General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA shout out to "social issues"
I thought I'd give a shout out to the DUers and lurking Americans who fall under what some around here derisively refer to as "social issues." The two parties, we're told, are the same on the issues that "really matter." Some, or most it seems, of our candidates are only liberal or different from Republicans on "social issues," not on what really "counts." So here's to all the social issues like me out there: women, people of color, LGBT Americans, the poor, retirees living on social security, the disabled. We may be some (just guessing here) 80% of the population, but our lives, our basic civil and human rights, aren't included among the issues that "really matter." It's your tough luck being born gay, female, non-white, becoming poor, or elderly, or any other condition other than being so privileged, so white and so male that it makes no difference if Democrats or Republicans control the White House and congress. So if you're one of the many Americans who worry about issues that don't matter, like how to pay for heat or whether you can get married or have access to reproductive health care, I'm giving you a shout out.
I guess we have just gone and screwed stuff up for our betters by having the nerve to think our basic rights matter at all. So you and I just need to be quiet while people whose basic civil rights aren't threatened by a GOP administration lecture us about how we are "corporate sell outs" and aligned with Goldman Sachs and the 1 percent. Now you might think: hey that's strange, that person that keeps calling you a corporate sell-out talks about how they "only have four bathrooms" at their house, when you feel pretty chuffed to have one you can call your own. But keep in mind that your betters know what's really important, and it's just not any of the following issues that are affected by a GOP presidency:
Reproductive rights
Equal pay for equal work
Marriage equality
voting rights
Social Security
Unemployment
Assistance for the poor
Assistance for the disabled
Higher education
K-12 Education
Global Climate Change
The Environment
Federally funded research: NIH, NSF, NEH, and NEA
Family planning at home and abroad
Disaster preparedness (remember Katrina?)
Some regulation of Wall Street vs. Complete deregulation
Job training and infrastructure projects vs. even greater tax cuts for the rich
Prosecution of Hate Crimes
Civil rights and enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment
Women's rights as human rights
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)There is a huge difference between good and evil.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Their narrow conception of economics. Imagine thinking that economics don't matter to the people I mention in my OP? The population that is disproportionately poor and the programs that allow them to survive are dismissed as "social issues" under that argument.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)It's all about the 10-15% below the 1% ... as evidenced by some poster's willingness to sacrifice the bottom 50% (by showing a willingness to shut down the government), in order to get the 1% to pay more in taxes. (I still haven't figured out how that would affect income inequality ... absent a direct transfer of funds).
freshwest
(53,661 posts)They're saying they will do fine and survive even if Cruz is elected, or for that matter any of the insane clown posse GOP, so they won't vote.
Proving once again, that politics for some is a hobby for those who are doubtless voting for privatization if they get the bucks, and tax breaks if they have either capital or other holdings they want to keep.
They got theirs already. The rest of the people can FOAD. And they would enjoy watching the circus from a safe distance while others perish.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)feudalism, with the tenth-percenters literally owning the asses of the masses, that should not be surprising. All the theoretical rights in the world mean nothing without the economic power and opportunity to exercise them.
appalachiablue
(41,103 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Unlike many issues, economics is a wedge issue with more people on our side.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)obama over clinton in '08, does not mean that i cannot address the stuff you and white men are less interested in, like you have told us in the past.
i figured we had a better chance with obama though not way hopeful how he campaigned. i would love to see a sanders in the mix. we will have to wait and see.
but do NOT dismiss our ability to be concerned, interested or adamant with the wallstreet/war/corporation issue. we are just more all encompassing than others.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)But since you brought it up, when women marry they tend to stop voting like single women and start voting like men.
That's why outreach to "women" as if they are one thing, is pointless. Convincing men to vote for us, via economic populism, is a 2 for one deal.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)party. you are pretty clear the position you hold.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)you deny?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I did not appoint you spokesperson.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)she said she wants to be the champion for "everyday Americans"
Not "a select group" of everyday Americans. Presumably ALL of us.
Also, the OP is wrong - the following are NOT social issues
Social Security
Unemployment
Assistance for the poor
Higher education
K-12 Education
Global Climate Change
The Environment
Federally funded research: NIH, NSF, NEH, and NEA
Disaster preparedness (remember Katrina?)
Some regulation of Wall Street vs. Complete deregulation
Job training and infrastructure projects vs. even greater tax cuts for the rich
Those are more economic than social.
The defining characteristic of a social issue is that it divides America into groups that matter - like women, or people of color, and groups that don't - like men, or white people.
Granted those who are in the "people that matter" category are mostly fine with this, and ready to scold the people that don't matter for only caring about themself. But so it goes.
And social issues seem to rule - even here, or maybe especially here.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)To DUers referring to social issues with derision?
Thanks.
AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)noun
contemptuous ridicule or mockery.
"
my stories were greeted with derision and disbelief"
synonyms: mockery, ridicule, jeers, sneers, taunts; More
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I don't recall any posts that mocked social issues. There have probably been a few, but very few.
AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)
sheshe2
(83,647 posts)Ignoring and never addressing them is one in the same. Mocked because we/they are a non issue to you.
TPP 24/7 doesn't cut it. Gawd knows it is your only passion. You have followed me around to many threads asking me where I stand.You came on threads and mocked the issues with your comments. It ain't all about you Manny.
Guess what? Everybody Matters.
Remember this one Manny? My Op that you tried to destroy. You tried to crush me. Yes you got me hidden. However, I am as strong as ever.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026119475
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Just rec'd it!
sheshe2
(83,647 posts)Yup got a hide. Juror #1 Called me one of the nastiest bullies on DU. Then called me out for my bitchiness. Yes I know exactly who it was. Yes I do.
Then got stalked in HoF and alerted on for posting jury the results, I squeaked through.
Thank you.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Just a guess, of course.
Well I love this post and I love the linked one too.
you rock, sheshe! ❤
sheshe2
(83,647 posts)She speaks for me and my concerns. A single issue voter is an uninformed voter.
Blanche, thank you so much. I always love talking to you.
Hey, you are the one that rocks. Gotta love you.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Tanks, hun! 
And yes, BB's post IS exceptional, I absolutely agree!!!!
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)It's the usual suspects who keep bringing them up who get referred to with derision.
sheshe2
(83,647 posts)Embarrass yourself again by derailing a thread.You have no clue what social issues are. Never have you posted about any. You just don't care.
You have a history of making it all about you. Remember this one Manny?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026119475
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)
JustAnotherGen
(31,780 posts)But don't ever take the bait. Just bypass the comments.
Because you know what? This thread is all about what BainsBane wrote and not about petulant tantrums. 
sheshe2
(83,647 posts)You are so very wise.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)including a lot of environmental and economic issues in her list of social issues.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)or proving shit to you
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Certainly not worth my time.
qwlauren35
(6,145 posts)But they seem to get ignored. They don't get talked about, they don't stay at the forefront. And no one proposes action.
Now maybe everyone agrees with the poster and that's why they don't stay at the top. But I don't think that's it.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)
JI7
(89,239 posts)
I was just about to point that out. If the economic system worked for everyone, many of these issues go away.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I don't see how ecomonics helps accessibility to free birth control and safe, legal abortions.
HOWEVER>>>>>>>>I do see how accessibility to free birthcontrol and safe, legal abortion can assist one's economic status.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)If the economy worked for everyone, there would be little need for free birth control. You could afford to pay for it yourself. When I graduated from high school, anyone willing to do a little hard work could get a $12 hr. job with just a high school diploma. And back then, that money actually had buying power. For $20 you could get 3/4ths a tank of gas, a case of beer, a pack of smokes and still have money left.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i think maybe we ought to figure out a different way for women to receive this, like thru insurance, as opposed to paying a 100 a month for birth control, you think?
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)It would be over $20 hr. If minimum wage was that high, would that still be a problem? The cost of everything keeps going up while at the same time wages are going backwards. People are being squeezed and the Republicans run around blaming the poor. If wages kept up with inflation, there would be less concern over the cost of helping the poor and fewer people needing help.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)end of story. progressive position.
Response to seabeyond (Reply #273)
Post removed
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)It is you that sounds like a RWer. Do you expect more without increasing the costs? You failed to address the questions. Getting insurance involved will only raise the cost.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)why can't you answer them?
mercuryblues
(14,522 posts)I pay for my healthcare coverage, why should I also have to pay for a prescription out of pocket? I call that a vagina tax.
Oh, no, you can't have coverage for 1 certain prescription even though you pay for prescription coverage.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)All? I'm guessing that is not really the case. And how do you think that you are going to change this, the conservative Dems aren't going to go for this and neither are the Republicans. Do you think you are going to change this with a President that caters to the 1%?
mercuryblues
(14,522 posts)had them refuse to cover anything except BC. Not even the $700 a month prescription I take now.
How was including BC in the ACA catering to the 1%? How is expecting insurance coverage to cover BC equal to being the RW as you proclaimed?
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)if birth control is covered under the ACA, what is the problem?
Your coverage covers everything you need but that is not the case for everyone and that is what sounds RW. If it is not the case for me, it must not be for everyone else. A common RW meme.
mercuryblues
(14,522 posts)is not everyone can get coverage for BC, through their health insurance because of Hobby lobby and other religious groups on the right wing.
Every Rx I have been subscribed throughout my years has been covered by insurance EXCEPT BC. So no, I did not get the full benefit of what I paid for. Depending on where they work, women today are still in the same predicament. So how is wanting them to have insurance pay for BC across the board for everyone a RW position?
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)and it most certainly would be part of single payer because discriminating against women in health care is bigoted.
And it most certainly is not in keeping with the Democratic party.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)It's not going to happen when you have Democrats that welcome big pharma with open arms at the WH.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Pick a side and stick with it.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Your pretense is absolute.
trumad
(41,692 posts)Hopefully you are done at DU as well.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)The Republicans see upping the minimum wage as an economic issue and won't budgle on trying to block it. HRC, Wrren, Sanders etc see it as a social issue and are aiming to increase that minimum wage. It appears to be a matter of semantics and one does NOT lead the other.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)History shows us that. Pre-Reagan there was less need for all this assistance. Food shelfs were few a far between and people working full time didn't need food stamps. Republicans only care to use it as a wedge issue. If they saw it as an economic issue, they would see that it costs more in the long run to hand out food stamps.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)Spare me the strawman arguments.
I'm advocating that we deal with the root cause of the problem instead of treating the symptoms. We need to abandon the failed third way/Republican economic policies and adopt policies that work for everyone.
ismnotwasm
(41,965 posts)Stuff.
qwlauren35
(6,145 posts)If the economic system worked for everyone, we would still be fighting to keep abortion rights. If the economic system worked for everyone we would still have racial profiling, high black incarceration rates and killer cops who get away with it. We would still have marriage equality issues.
So, economics just isn't my hot button. I definitely will work to defend social security and Medicare, but my real issues are social.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)not all. I agree that the abortion rights and marriage equality would not be solved by fixing the economic problems. If we fix the economic issues and many of the problems go away, we would have more time/money to deal with those two.
qwlauren35
(6,145 posts)There people in America who do not want to ensure abortion rights or marriage equality. And no amount of money is going to fix that. That's why abortion rights are so important to me. I've had abortions. I did not struggle to pay for them. Most women who want/need abortions find the money, somehow. It's ACCESS.
So, economic issues are very, very important. But I just don't see all of them as linked to the social issues that are most important to me.
And what I see in DU is that economic issues are more important than the social issues *that are most important to me*.
I accept that social issues are what the Republicans call "special interests". Not every Democrat is going to fight for every "social issue".
What pains me is that Republican conservatives are willing to unite around social issues, and put them at the top of the campaign agenda, and pull out voters who vote against their economic interests. And I don't think Democrats know how to fight this. Obama got lucky in a way because a tanked economy trumped a black president. But America isn't hurting the way it was in 2008. So, if Republicans pull out the "social issues" and Democrats keep talking about the economic issues, I see a Republican president in our future.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)You will fall under the golden rule(those with all the gold make all the rules) and the people on your side will have no money to fight back and you will lose.
Economics issues are the most important issue to most Americans
Poll from Gallup
Economic 33%
Immigration 7%
Healthcare 7%
Education 6%
Gay rights 1%
Abortion 1%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx
and I agree that the Democrats don't know how to deal with these issues. Passing secret trade agreements is not the way to get people on board. Maybe they should actually listen to the people. They used to come here and to DK but they have abandoned that outreach.
qwlauren35
(6,145 posts)Because I'm well-positioned economically, I am able to put my top two issues to the forefront. So I'm in that 1% for abortion.
Secret trade agreements are simply not my number one concern. And I would bet that preventing secret trade agreements is not going to pull out voters.
Voters come out in strong numbers for things that impact them directly... or go against their values. Fighting Wall Street won't get out the vote, preventing secret trade agreements won't get out the vote. For people who do NOT have social issues at the forefront of their minds, whoever promises to strengthen the economy will win.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)it is a concern for those of us that do. It might not be an issue for you but it is for most Americans. I hear plenty of people on the street complaining about economic issues but none talking about abortion or birth control.
If you want most, you can look at this poll - 72%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/importance_of_issues
or this one - 75%
http://www.people-press.org/2015/01/15/publics-policy-priorities-reflect-changing-conditions-at-home-and-abroad/
qwlauren35
(6,145 posts)Terrorism trumps the economy.
I didn't expect that.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)Fuck the shit stirring bullshit & feeble attempts at party division because that's all I see going on.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)KMOD
(7,906 posts)K&R
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I have seen some that claim that they are not enough, that a decent candidate would support those causes AND MORE.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)That is what some have said. That means I don't matter. That means my family, neighbors, and most Americans don't matter. Only they matter. That is how I see those comments. I see it as coming from a position of entitlement that dismisses the lives, concerns, and interests of the majority of Americans as inconsequential. Some are openly dismissive and contemptuous of the rights and concerns of the people on that list.
They are free to pursue whatever more they want. No one is stopping them from pursuing their own interests. I will not, however, sit back while they diminish my basic rights so that they can have more. I vote Democrat because it is the party that better meets my interests. They are free to vote in pursuit of their own interests.
G_j
(40,366 posts)
where I have heard that before,,,
or I guess i haven't been keeping up.. I've heard some people say all kinds of crap here, but you are making it sound like more.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Because I have the nerve to give a shit about the majority of Americans rather than dismissing their lives as inconsequential? How dare I. If I were a real progressive, I'd vote GOP, or something.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)should tell you that plenty of people have seen it.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)link, to prove shit, that so many of us have seen. i wrote an OP with a link in hof. not gonna hunt it down. check out du's populist party, and you will see it. if you choos not to educate yourself, that is on you. i have spent the last week educating myself. being in the conversations, in the group. i listened.
your choice.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I have not seen these supposed "links."
I call BS on your statement. You are right, you do not have to prove anything. But, then no one needs to accept the assertion of DUers against social issues.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)G_j
(40,366 posts)to acknowledge that some other member's ultimate knowledge of what goes on here surpasses my own? Sure, I'll gladly acknowledge that. But the night I responded to this I saw a number of posts asserting that "others" were saying social issues didn't matter when compared to economic ones. My impression was that THAT was the predominating meme at the time. That "some " were saying economics trumped social concerns. I saw that repeated a number of times in an accusatory fashion. Just my causal observation. I'm not doing the research thank you. That was my observation, and I don't think the practice of saying "some" people say something is intellectually honest.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)it is not like you will not come upon it, paying attention to this. they have their own group here on du. you know.
do to the dems, what the teabaggers did to the repugs.
no thanks.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)who attempt so very hard to dismiss the social aspects of HRC's past. Dismiss it and yes, act with derision toward those that attempt to focus on those social aspects, so that the someones can press another message. Those someones vociferously implying it is the only message that really counts, economics and finances. Which we now know is all bull shit, because so many are denying that it ever happened. lol
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)truly a mastermind in twisting.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)often interrelated.
Take Bernie Sanders, for example. He's all for subjugating Wall St, and maintaining and improving the quality of our environment, while at the same time fully fixing every one of those important social issues mentioned in the OP.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Bernie Sanders runs for the nomination, wins the nomination and becomes president. Then what? The House and maybe even the Senate remain Republican. Citizens United and similar rulings continue to make government beholden to big money interests. Industry lobbyists continue to write legislation. What can Sanders do about it? There is only so much that can be accomplished by executive order.
Therein lies my problem with the obsession on the presidency to the exclusion of all of the rest of government.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)They simply stated an opinion on a presidential candidate. A topic on which you have opinions yourself IIRC. So what's the problem?
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)However, the endless discussions on this site about the presidency show an overwhelming focus on that office to the exclusion of everything else.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)Excellent points!
betsuni
(25,376 posts)Pompous windbags.
Response to BainsBane (Original post)
jeff47 This message was self-deleted by its author.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Because the GOP are culling the herd, and it starts with me and people I care about. Besides, it's the principle of it all when our rights are violated.
Yeah, we got principles, too.
We've been 'talked down to' by our 'betters' for too damn long. So we're used to it and will not be moved. We're just typical stubborn donkeys.
Good list of us there. Thanks, Bain.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)it might be better to separate the social issues some of us
are talking about from those, which are somewhat costly.
It does not cost much to support reproductive rights, nor
does support for marriage equality or voting rights. Support of prosecution
of hate crimes does not require a lot.
Free education including at the Universities, however,
are not one of those, neither is research, and certainly
not the environment.
As far as regulations of Wall Street and investment of
infrastructure are concerned you really deal with a lot
of money and will mostly find nice speeches and no
more about it.
Please, tell me how much it will cost any candidate
to support the 14th amendment or women's rights?
As soon as real money is concerned and issues, which
envolve the larger economic system there will be
resistance from TPTB.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)JI7
(89,239 posts)of "feticide" .
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)BainsBane
(53,012 posts)or voting rights, why are they under attack? Why are hate crimes on the rise? I can assure you, for the people whose lives are affected by all of that, the costs are very high. Of course, I don't believe that value aligns in direct relationship to economic worth, which may be why I find your post so strange. Yes, I live in a capitalist society and am like most of us an interpallated subject, but evidently I'm not interpallated enough to attribute intrinsic value to human beings and issues according to net worth. I couldn't begin to answer your question. I can't begin to relate to a worldview that ranks or evaluates issues of political economy and social justice, much less human life, in terms of dollars.
Perhaps you'd have more luck if you direct your question to someone in the insurance industry who deals with actuarial data?
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)I just wanted to make it clear to you that
many rights just require a vote or support.
There are other rights, which need the appropriate
financial support not necessarily from tax payers,
but from the corporations and banks. Those most
candidates from whatever party will pay lip service
to, but little else.
Just to give you an example: If I stand on the
corner with a sign about children's education,
nobody will bother me. Do you think the same
would be true, if my sign said: All guns should
be registered by the US government? I doubt it
very much!
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Education costs more financially than gun registration. I think what you mean to say is that some issues challenge entrenched interests more than others. Still, the entire GOP is dedicated to eroding the very rights you say don't costs as much. I would submit that issues relating to gender equality are even more intractable than challenging financial interests. Only the wealthy few benefit from Wall Street maleficence. Far more benefit from gender inequality. That is why, for example, there is so much resistance to discussions of feminism and misogyny on this site. I can tell you it would be a lot easier for a politician to come out against Wall Street than patriarchy. We've seen the former, never the latter. In the case of LGBT equality, homophobia goes against economic interests, but LGBT rights still face great obstacles because of conservative social values. Interests need not be financial to be entrenched or powerful.
qwlauren35
(6,145 posts)I am always amazed that people with conservative social values consistently vote against their economic interests. So, social issues obviously matter to the conservatives. I think the issue of social issues is the bane of the Democratic party. That's why Republicans call them "special interests". Not all Democrats are willing to fight for LGBT rights. Not all Democrats are willing to fight for women's rights. Not all Democrats are willing to fight for African-American issues. For some reason, here on DU, it SEEMS that the progressives are banded on the economic issues. And as such, the Republicans are winning.
Economic issues don't draw voters out of the woodwork like social issues do.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)cost TPTB a red cent. It's horrible, and yes, we MUST fight back.
And, YES women's rights are SUPER important. I would never support a candidate that wasn't strong on women's rights (including reproductive rights).
It's funny though: Candidates that are more aligned with traditional "FDR Democratic" style economic positions are GREAT on women's rights and reproductive issues. Is there one politician out there that espouses "FDR Dem" values that is NOT good on women's issues (or other social issues for that matter). Alternatively, the Democratic politicians that we have the most trouble with on social issues are the conservative/DLC/3rd Way Democrats. They often tend to be bad on both economic AND social issues.
What many of us believe (and I have no idea how this is not clear to so many) is that we must begin fighting for both SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC justice at the same time. We have to begin doing that eventually or we're just fucked. Lots of us believe that, and we're not trying to destroy the Democratic Party. We're trying to return the Democratic Party to the Party that brought us the New Deal. Too many elected Democrats today would "strengthen" social safety nets by cutting them, and that will result in grief and despair for many. This is very important!
So maybe one day enough of us will begin to see candidates that value social AND economic liberalism as the only acceptable alternative. Since we're not there yet, we (the 99%) will probably continue to lose a lot of economic ground over the next decade. The income and wealth inequality in this nation will continue to grow, and more and more Americans will enter deeper and deeper levels of debt.
One day I hope that trend will begin to reverse. And there's only one way to do that. Go Left on economic issues. No Third Way sponsored candidates.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)they arent doing it to draw attention away. they are doing it cause THAT IS WHAT MEN DO!!!!
they want to control women and this is a way
fuckin serious people? look at the ones in this subthread doing exactly what baines is talking. one even demands wasting time for links... questioning this happening. then jumps in this subthread and claps for the dismissal of our issues.
when your ass is protecting a young woman from violence of a man, that has to get an abortion so as not to have a controlling, violent man in her life the next two decades. protecting her children. under stress and duress. hunting for where she can legally get an abortion. what hoops she has to jump thru to get this legal abortion. go out of fuckin state for it to be the least driving time, and the least invasive and legally humiliating. when you have to come up with the money, when you are already just getting by. walk thru the fuckin old men whose sole purpose is to shame the young woman, yelling at them. wait.... all day, no food, cause states has made the window of the pill so narrow. to have a invasive procedure that is not necessary. be in pain, and deal the after mess
then get in my fuckin face and tell me how fuckin MINOR it is. insigificant. needs to go on the back burner cause of your pocket book.
cause i tell you. i am there with you. paying two colleges. insurance for everyone. taxes taken. trying to make it on my dime. and maintain my life style. wanting the justice of the 1% picking up their share.
and it is NOTHING.... from my experience of a young woman trying to get a legal medical procedure.
fuck that shit.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)In order to implement more Reaganomics. It costs them nothing.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2009 that extending employment benefits such as health insurance to same-sex domestic partners of federal employees would cost the federal government $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending between 2010 and 2019.
Discrimination in all forms is based on the economic advantages provided to the majority that stream from inequality toward minorities.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)The 14th Amendment didn't cost any famous candidate but Lincoln his life. But the Civil War fought to bring those rights to pass cost 625,000 to 850,000 lives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
And it's not over yet. More have died since then. Supporting the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act cost MLK, Jr. his life and that of Medgar Evers, the girls in the church in Birmingham, the Freedom Riders and more. The history of African Americans in America is one of bondage and terrorism for so many years that Americans ceased paying any attention to it. Untold numbers of African Americans died trying to live in peace and get their rights as human beings. For over five centuries.
Supporting reproductive rights have cost a number of people their lives. There have been so many incidents it has also been classified as terrorism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
Roe vs Wade reduced the number of women lost to illegal abortions. Those were lives being lost and why others were willing to lose theirs for rights.
Supporting marriage equality has set up a firestorm of genocidal ideology and religious fanaticism that calls for gays to be put to death, and some have been killed by those who can't stand the idea they might get those rights. There is a cost in human rights for seeking them.
Those are the costs that matter. These things are about living things, not money. People did not fight and die for some candidates, but for their very lives. This is not a game.
It is social indifference that permits the people you think are in charge to cause these deaths and this misery. We must work from the ground up. Then they will have to give in, they always have from a unified front. Supporting civil rights is a major part of unity. Ignoring civil rights is a major divider and permits those in power to get away with what they do.
To think of human rights only in terms of money is what the most powerful have taught us to do to divide us. Each of us will leave our record here of what we think and what we care about in this online community.
Cha
(296,821 posts)
Wow!freshwest
(53,661 posts)Cha
(296,821 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)from the bigoted Reagan administration. The cost in human lives and the fabric of the community. Great artists whose deaths cheated not only our culture of their talents but our economy of the millions of dollars these people generated.
The LGBT community, left to our own devices by a genocidal majority, had to expend massive personal wealth to create entire organizations and social safety nets for people who were being ignored by their government, by Insurance Companies, by the medical establishment.
These people who spout that it did not cost anything for them to ignore the greatest public health crisis of our times seem to be admitting that they were of no help, they spent no dollars, no time, no energy to assist.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)party.
sheshe2
(83,647 posts)
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)and so true.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)immeasurable amounts of wealth that your straight community absorbed and kept. The Straight majority has stolen from us generation after generation.
Your claim that 'it does not cost much' to extend spousal benefits to same sex couples and thus it is somehow easy to do begs the question: if it is so damn free and easy, why has there been so many years of financial abuse heaped upon us?
'Giving millions of people benefits we cheated them out of for years is not a big deal to those of us who have been doing the cheating'.
What part of the 19th Century do you live in?
Behind the Aegis
(53,919 posts)It seems some want us to 'learn our place' but they just come out and say it with the same frankness of those on the right.
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)You may be sad. You may be old. But you are one smart girl. 
sheshe2
(83,647 posts)Hot damn! You just nailed them to the wall.
Thank you BainsBane!
I am so loving you Woman!
obnoxiousdrunk
(2,909 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)betsuni
(25,376 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)for everyone. Where is it? Who is proposing it outside
of Bernie? In the end it would be a heck of a lot
cheaper than the ACA, but who wants to take on
the private insurance industry and big Pharma?
That, for instance, is a real social issue, which
is very important to the 99%.
Try to think about who takes on that issue, and
let me know.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)that single payer is important to the 99 percent. I, however, would love to see it.
Support by a presidential candidate or president, however, is not enough, as Hillary Clinton discovered in the early 90s.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)the public option was supported by over 60%, but even
that was not included: Money for the corporation would
drop. Again, if the corporations feel threatened, nothing
will be done, because in a plutocracy money rules.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)It's nice you all just discovered in the past couple of years what Marx wrote about more than a century and a half ago. Give him a read though. It's worth your time.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)I grew up in a country that knows far more
about socialist democracy than this one, and
btw has single payer with the total
approval of all its citizens.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)BainsBane
(53,012 posts)I hope you're still there and not slumming it among the great unwashed here.
BTW, I didn't say anything about socialist democracy. I suggested you read Marx, if you haven't already done so. His insights into capitalism are crucial, and writings on the capitalist state, which is what we live under (even in Western European "socialist democracies" , all depart from Marx.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Capitalism is driven by supply AND demand. Not just supply.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)You really, really need to read Marx. The entire discipline of economics is a faith-based approach to justifying capitalism. Supply-side is one theory of economic growth. Demand-side, favored by Democrats, is another. Both are theories of how to stimulate economic growth, and both are part of the pseudo-scientific justification of capitalism.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)They are wrong on that particular count, primarily thanks to a vast right wing conspiracy to convince them that it isn't important.
I know someone who has a fairly decent ACA policy and rather urgently needs a hip replacement, they are putting it off indefinitely until they have enough money for the copay/deductible and etc. which could be more than a year from now. So they will continue to work through the pain of a bone on bone hip socket joint.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)but over 60% approved a public option, which was not
coming through either.
If your acquaintances wait too long, the replacement
may be far more difficult. Try to convince them to
do it sooner.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)And it isn't how I thought ACA was supposed to work.
What does that say to you in relation to the OP? Are you arguing the parties don't matter?
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)that say majorities support single payer; I listed a few.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)That number steadily eroded as the public was fed propaganda.
Majority still supports single-payer option, poll finds
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/229959-majority-still-support-single-payer-option-poll-finds
Single-Payer: It's What the People Want
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/01/20/single-payer-its-what-people-want
Two-thirds of Americans support Medicare-for-all (#3 of 6)
http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/12/09/two-thirds-support-3/
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)I'm glad to see a majority of Americans do support single payer, at least in some polls. Sadly, the current system is such that popular support doesn't mean much, unless people are willing to work hard to push for it. Consider the defeat of the background check bill, something supported by 95 percent or more in polls.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)demanding universal health care? In the 1980's. LGBT people and women's rights groups were authors of the health care reform movement. The very first organized actions by ACT UP were targeting Big Pharma on Wall St. 'No More Business As Usual' was what it said on the poster.
Where were you?
Universal access to health care is and has long been a definitive cornerstone of the LGBT movement. The fact that you are unaware of that simply demonstrates that you are very uninformed about this entire subject, although you are pontificating upon it anyway.
" Outraged by the government's mismanagement of the AIDS crisis, concerned individuals unite to form the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power. Our first demonstration takes place three weeks later on March 24th on Wall Street, the financial center of the world, to protest the profiteering of pharmaceutical companies (especially Burroughs Wellcome, manufacturer of AZT). Seventeen people are arrested. Shortly after the demonstration, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces it will shorten its drug approval process by two years.
January 15, 1988: ACT UP NY's Women's Caucus organizes first ACT UP action focused on women and HIV. Five hundred people protest an article telling heterosexual women that unprotected vaginal intercourse with an HIV+ man is safe. A documentary about the action, "Doctors, Liars, and Women: AIDS Activists Say NO to Cosmo," produced by two Women's Caucus members, is later shown around the country, winning awards and placed in the permanent collection of the Museum of Modern Art.
March 24, 1988: To celebrate our first anniversary, ACT UP returns to Wall Street. More than 100 activists are arrested; ACT UP receives major media coverage and issues central to the AIDS crisis are reported. The concept of "AIDS activism" gains credibility."
http://www.actupny.org/documents/cron-87.html
I'm not sure who you think you are dealing with here. If you read at that link, you will find years of activism around health care. Not to mention other issues such as homelessness, food scarcity. Oh my God, do you know that many 'straight' Meals on Wheels groups would not serve HIV patients? Had to start out own. We stared laundry services and transportation networks, drug supply chains, people went to jail like mad and they did that for YOU.
brer cat
(24,523 posts)K&R
Iris
(15,648 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)do their jobs! I so agree!
Behind the Aegis
(53,919 posts)See, civil rights are a non-starter, we are all equal. Gays are getting married in all states...well, not yet. Bad example. Women's reproductive rights are completely secure! Oh wait...that's not true. Bad example. Black people walk the streets with impunity and have no fear of being gunned down like animals in the streets. Ooops! Seems that isn't true either. Bad example. We have a surplus of homes throughout the country and therefore, there are no homeless of which to speak. Crap! That's not true either! Bad example. Well, damn, seems there are many "bad examples" which need correcting, as well as other issues, and just because some don't see the needs of minorities as 'wedge issues' it doesn't mean they aren't.
Some seem to think only "their" concerns are valid and those of minorities are "luxury items" which can be taken for granted. Like most people who are interested in the rights of minorities, we can focus on other things too, but we also realize the severity of the situation should the tide change.
Perhaps people might remember, when they start with one group, they often have designs on others...and the list continues.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)It's all about them. They assume their interests are universal and glibly dismiss ours as inconsequential. They think they are critiquing the Democratic party from the left. I don't see it that way.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Hekate
(90,552 posts)
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)with no primary, in a general presidential election?
Don't you think that economic and social justice are closely linked principals, or even one in the same?
If social issues are a concern, shouldn't we nominate a candidate who is clearly dedicated to representing us on those issues?
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Three declared candidates so far, more on the way. Just because you all haven't resolved the election already, despite your best efforts, doesn't mean it isn't taking place according to schedule in the real world. All the fantasies you people create online won't change any of that.
Whomever you vote for is your decision. Mine is my own, and it is not subject to anyone's approval.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)election that is a year away has already occurred. The candidate I most favor has not even announced yet. There are no Primaries or Caucuses this year at all. Anywhere. It's 9 freaking months until Iowa. Not only can anything happen, many things will. Learn to respect the process, the choice is simply not yours alone. It is a collective decision.
qwlauren35
(6,145 posts)I absolutely do not think that social issues and economic issues are the same. Abortion rights are NOT an economic issue. Racial profiling and killer cops are NOT economic issues.
Those are my two highest priorities when voting for someone. Because they are very, very personal.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)social issues are extremely important. As you say, for many they are basic rights. Often they're tied inextricably with economic issues, especially for those who suffer from all angles. Thanks for this great post.
zappaman
(20,606 posts) LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)It doesn't matter how progressive they are on social issues. They support an economic caste system where the poor become poorer and the middle class sink into poverty. All while the rich accumulate virtually all net wealth.
No one who supports the poor staying poor is a liberal. Sorry.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 20, 2015, 04:41 AM - Edit history (1)
though you have a point about Chaffee. He along with Warren was a supporter of Reaganomics in the 80s. Clinton certainly has never been a supporter of supply side, or trickle down, economics. If you've confused capitalism with Reaganomics, you should do something to remedy that.
Your comment about the "poor remaining poor" shows no understanding of my post. No one who believes government should play a role in addressing poverty votes Republican. People who care only about themselves and those of their relatively privileged economic circumstances may well do so or act in ways that allow the GOP to come to office.
I made clear that what some around here dismiss as social issues are in fact economic, only they affect the lives of those of us who don't matter, the majority of Americans. Some here are focused entirely on their anger at Wall Street because, I'm guessing, they lost out badly in the economic collapse. I imagine it's very frustrating, but they are not the only people who count. I have never seen a single post criticizing the Democratic field raise the issue of poverty. Not one. What I have seen is vapid references to "corporatism," who associates with whom, and other trivia that has nothing to do with the lives of anyone outside the political elite. If there is any economic interest discussed it is of a narrow portion of a relatively privileged segment of the population and certainly not the poor. What is clear is that certain people assume their own interests are either universal or more important than everyone else's and thus dismiss the concerns of the majority of Americans as "social issues." The majority of the poor are women and people of color; equal rights affect their ability to feed their families. It is obvious to me that people who say that the two parties are the same on the issues that really matter are not including the poor among those issues that "matter." The attitude is one of privilege, on the part of people with relative privilege and dismissive of the majority who are not nearly so fortunate.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)President Barack Obama believes that if he were president 25 years ago, his economic policies would make him a moderate Republican.
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/obama-considered-moderate-republican-1980s/story?id=17973080
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)However, that is not the same as trickle down economics, which was the right-wing of the GOP. Additionally, we aren't living 25 years ago, at least most of us aren't.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)But Obama is, apparently.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts) Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)When the economy crashes it hits the people on the bottom the hardest. So that includes disproportionately people of color, and working women. Predatory banks targeted black and latino people for mortgages with balloon payments. They target minority neighborhoods with payday lending shops.
All the issues are connected. People who draw a line between the two sets of issues are dividing the team.
I would never vote for a candidate who was great on "economic issues" but was on the wrong side of the so-called "social issues" like racial and gender empowerment.
In the primary elections though I'm absolutely looking for a candidate that comes down on the correct side of all the major issues.
qwlauren35
(6,145 posts)That's why there are black Republicans. They are willing to give up economic issues to fight for the conservative causes they believe in. They are pro-life, they are anti-LGBT. But they are not necessarily anti-big government. They still need their social security and medicare. They still need food stamps and affordable housing.
But those social issues are SO big to them that they abandon the Democratic party.
Cha
(296,821 posts)for your OP.. to clarify just what they are so superciliously sniff their collective nose at.
Global Climate Change! Only our Air, Water, and Food!
cali
(114,904 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,780 posts)Because shit just got real.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Half of those are economic issues first.
Social Security
Unemployment
Assistance for the poor
Assistance for the disabled
Higher education
K-12 Education
Federally funded research: NIH, NSF, NEH, and NEA
Disaster preparedness (remember Katrina?)
Some regulation of Wall Street vs. Complete deregulation
Job training and infrastructure projects vs. even greater tax cuts for the rich
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)The dismissal of "social issues" is not really about social vs. economic because the two are interlinked. It's a way that some have of dismissing the rights and concerns of the majority of the population. It's about an assumption that their own concerns are universal and should even supersede the interests of others. When they dismiss social issues and instead proclaim themselves to be advocating for economic issues, what they are really arguing is that it is their economic interests that matter, that their sense of entitlement assumes them to be universal, while they casually dismiss the concerns of the majority of Americans as "social" and therefore less. When the issues that affect our lives don't "really matter," they are saying that it is us who doesn't matter.
eridani
(51,907 posts)A candidate favors both marriage equality and financial deregulation? Sorry, the former is no kind of redeeming feature. Regardless of continuing rear-guard obstructionism, our side has already won on the first. The opposition is dying off daily. It delights me that the Republican presidential candidates are still against--that only means that they are going to wind up like Pence.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)benefits to same sex couples. The entire fabric of both the LGBT and women's movements has always been centered around economic, health care and other issues that are universal to humanity. The focus of AIDS activism was Wall St, Big Pharma, Government Discrimination. LGBT people occupied Wall St in 1987, and along with women were leaders in the cause of health care reform and equity in coverage.
A candidate who favored equality and deregulation would be a moderate Republican. Not a Democrat. You just have no idea. It's really something to see. The profound level of cultural and recent historical ignorance in the straight community is not something to be proud of.
“Let's make no mistake about this: The American Dream starts with the neighborhoods. If we wish to rebuild our cities, we must first rebuild our neighborhoods. And to do that, we must understand that the quality of life is more important than the standard of living. To sit on the front steps--whether it's a veranda in a small town or a concrete stoop in a big city--and to talk to our neighborhoods is infinitely more important than to huddle on the living-room lounger and watch a make-believe world in not-quite living color.
And I hardly need to tell you that in the 19- or 24-inch view of the world, cleanliness has long since eclipsed godliness. Soon we'll all smell, look, and actually be laboratory clean, as sterile on the inside as on the out. The perfect consumer, surrounded by the latest appliances. The perfect audience, with a ringside seat to almost any event in the world, without smell, without taste, without feel--alone and unhappy in the vast wasteland of our living rooms. I think that what we actually need, of course, is a little more dirt on the seat of our pants as we sit on the front stoop and talk to our neighbors once again, enjoying the type of summer day where the smell of garlic travels slightly faster than the speed of sound.”
― Harvey Milk
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Some people would have you believe they are.
Some people are wrong.
Some people are dividing the Democratic Party.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)The people who dismiss the concerns of the majority of Americans as "social issues" suggest they are. Division is not acknowledging that Americans from different backgrounds have legitimate rights and concerns. Rather, it is in its denial and in efforts to exclude the majority from political discourse. It is in the assumption that the middle-class and upper-middle class white male experience is universal, and that any concerns aside from theirs amount to "division." In short, my post is a critique of what I see as a politics of exclusion rather than inclusion.
99Forever
(14,524 posts).. the Great Unrelenting Equalizer. All inclusive.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)In all areas of the US, in part or as a whole, African American and Latino poverty rates are much higher than those for white people. Poverty rates for women are higher than those for men. Poverty rates among LGBT are higher than those among straight people.
Among homeless youth, between 30% and 43% identify as LGBT to agencies serving homeless youth. Obviously that is a disproportionate number of homeless youth among one population.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Only Bluenorthwest is right. It isn't the great equalizer. Firstly, the poor are comprised overwhelmingly of women, children, and people of color. Then when one is poor, chances of being subject to police arrest and brutality, even killing, are far greater for African Americans. While poor LGBT Americans also suffer a host of indignities you and I will never face. Nothing is equal in a society characterized by rampant inequality, and that includes poverty.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)bluenortwestern point out the mass death of gays with hiv, as we are told it does not matter. your point. blacks shot in the back.
these are the people being told, they do not matter.
we dems had better start seeing what we are actually saying, as we dismiss social.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Some Democrats are better at helping the poor. Others are good at waxing poetic about the poor when campaigning then developing amnesia once in office.
I'm pretty sure poverty sucks regardless of your race, age, or gender.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)But I can tell you from experience it is far better to be poor in a solid blue state.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)but poverty is not even equally spread around society. It's really crappy of you to pretend that anyone asserted that poverty sucks more for some than for others. The entire point is that minorities have higher rates of poverty than others, that is not in fact an equalizer but an enhancer of inequalities.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)conservative resistance to reality that prompts me to question the assertion that some of these critiques of the Democratic party are leftist in nature.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Excellent OP.
You nailed it.
boston bean
(36,218 posts)that those who don't agree that "class" is the great equalizer are corporatist, war loving, right wing idiots.
They believe they are so principled that all they have to do is say the word "oligarch" and all discussion should come to a screeching halt because they are just so righteous. It must be nice to look at the world from only one lense and dismiss all others from the table.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts) betsuni
(25,376 posts)BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Using the words oligarch and corporatist over and over again supposedly suffice for a discussion of economic issues. Only it's rarely about any issue and but rather projection of their anger over the current state of America onto one woman.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,221 posts)
William769
(55,142 posts) SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
merrily
(45,251 posts)Of course, much of the list in the OP is comprised of economic issues, not solely social or cultural.
And Democrats have not been doing well on a number of them, from ending welfare as we know it, to cuts to fuel subsidies for the poor and cuts to SNAP.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12776644
Cha
(296,821 posts)BainsBane
(53,012 posts)
thucythucy
(8,038 posts)Great post.
Notice how SSI and SSDI are under increasing attack? These programs are of literal life and death importance to people in the disability community.
I saw an OP the other day where the author said it "didn't matter" to him who became the next president.
Left me shaking my head at the unacknowledged life of privilege that writer must be living.
You said what needs to be said, as you so often do.
Thanks!
djean111
(14,255 posts)want both. Oh dear me, NO - we can only have one or the other. Evidently there was a voucher system and the vouchers all got used up on social issues. Damn! Also, Third Way triangulation on social issues ain't pretty. Guess who loses.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)You will see that my point is the two are not separate.
ismnotwasm
(41,965 posts)This, exactly.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts) seabeyond
(110,159 posts)democratic party. told to just shuck it to the side. out loud. with no embarrassment. as a matter of fact, there is so little embarassment that they start calling me names and such cause i will not do as i am told.
on a
DEMOCRATIC board
talking about
DEMOCRATIC ISSUE
within the
DEMOCRATIC party.
let me be really clear. what i have had to repeatedly say, addressing this issue the last couple days. and the people i reply to, totaly ignore me.
i would be good with ANY dem. ANY. dem. i am not fighting with any possible candidate we might have the privilege of listening to, thoughts and ideas, where they see we are and where they would like to go.
NO problem with a single on of our dems.
but, i have a huge issue with the populist party. and that issue is getting more and more define.
as they tell me.
i do not matter. i am a minor issue. i am small minded because i do not accept that. i am simply not as smart, because i do not willingly go to the back of the bus.
NO!
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)of the Democratic party. Some of it is well intentioned, but I fear some if it is also exclusionary.
Autumn
(44,980 posts)
FSogol
(45,446 posts)LeftishBrit
(41,203 posts)and 'social' issues.
On the one hand, we have those who describe themselves as 'social liberals but economic conservatives'. As one who lives under just such a government: it is socially liberal for those who can afford it! Those who are below a certain income - plus, increasingly, those who are in insecure or unpredictable employment which constantly puts them at risk of being below a certain income - are kept in a state of chronic anxiety, and their freedom is denied by the fear of losing their jobs and homes and wherewithal for survival, quite as much as it would be by fear of the police. Moreover - the government itself is authoritarian and coercive toward those on benefits (compulsory medical treatment for obesity and addictions is their latest proposal), while libertarian for the better-off. If one must choose, it is better to be governed by a David Cameron than a Rick Santorum; but neither is a good idea.
On the other hand, there is often a complete blindness to the fact that so-called 'social' issues are not trivialities, or even just 'social', but concrete, physical, economic realities. Women are not just insulted by sexist policies - they are often kept poor, and in many places in serious physical danger. Reproductive rights are often essential to survival and certainly to keeping people of both sexes out of poverty ('the rich get richer and the poor get children'...) Racism keeps members of minority groups poor, often sick (even nowadays African-Americans have lower life expectancies than whites), often victims of violence.
Creating an artificial distinction between 'social' and 'economic' issues is a good way of preventing either from being addressed properly; of 'dividing and ruling'; of enabling right-libertarianism on the one hand and neo-fascism on the other.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)That in particular was one of the points I was trying to make.
sheshe2
(83,647 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)as questions are asked.... link. lets see. where.
and it is in this very thread the purposeful obtuseness and then ignoring posters when they present the "duh". there is absolutely no desire to think this thru and move from a position. this is all about making other dems aware what is happening within our party.
Behind the Aegis
(53,919 posts)If they didn't see it, it didn't happen. It is one thing to claim you (general) have never come across something or another; always possible given the volume of posts at this site, but to flat out say or imply "no it doesn't exist because I haven't seen it" is just poor form. Often when they are asking for a link, they are the ones who will immediately alert for "calling out another DU'er". Of course, what really demonstrates they can't see the forest for the trees, are some of the thing BB (and others) addressed are exemplified in this very thread. Sure, a few made the comments about "not seeing it" before certain comments were made, but there they are, in black and white.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)A really, really important one.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)I think part of the problem is that some assume their experience is universal and sometimes openly deride the concerns of the less privileged. I see it as a quite narrow conception of economic justice that is focused primarily on people who are better off that the vast majority of Americans. For example, much of what passes as "economic justice" around here is anger at Wall Street. They want to see bankers pay for the financial meltdown. Now certainly, I would have liked to see that as well, but with the exception of some civil suits by the SEC, it didn't happen, in part because the greatest crime was that most of what they did was actually legal.
That some are then willing to allow a GOP administration come to office that will cut off food stamps, social security, disability, and other programs that protect the most vulnerable should be clear that their concerns do not encompass economic justice for all.
Then people complain about "corporatist" Democrats. Now, we live in a capitalist country, and we always have. Yet this lexicon about corporatism has only come into fashion in the past couple of years. Our nation was founded on capitalism, and its conception of freedom has always depended on inequality. Yet to hear some around here, you would think this is something new. I expect it is new to some, but for most of us it has always been our reality. Now we are told our lifelong experiences matter less than the recent concerns of downward mobility of the more advantaged. Not only that, we see anger on the part of some of that group that politicians dare to appeal to our interests, interests that mean so little they aren't worth voting for. The anger of the few is meant to trump the life experiences of the rest of us. They assume they speak for all of us, while dismissing our basic rights as inconsequential. And they even pretend issues we care about aren't economic because they aren't in keeping with their own economic interests, which are what really matter.
What we have is a demonstration of entitlement on the part of people who have always seen themselves at the center telling the rest of us who have always been marginalized that they know what is best for us. They are pissed off that they are starting to experience a little of what the rest of us have always lived with, but they assume their experiences and issues are universal because their sense of entitlement allows no space for anything else.
No, people who speak dismissively about my rights do not speak for me. They do not have my best interests in mind, and I do not trust them to look after my rights. Economics is not just about the anger of the middle- and upper-middle class. Economic issues are at the heart of what some here refer to as "social issues," a dismissal that shows they see us as less important. So whether they are the top 1 percent, the top 10 percent or the top 20 percent doesn't matter nearly as much as the fact that they exclude me and my rights, as well as those of the vast majority of Americans, from political consideration. Assuming their concerns are universal may make them feel righteous, but it doesn't make them just. Whenever someone tells me they know better than I what's good for me, I know that I rank no where on their list of concerns.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)such as codifying indefinite detention into law, destroying habeus corpus, prosecuting whistle blowers, criminalizing investigative journalism, executing citizens without due process, and waging wars of choice based upon lies, the same people that want to lecture the rest of us on the importance of "rights" go silent.
Are we just supposed to accept all of this, because the Democrats behind it are pro-choice?
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Just as I don't accept Democrats who elevate the interests of a chosen few above equality under the law, as in the case of rape prosecutions of men they admire.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)In my case, I'm speaking of a candidate for office or an elected official that has participated in or supports government action that is exceptionally problematic. When considering the fitness or unfitness of said candidate/official, it's prudent to consider all of their policy positions and determine if, on the whole, those positions merit support of the politician.
I assume you are referring to Julian Assange, which presents an entirely different question. Assange is not a candidate or official, he is simply a person who obtained leaked information and made it available to the media. The central question is: is the availability of this information a good thing or a bad thing? Unrelated criminal charges against the person who obtained and presented the information is irrelevant to answering the question.
If a poster suggests that the Wikileaks information is erroneous or unimportant, and uses the rape charges against Assange as the reason, then it is simply logical to respond with "that doesn't matter - the information should stand or fall on its own merits." What often occurs in these exchanges is a diversion of the central argument from "the Wikileaks information is important" to "Julian Assange is a rapist." Both arguments can be true, but one is not related to the other.
Posters that argue that bringing up Assange's criminal charges as a refutation of Wikileaks information is irrelevant and illogical are correct, and it does not follow that they defend Assange's actions.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)but I have nothing but contempt for the notion that publishing leaked documents makes him above the law and and unaccountable to charges for sexual assault. None of the Wikileaks information is in any way affected by Assange being held accountable for the legal arrest warrant against him. What is served by holding him immune and defending him from accountability is rape culture and patriarchy, as well as his own ego, which too many see as more important than principles of equality before the law.
People who take such an attitude make clear that they see my rights as less. They hold the interests of the few above the many and above principles of equality before the law. Patriarchy and rape culture are very real forces that lead to the economic and physical subjugation of women. I do not endorse a view of politics where the privileged few, those with wealth, racial and gender privilege, or fame are held above the rest of the human race. I consider it wholly offensive, entirely unjust. It simply props up a different axis of power and privilege, one far more pervasive that the issue you raise.
This OP is not about what are valid concerns on your part for government spying, secrecy and torture. It is about the class-, race- and gender-based construction of artificial notions of social vs. economic. Torture and abuse, including rape, are no less oppressive at the hands of non-governmental actors than govt. And make no mistake about it, states around the globe have long been complicit in maintaining rape culture. Finally that is starting to change in a couple of places, and the response by too many here is resistance an even outrage. The determination to see men like Assange not face legal allegations against him is part of the rape culture and patriarchy that leads to the subjugation of women around the planet. It holds the few above the many, accused rapists above their victims, and men above women. When people take such a position, it tells me that are fundamentally opposed to equality and that my rights and my life, and the billions of other women like me, pale in comparison to their reverence for the famous. It is about the subjugation of many for the benefit of the few, which is at the core of both social and economic justice. Assange's defenders show contempt for those principles because they elevate him not only above his alleged victims but above others accused of violent crimes.
You want to talk about politicians, to keep the discussion narrow and small, but that is not what this OP is about. It is about human, civil, and economic rights of the many, too summarily dismissed by a privileged few who think themselves the gatekeepers of justice, when fact, they are anything but.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)In fact, I have never seen that argument made. If I did see it, I would refute it.
Response to BainsBane (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Or non-white people.
Or women.
Or immigrants.
Or non-Christians.
Or liberals.
Or mainstream Republicans.
...you get the idea.
You should read the Tems of Service for Democratic Underground if you want to post here. It's a site for Democrats & left-leaning people.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)"It's your tough luck being born gay, female, non-white, becoming poor, or elderly, or any other condition other than being so privileged, so white and so male that it makes no difference if Democrats or Republicans control the White House and congress. So if you're one of the many Americans who worry about issues that don't matter, like how to pay for heat or whether you can get married or have access to reproductive health care, I'm giving you a shout out."
Unfortunately your description also applies to most of the pundits, news people, and media personalities who decide what is truly newsworthy. Given how perception and opinion is heavily shaped by what people see, and hear, and read, the 1% who own and control the corporate media have the ability to decide what matters to the American people. And what does not matter.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)and I have to say I'm bothered by how much of the discussion on this site mirrors the priorities as reflected on cable television. It's become more apparent to me since I disconnected my television just over a year ago.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I read the Chicago Tribune, a right wing (of course) newspaper. The Business section is filled with articles about investment advice for the budding millionaire. Rarely mentioned is that 30 years of stagnant wages has left the vast majority of people unable to save any money, much less enough money to accumulate wealth.
Lost in all the advice about which types of investments to make is the reality that no matter the market performance, only large investors have the assets to weather bad markets and the expertise, or some might say insider advice, to choose wisely.
As to "mirroring the priorities" I have read much nonsense about the TPP at this site. Advice to wait and see what is in the agreement rings false when the evidence is overwhelming that trade agreements depress income for the working class while boosting income for the rich.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)I didn't mean that they necessarily take the same positions on issues as advanced by corporate media, but rather that the discussion reflects the same cycle of subjects. Racism was a concern, for example, while cable news covered Ferguson but then soon dissipated. While I don't watch cable myself, I can tell what is being covered by what people post about here. Obviously it's not universal but a general pattern.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)My miscommunication.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)As in, they follow rather than lead. It was a cultural shift that allowed for many LGBT rights, with Democrats cowardly holding onto their bigoted positions in many instances right until the polls switched in their favor.
Then again, most of what you listed aren't social issues to me.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)That what people dismiss as social is in fact the lives, including the economic interests, of the majority of Americans.
The list is meant to be of issues on which the two parties differ. Some have said there is no difference between the parties on issues that "don't really matter." The list covers some of those inconsequential issues.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)And let a nazi freak like Cruz or Walker get elected so rich purists can get social security, medicade, medicare, gay rights and marriage, legal pot, etc etc etc outlawed for a generation because the SCOTUS will be owned and operated by the fucking Koch bros!
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)econimic issues ARE social issues, and Vice versa, because if you become poor, there will be NO difference between ecomnimic and social issues. The only people who think they can divide the two or those who think they will never be poor.
That beign said, we would like to see the democrats admit this fact themselves, instead of trying to sneak past the sleeping wall street dragons that threatened to pullfunds because Liz Warren was not shut up fast enough.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Warren's own election fund? Or something else?
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)NEW YORK, March 27 (Reuters) - Big Wall Street banks are so upset with U.S. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren's call for them to be broken up that some have discussed withholding campaign donations to Senate Democrats in symbolic protest, sources familiar with the discussions said.
Representatives from Citigroup, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, have met to discuss ways to urge Democrats, including Warren and Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, to soften their party's tone toward Wall Street, sources familiar with the discussions said this week.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)http://wallstreetexaminer.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1126294
many of these ones known to donate to Clinton, such as GoldmanSachs.
LeftishBrit
(41,203 posts)(This is a response to your first paragraph; I don't know enough about the detailed recent history of the Democratic party to evaluate the second.)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)great on social issues, but just how strong and proactive on social issues are economic-conservative Dems, exactly?!
by the current logic of this "debate," Rahm would outdo everyone from ACT UP! to Sea Shepherd on social issues, every day of the week, while still threatening to burn the city for insurance money; but instead he calls anyone left of Franco on economic OR social issues "fucking retards"
it's certainly plausible that social issues can be used to whitewash corporatism, but while the Blairites are "gay-friendly" they're not friendly to gays: the dispute between the Dems seems to still fall on the old left/right axis despite some variations and many inconsistencies
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)cannot have one without the other.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)How do you not get that with a picture of poor folk at the top? I'm talking about the majority of Americans, but you can't see there is anything economic about poverty. You assume that if it's not all about you, it can't be economic. It truly is astounding that you can't see that.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Or rather you deliberately ignored it. The picture of poor people should have been a clue.
This division you place between social and economic is false. It negates the very real economic concerns of the majority of Americans. Women and people of color are in particular disproportionately poor. Yet that poverty is dismissed as "social" for one reason: it's not about you.
This lexicon of "corporatism" is all the rage of late and signals a mindset of people who have only just recently started to think about the inequality that the rest of us have always experienced. The halcyon days of the Democratic Party many here hearken back to where a period when the rest of us not only didn't benefit from basic civil rights, but we lived in crippling poverty. What people who go on about corporatism are lamenting is not the structural inequality that has characterized this country from its inception but the decline of their own class. For some that also includes a lament about the decline of their race and gender privilege.
Repeating "corporate" and "oligarch" day in and day out doesn't make your concerns any more intrinsically economic that the majority of Americans you dismiss as "social issues." Nor does it, like many here assume, make their experience universal. Prattling on about 'corporatism" while others are trying to put food on the table, you assume that rhetoric makes your concerns more important than the folks whose ability to feed their families, legally marry, or have control over their own bodies. I will not forsake my basic interests and those of the majority of Americans the few dismiss as "social issues" to cater to middle- and upper-middle class anger at Wall Street. You are entitled to pursue your own interests. What you are not entitled to do is claim that you, more than I, know what my interests are, particularly when you dismiss them so derisively.
There is a clear, class and race -based attitude at work in this discussion about the part, in which those of relative privilege assume their experience and interests to be universal and more important than the majority of Americans. I do not share that view, and I will not adopt a vision of politics aimed at indulging anger of those privileged enough that they can glibly dismiss as of lesser consequence the issues and lives of those discussed in my OP.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)When you wrote:
"What people who go on about corporatism are lamenting is not the structural inequality that has characterized this country from its inception but the decline of their own class. For some that also includes a lament about the decline of their race and gender privilege."
Many US citizens, here and elsewhere, cannot admit that the US empire was founded on structural inequality and division of the working class. They are believers in the myth of US exceptionalism and believe that every person has an equal chance to succeed even when all the evidence disproves that this has ever been true.
Your phrase "the decline of their own class" zeroes in on the narrowness of the focus that is the primary reason that many people miss the point of the post. Union workers have also been guilty of this narrow focus. Some business unionists have focused exclusively on wages and benefits for their own members without realizing that, in the long term, for ANY workers in any industry to really succeed, ALL workers must succeed.
Social and economic equality are inseparable. True equality means equality in every aspect of life, it cannot be limited to wages.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)as inculcated through K-12 education and some public history. Unless people grew up with experiences that directly contradicted that mythology, they tend to take it on face value. That, I think, is why we see longing for an ideal past that is in reality a fiction.
betsuni
(25,376 posts)As Paul Fussell explains in "Class," the lower and upper classes don't care what anyone thinks of them. The middles sure do.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)nearly everyone thinks of themselves as middle class, including the working class and the very prosperous.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)back into the lower class. Another source of insecurity.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)he came to me in defense of the po corps and the high tax made them leave the u.s. ergo created the lack of job and wage issue. was that mean ole high tax.
it took a good solid months listening to him from different perspectives to where i really hit an argument to what he was saying, that made sense to him.
but, he could have easily walked into that bullshit. i watched.
betsuni
(25,376 posts)appear, the magic words that apparently cannot be repeated too many times. I guess that's the hip and cool thing to say. I still find Karl Marx hip and cool and believe we live in a society. What is it with all these people living on planet Me?
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)which is why I say capital rather than "corporatist."
Yeah, it does seem like using those words is itself is mean to suffice for economic justice.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)It sounds better than sociopath.
niyad
(113,049 posts)progree
(10,890 posts)K-12 Education
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)I'm sure there are many more issues I left out.
progree
(10,890 posts)"What's your response to the "There's [almost] no difference between the two parties" comment?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026495181
but for others who aren't, its got a ton of bulletpoints for both the
"they're pretty much the same on almost every important issue"
and the
"there is a big difference on almost everything that matters".
points of view.
e.g. compare Minnesota to Kansas or Wisconsin for those who think there isn't any difference on economic issues.
They should also compare the nutty nutty whack-a-doodle crap that is coming out of the Minnesota House since January (when RepubliCONs took over) from what came out of it in the previous legislative session (when Democrats controlled). And I'm mainly talking about spending and tax policy, i.e. economic issues.
Another favorite of mine: the right to choose to die with dignity and without endless suffering
Marr
(20,317 posts)wasn't possible. The country was, we were assured, 'center right' and demanding basic rights to marriage might make it harder for their precious center right candidates to get elected. That's only the most recent example of many. I don't think centrists should be wagging their fingers at the left over social issues.
The right edge of our party sells us out on economic issues, and only takes up social issues when those issues have already got majority support and can be used for political leverage. They never lead on those issues. They are not there when we need them-- they just grab a baton, jump in front of the parade, and play drum major right before it finishes.
What's more, see how many rights you've got when your economic power is reduced to zero. It's almost there now.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Even with a picture of poor people on the top of the OP, you can't imagine that the issues could possibly be economic if they aren't about you.
I've explained myself multiple times in this thread. I'll make it short: economic concerns are not restricted to the white male middle- and upper-middle class. Nor are their experiences, like they assume, universal. The people who glibly dismiss our lives as "social issues" make clear they are focused entirely on their own interests to the exclusion of the majority. That is of course your right, but I won't be playing along.
Marr
(20,317 posts)To keep it 'glib', I think I can sum up your argument in one sentence:
'We centrists will assure that everyone; male, female, young, old, black, white, brown or purple-- has an equal chance to get that job we shipped to China.'
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)I don't hide behind anything, and you don't know the first thing about me or my life. It's pretty hysterical you think I'm a centrist because I suggest that the concerns of the majority of Americans are also economic and not simply social, whereas you assume that economic interests can only be expressed by repeating the words corporate and oligarch thirty times in a day, as though that means anything. The one thing that language signals is people who have only just started to think about income inequality as they have seen their own class interests erode, rather than acknowledging the endemic inequality that has characterized many of our lives. The nation itself was founded on inequality. Yet that some of you only recently started to notice is supposed to erase the life experiences of those of us who have always lived with it.
The provincial little political spectrum of yours based entirely on assessments of one members of political elite of the capitalist state vs. another is so absurd as to be laughable. To pretend that any conception of leftism accommodates such a complete denial of the rights of the majority of the population to voice their concerns and interests shows how your notion of politics is ideologically rudderless and instead based on ego and the conceit of privilege. You are free to pursue your own interest as you see fit, but you are not entitled to negate the rights of others to express their own.
And to imagine that you think that defeating Clinton, O'Malley, or any other Democrat is going to stop outsourcing--something that has been in full force for the past forty years, is just plain delusional. A narrow world view focused only on contests among the political elite has ramifications that go no further than political spoils. There can be no challenge to capitalism and structural inequality by pretending it all hinges on changing one piece for another on capital's chessboard.
You rail about the 1 percent, but you show no more concern about the lives or interests of the majority of Americans than they do. You refuse to even grant that I or anyone else has the right to articulate their own interests. Both you and they think they know what is best for the rest of us, the little people who are supposed to quietly obey our betters. Frankly, I don't much care if the people who deny my rights and interests are worth $500k (the approximate income where the top 1 percent begins) or $150k. The key point is they deny my rights and interests in favor of their own.
Why you think dismissing the basic human rights, civil rights, and economic concerns of the majority Americans does a thing to address the problems of global capitalism, like outsourcing, I can't begin to imagine. As long as you refuse to grant that any of us have any political rights or concerns that matter, you might as well be a banker, because you show no more concern for people like me than they do.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts) Marr
(20,317 posts)You're argument is very obviously all about hiding behind the poor. Look at it-- a big picture of poor people and a lame ass sales pitch for why more neoliberal bullshit is what we need. You say that 1%er economic policies can't be stopped, so the working class and the poor should be happy with social issues, and have the gall to harangue the left for thinking otherwise.
If you really believe these things can't be fixed, great-- but don't lecture liberals for giving a shit about something more than the political careers of their favorite political celebrities.
I swear, watching a 'centrist' try so awkwardly to play 'champion of the people' is like watching a fish try to walk.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)being simply called a social issue. As a woman my reproductive choices is not a social issue--it's my life. As a lesbian my lack of equal rights isn't a social issue, it's my life. As someone who lives in an expensive suburban area (because I can't afford the even more expensive urban area), trying get by financially is not a social issue, it's my life.
All of these things are tied into who I am as an individual and to see "liberals" demean my life by referring to my struggles as social issues hits a nerve, each and every time. My life is NOT a social issue no matter how many times you proclaim it so.
Marr
(20,317 posts)...it has an established definition.
The OP is trying very hard to convince people that a politician who takes a liberal stance on social issues is a liberal, no matter where they stand on Wall Street regulation, international trade, foreign policy, etc. It's what the DLC did in the 90's, it's what the Third Way does today, and it's as weak and deceitful and lame as it ever was.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)More so, what right does anyone have to lump certain segments of the population under the umbrella of 'social issues'? By stating a certain position is a social issue, it demeans that issue, makes it less important than other issues, because, you know, it's only a social issue. But you keep banging that 'social issue' drum loudly if it makes you feel better by putting large segments of the population in a box that many consider to be less important, than say, economic issues.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Social issues have a long established definition. We all know what they are.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)Was it the media, was it political strategists? And who decided who got put in what box? These questions aren't pathetic for the obvious reason I stated in my first reply to you. I am not a social issue, I'm a human being whose rights to reproductive choice is being threatened and who isn't afforded the same rights as all other citizens because I happen to be lesbian. But you and others will gladly brush me off as a 'social issue' in order to dehumanize me.
Marr
(20,317 posts)This is absurd.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)money or my job. That's what you are saying. The other day, as straight white male DUer sneered at me that civil rights don't matter 'You can't eat your rights, your rights are no good if you can't get a job'. Well how insightful. 29 States allow discrimination against LGBT people in employment. The sneering poster was actually named after one of those States, meaning in his State, I can be denied a job because I lack civil rights.
You think discrimination is a 'social issue' until the discrimination is against you at your job, then it will be starkly economic in nature.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)Politically speaking, some issues are social wedge issues-- like abortion or gay marriage. Other issues are economic issues, like international trade or tax policy.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)inequality was a "social wedge issue" and you seem to go along with it. Marriage equality isn't a social issue at all. It's an economic one. LGBT couples get screwed economically in numerous ways. We also get screwed when it comes to tax issues. However, if you call it a "social wedge issue," then the inequality seems less important as does the entire LGBT community.
Your posts tend to paint inequality as less-deserving of concern, than say, int'l trade or tax policy.
I don't think anyone is proclaiming that all issues are economic issues but all issues DO tie into the economy and effect the economy in a plethora of ways.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Don't tell me that I'm the one ignoring equality for other issues. It was centrists who screeched that we gays needed to shut-up about gay marriage because it wasn't a "pragmatic" thing to push for. And they've historically done the same thing to a whole variety of groups on the issue of equality.
The left has been consistent on these issues-- supportive of gay and minority rights, gender issues, AND things like Keynesian economic ideas, Wall Street regulation, etc. Self-described 'centrists' have historically used the social wedge issues as liberal bonafides, while taking a conservative stance on big, broad issues like trade, foreign policy, etc.
Also, I've said twice now that obviously, every issue has an economic impact. But politically speaking, some are social wedge issues.
qwlauren35
(6,145 posts)It just so happens that the right to marry has economic implications when it comes to taxation. But I don't think that's why the average poor Republican fights it.
I have yet to see the economic implications of killer cops.
So, yes, rights are good even if you don't have a job, if rights are what keep you from getting killed (abortions with coathangers?)
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)He is simply excluding the majority of the population as beneath concern.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Sorry, but if anyone's disregarding the population here, it's you. You're dismissing very big issues; foreign policy, trade policy, tax policy, etc. as unimportant.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)using those silly ole social wedge issue to get a mean ole dem in that doesnt comply to your wallstreet issue.
really?
Marr
(20,317 posts)Tell me again who is dismissing poverty issues.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i just address that issue along with the other issues, without seeing one as less or more important. all of it matters to me. but, as significant to me as it is to you.... i assure you.
but, you hardly addressed you dismissing silly ole social issues was wedge issues, right? once again just totally ignoring that. ya.... not taking you too seriously.
Marr
(20,317 posts)I'm for all of these things-- all of them. We haven't even entered the primary season yet and the side you're arguing is mockingly saying we need to drop this pie-in-the-sky "your Wall Street issue", exactly the way this same side said we needed to drop gay marriage.
You can't tell me you're pragmatically, reluctantly compromising on the issue when we're still ages from primary season even starting.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)BainsBane
(53,012 posts)The OP is talking about the GOP vs. the Democratic party and a bourgeois notion of politics that you intractability cling to.
You don't get it because you're views are so tied to your own class- and race-based assumptions, you can't imagine anyone outside that country club world has value. It has nothing to do with the DLC or any other politician. While you can think only about one political candidate, the rest of us are talking about our lives.
You do not use the established definition of social vs economic. You use a race and class-based one that dismisses the concerns and economic survival of the majority of Americans as "social" and inconsequential. You promote your own narrow class-interests and beyond that dismiss the basic rights of anyone else to articulate theirs.
I remember you were one of the characters that came into the thread I posted about Marxism vs. Rand Paul some 9 months ago and insisted it was some cryptic message in support of Hillary Clinton. You are so blinded by your opposition to her, you understand and see nothing else. You reduce large issues to the small because you think about nothing but Clinton.
I'll be clear. I do not care who you vote for of if you even vote Democrat. I won't be posting any OPs telling people to vote for. That's not what I do. But when you insist discussions of Marxism or political labels are all about some cryptic DLC message to get a horrible woman elected, you are lost to any political discussion.
Marr
(20,317 posts)The entire thing is one big DLC sales pitch; an argument that any Wall Street candidate who takes your side on a social wedge issue really IS a liberal.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that is being said, right?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)But likewise, no one should be belittled or insulted for supporting - or at least voting for - the "lesser evil," when they're largely just trying to survive within an overall hostile sociopolitical system.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Succinctly and perfectly.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)I don't hide behind poverty. I have plenty of personal experience with the subject to know what I'm talking about.
You are the one who has said that poverty is "social issues." It's pretty clear to most of us economic issues are limited to your own class interests and not the economic survival of the rest of us, and not the lives of the poor.
The OP is about the issues that matter between the GOP and the Democratic Party. It has nothing to do with your tired obsession with the DLC or your idiotic political labels. You don't know the first thing about what you're talking about.
You call yourself a liberal. Fine. I accept that. That leaves you on the center-right of the global political spectrum, and to the right of me. I recall when you invaded a thread of mine on Marxism to insist it was all some cryptic message to get Clinton elected. Your political consciousness is so incredibly narrow, so hopelessly provincial, you can't even see what is under discussion.
You aren't even aware that there is a world outside your sad little obsession with DLC vs. what, I don't know. The OP mentions the field of Democratic candidates. That is four so far, not one. It talks about the GOP vs. the Democratic Party. It doesn't say support this or that candidate. I don't give a shit who you vote for. I haven't even decided who I'm going to caucus for.
I didn't say poverty can't be "fixed." That isn't what the OP is about. My last post talked about how income inequality isn't recent but rather endemic to the nation--a nation born out of inequality, whose conception of liberty for some depended on the enslavement and subjugation of others. I could engage in a discussion about what I think is involved in ameliorating or actually ending poverty that but it is obviously pointless. Marx is a DLC plot anyway, as far as you're concerned. I'm bored with your sad little bourgeois obsessions. .
Marr
(20,317 posts)Yeah, that's the standard right-of-center Democrat line. Maybe you should look into the 'No Labels' party. This self-righteous horseshit would fit right in there.
You knocked it out of the park.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Those with a bit of a "cushion" in life can pooh-pooh "supporting the lesser evil," but not everyone has that luxury. It's largely for the sake of the latter that I reject the "they're the same" rhetoric.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)As if taking care of those social issues doesn't, in almost all cases, have great economic impact to the individuals with the social issues.
That cold hearted talking point that financial and economic issues trumps all other social issues, will never get a foothold with me.
K&R
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)of economic interests. The two are absolutely interrelated, which some will acknowledge when it suits them, but then the next minute turn around and insist any concern about the above is simply pandering to the DLC.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)myself, I will not see social issues as important.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)on a lesser plane of importance.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)with our populist group, but voicing my populist voice along with my "social warrior" voice.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And it's really a shame that more people don't see this.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)But economic issues are UNIVERSAL. And if the masses are reduced to a neo-feudal peonage, how those human rights issues are resolved won't matter because peons have no rights at all in practice regardless of the theory. "Constitutional rights" will mean exactly nothing, just as they did in the USSR. Pretty words that can never be enforced.
You have the cart firmly before the horse.
The billionaire class doesn't give a shit one way or the other about social issues because they have no dog in the fight, and their only dog is MONEY. The billionaire class doesn't give one sour owl shit about abortion, religulous freedumb, marriage equality or any of the rest of them. They care about one thing and one thing only - economic royalism/feudalism. That is their only game, their only interest, and their desire to, in essence, enslave all but themselves and their immediate circle of courtiers, servants and enablers will affect every man, woman and child in this country.
Economic relations are, as Marx observed, THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE. Without economic power/security NO OTHER RIGHTS MATTER because you are a powerless, wholy-owned SERF. Economic justice is the single necessary predicate to social justice (hell's bells, if you don't believe me or Marx, go read the speeches Dr King gave for most of the last two years of his life and learn something, for dog's sake) and if you don't understand that all you are doing is rearranging the deck furniture on the Titanic.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)inseparable from one another. The argument is that some are focusing on the former at the expense of the latter - which, as I keep saying, creates a false dichotomy between two things which go hand in hand.
qwlauren35
(6,145 posts)My issues are ALL social issues.
- abortion rights
- black incarceration rates
- police killings and racial profiling
- women against violence
- fair wages for women
- Social Security and Medicare
- Aid to Africa
I'm not trying to topple the 1%. I'm not trying to fight Wall Street. Even climate change is not a hot button for me. Or government spying and privacy issues.
So, I think of myself as "socially progressive". And I'm thrilled that there might be others like me here.
MADem
(135,425 posts)realm.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Obama has done a lot of things I disagree with - he should've never even hinted at cuts to SS etc. - but with a right-wing-extremist Republican in office, a potential risk becomes a near-certainty.
22, 2015, 03:47 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
So if you don't have insurance you are out of luck?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6549362
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
misogynist creep borrows from Limbaugh's attacks on Sandra Fluke to bash women for wanting the health insurance THEY PAY FOR to cover their own health needs.
JURY RESULTS
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Apr 22, 2015, 04:02 PM, and the Jury voted 6-1 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Getting over the top in the thread
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: smells
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree. Rush Limbaugh loving troll posting. Disrupter needs a tombstone IMHO.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: What a Moran! Trolls just can't help themselves--- they can hide for a bit and then they post something like this which exposes them immediately.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)Sea PMed me about that and I suggested she alert. Not sure who finally ended up doing it though.