minds as he did going to Liberty U. I thought he actually schooled them in how they were falling short of what they profess to believe.

[restorefreedom]

38. unfortunately the name calling is not

going to stop anytime soon

not saying you shouldn't try and stop it, just that as bernie rises even more and his popularity can not be ignored by m$m, this will get worse

[marym625]

39. I have huge issues with that post

But not for the reasons you do, it seems. When corporations get a vote, then you can discuss corporations aligning with any group they want. But I'll be out of here.

I wouldn't have sent an alert on that. Not alert worthy in my mind. Terrible post but not alert worthy.

You mentioned people rec'ing it . It has around 5 recs. If you are upset about that few people, you need to chill. Seriously, you're blowing this out of proportion. Just relax, it's all good

[LostOne4Ever]

40. I'm of the opinion that one rec of that vile post is two recs too many on DU nt

[marym625]

41. not saying it should be rec'd

Just saying it isn't worth getting so upset about. The post is unrealistic at best, and that's a stretch. But you gain nothing from being upset.

It's reprehensible.

[stage left]

43. +1nt

[stage left]

42. Corporations were not the allies mentioned in that post.

The allies proposed were the far left and the religious right who would establish maybe two or three states,or maybe only one, whose citizens would be under something resembling a theocracy. This would be done in order to field a candidate agreeable to both parties to defeat corporations at the expense of a few women, people of color, and gays who are supposed to submit quietly. Granted vouchers would be offered to people who wanted to leave said benighted state. But, somehow, I think that might turn out to be a problem especially for people of color.

I will grant you that this is a ridiculous little scenario he dreamed up in his spare time. It wouldn't affect him since he's a white straight male so he thinks it's a stellar idea. I'm a little disappointed that even one person here agreed that it had even a few workable parts and didn't mind the bigotry reflected in it.

I know corporations don't have a vote per se, but what they do have is a designation as "People"with the right to free speech which was given to them in Citizens United. And they can pour tons of money into the political process. Which they have done. In my opinion, that's trumped a lot of votes. The fact that they control the media hasn't helped, either.

I don't object to members of the religious right finally abandoning the dark side; not at all. I will welcome them into the light. What I object to is the suggestion that we abandon our principles in order to gain their support. They can vote,of course, for whomever they please. That is their right as citizens of the United States. If they vote for Bernie Sanders so much the better. At the rally here, I met a young guy who was voting mainly for the legalization of weed. A truly one issue voter, but hey, that's his right.

We fought a war sometime back to keep this country together Granted, my ancestors were fighting on the wrong side, for the wrong reasons. But I hope I've moved beyond them. I've tried. I don't think there's any reason good enough to justify splitting it apart again.

I would be interested in your issues with that post, if you would like to say what they are.

[marym625]

44. There is nothing in that post I don't take issue with.

The idea behind it is since corporations like one part of one party, and a different part of another, we should combine the parts THEY like to satisfy THEM. The very thought of that sickens me.

Beside the fact that idea is just incorrect, what corporations like, and beside the fact I don't have a fuck to give about pleasing corporations and their misogyny, racism and bigotry, we're ALL supposedly fighting against the Citizens United decision. So anything after the first paragraph of that post is moot. And the first paragraph is abhorrent.

Yes, it's pretty unbelievable that anyone here agrees with that. But it's not surprising though certainly disappointing.

You just can't allow yourself to become so upset about it. Level heads make more headway.

[stage left]

45. I'm not upset.

I'm just speaking from my mind and heart. The bigotry, in my opinion, doesn't lie in the Corporations. It lies in the idea of an alliance between the far left, whoever one determines that to be, and the religious right that would "supposedly" defeat Corporations. That Poster was not advocating for Corporations but for their political defeat.

In that way, one might say he is my ally since I also want Corporate influence out of politics. He is willing to achieve his ends through what, to me, are unacceptable means. The bigotry, misogyny and racism belong to that poster and anyone who thinks like he does; not corporations.

[marym625]

46. hmm

We'll have to disagree on what was meant. I didn't read it like you did. Capitalism has failed. At least the current brand and I want nothing to do with it.

Corporations, for the most part, when speaking about practice, are racist, misogynistic, bigots.

Glad you're not upset. Not how your OP reads.

On everything else, we agree

[stage left]

49. Ok.

[Dont call me Shirley]

47. The title of the op was so ridiculous that I bypassed it. ReligiousReich IS corporate, LOL!

[stage left]

50. Probably a good choice.

I think Corporations are probably souless even though they've been deemed "People:

[TBF]

48. If we don't focus on economics

most of us are going to be homeless or dead anyway. I don't think "leaving social issues to the states" is the way I'd word it. Social changes come about when movements push them & legislation follows. And no one is saying we can't do these things at the same time, but our primary focus with a presidential candidate has to be on what he/she can control.

[stage left]

52. I do see your point

Economic equality is something that needs to be addressed seriously. In fact I was first drawn to Bernie Sanders by his stance on Social Security and Medicare and the minimum wage. Ok and his vow to get rid of Citizens United and the Patriot Act. I've hated those vile things since they were implemented.

But leaving social issues to the states, especially southern states, is not something I would want to see done. Living in South Carolina I've heard state's rights all my life. I used to think that stance was valid until I saw that the implentation of state's rights meant things like right to work laws, which we call down here right to work for less. And we all know how leaving desegregation and civil rights to the states worked out.

State's rights contributed to the Civil War. The southern states wanted to retain their rights to own people as property and spread that right westward. I don't think the southern states, as they stand right now, governed by the religious right, can be trusted to do the right thing by women, by black people, by gay people. And don't get me wrong. I love my state. It's my home.

[TBF]

53. Agree on "states rights" -

typical republican position. All of the social rights, civil rights, must be national, whether we get there through legislation or Supreme Court cases. The right will use "states rights" as an argument because they want to shelf something and have no intention of addressing it. And they will also use it as a wedge issue to separate us in election years. Too many people fall for that.

[stage left]

55. I think we're in agreement.

[Doctor_J]

51. It's best to let such things die a natural death

As one of the jurors mentioned, let the (many) opponents explain why it won't work

[stage left]

56. I'm glad to see so many opposed to such an idea.

[geek tragedy]

54. idiotic post by someone who does not share Bernie's values.

Bernie does not believe in sacrificing minorities out of expediency--his progressivism is built on the idea that society must be judged on how it protects the most vulnerable.

[stage left]

57. Yes.

Like someone said upthread if the radcial left tried to form an alliance with the religious right there would probably be bloodshed. I didn't think there was much radical left in this country anyway.