How you can tell if Sanders speaks to the concerns of people of color

[BainsBane]

Last edited Thu May 28, 2015, 08:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Is if they vote for him. Members here can insist people of color have no right to question Sanders' commitment to their community. They can insist he is too important to be questioned. Such an argument, I predict, will not be persuasive with voters of color, and African Americans in particular, who are ESSENTIAL to any Democrat's success.

I myself find it offensive that a few white people feel entitled to tell African Americans they have no right to ask whether a candidate speaks to their interests, that they need to assume he has their best interests at heart. I find it profoundly undemocratic to insist a politician not field questions about his positions and plans, that he is more important than the people he seeks to represent. I suspect Sanders himself will not behave so imperiously, that when voters ask him what his plans are, what he will do for them, he will answer. He has to. That is expected of any politician. Yet here people insist such questions are hostile, Third Way, neoliberal. Daring to ask what his plans or accomplishments are is treated as heresy.

I can't help but feel deeply saddened over this sort of hostility. Placing uncritical adoration of a politician above equal rights, above the concerns of people of color, and above the people's right to question their representatives is as clear an abrogation of civic engagement as I can imagine. It shows disregard for the electoral process and profound lack of respect for the voices and democratic rights of citizens. A politician should not ever be elevated about the people he serves. That kind of reverence for a public figure is more akin to monarchy or celebrity worship that electing a people's representative. If you believe Sanders will better represent the people than other candidates, why would you so resent your fellow citizens asking what he will do? Such an attitude contradicts the case for his nomination.

[DanTex]

1. You didn't get the memo? Only corporatists and neoliberals care about race anymore.

Social issues are totally passe.

[BainsBane]

3. Yeah, I got that memo

and it's a transparently right-wing argument.

[Ken Burch]

117. Nobody said that.

What has been said is that the Clinton campaign, running to Bernie's right, is not raising the race issue re: Bernie for disinterested and entirely honorable reasons.

It's fine for poc, LGBTQ people, and women themselves to raise the question, but the Clinton campaign itself has no claims of moral superiority on these issues...especially after the Nineties and after HRC's basically indifferent record on those issues in the Senate and as SoS.

Go ahead and ask...but it's not legitimate to use this discussion as a means to try to force Bernie out of the campaign-since nothing positive comes of Bernie's campaign ending and people involved in anti-oppression politics don't gain anything if HRC gets nominated without a serious progressive challenge(which, barring an entry into the race by Elizabeth Warren, won't be offered by any of the other Dem candidates, all of whom are bland centrists.).

[BainsBane]

160. Make clear you're not talking about my OP

but the one dredging up an old article arguing that diversity is "neoliberal," only the OP tacked Sanders name on it as click bait.

[DanTex]

186. Oops, sorry, got confused about where I was posting. I'll self-delete.

Yes, I was talking about the other OP.

[Ken Burch]

244. Nobody said that the concept of diversity was itself neoliberal.

It's the use of false accusations that Bernie doesn't care about diversity by supporters of a candidate who's still an unquestioning supporter of neoliberalism that the article comments on.

When the issue is raised by committed HRC supporters(as opposed to people not supporting a particular candidate), the motives aren't quite as pure and innocent.

Agreed?

[BainsBane]

245. You are incorrect

Someone posted an OP saying exactly that, and used Sanders in the title as click bait. The article in fact was not about Sanders at all. The other poster provided the link. Read it.

[Ken Burch]

249. I read the article...it spoke only of the use of "diversity" as a fig leaf by corporate power

and anti-progressive political forces.

And let's face it...while nobody may have out-and-out called Bernie a bigot, the unjustifiable implication that he doesn't care about group oppression or police violence against blacks is pretty nearly as bad.

What would you call it when people imply that about him?

We both know the motivation for attacking Bernie on social issues is just to push the meme that the only way you can prove you care about social issues is to back the less-progressive, pro-corporate candidate against him.

[BainsBane]

257. Know what?

I don't care what people "imply about him." The only thing I care about when it comes to Sanders is what he has to offer us as citizens. I object completely to this entire tendency to place him above the citizens he seeks to serve. This notion of politics that dominates on this site where a politician is too important to be questioned runs counter to everything I believe in. From all accounts, Sanders event lacked diversity. For some reason he didn't get the politics 101 lesson. Now, you and the rest of his cheerleaders want us to believe that if anyone dares to question him there is something wrong with them. I disagree. I believe this entire fixation on one man is anti-egalitarian and anti-democratic and ultimately a very conservative view of the relationship between citizen and representative. Sanders is running for president. If he is going to get the nomination, the GOP will cast him as Joseph Stalin. And you're whining about the fact some lowly DUers, life forms so far beneath him, have the nerve to talk about the optics of his opening event and even--God forbid--ask about his policies and committed to key Democratic constituencies.

Now, I understand you care a great deal about the fortunes of the political elite. I understand Sanders career means a great deal to you. It does not to me. I don't revere him or any other politician on this planet and I will criticize every one of them. Additionally, I have no respect for this cult of personality that shows that principle, issues, and the rights of the citizen all come after a great man you have chosen to hold above the rest of humanity. I don't do great men. I don't do great women. I don't do reverence for politicians or any individual. I care about issues and social movements. This view of politics that places so much emphasis on the executive, an executive who must not be questioned, works against social activism. A politician is not a cause or a movement. He is a public servant. He should never be treated as anything else.

You worship one politician and demonize another, but in the process the people who matter the least are the citizens. I don't respect that view. I understand it is popular, but I believe it to be wrong, to be counter to any kind of people's activism, and far to accommodating to power for my liking. A politician is something I vote for. I don't define myself politically around them and I don't hold them above any citizen.

This white glove approach to Sanders is accompanied by completely vilification of Clinton. The contrast is a stunning double standard and reveals a Manichean worldview. I have never seen so many people fight so intently about so little, but there is no convincing any of you that the cult of the individual is folly. It is simply how you see the world and why I will never fit in with the dominant view of politics here.


That article referenced is reactionary, white supremacist shyte. It's a self serving analysis by a academic whose time passed generations ago and laments the competition he faces from scholars far smarter than he. As I noted in that thread, there are thoughtful Marxist analyses of the relationship between race and capital. That piece is not. It's reactionary dribble dressed up in the language of leftism. It has no place among even liberals, let alone leftists, yet it doesn't even raise an eyebrow around here. My noting that voters will decide who best speaks to their interest drew more criticism than that piece. Think about that. The idea that voters themselves determine who represents their interests is more offensive to people than an article railing against diversity because it fails to affirm the inherent superiority of a great man. I'm not on board with any of this. It almost makes me not want to vote at all. I will vote, but I will have to detox off this place for months before making a decision.

[Ken Burch]

259. I stand corrected as to your neutrality in the race at this point. Sorry.

Go ahead and ask questions, just don't whip up outrage when there's nothing to be outraged about(like the composition of his kickoff event, which was meaningless.) BTW, when Robert Kennedy declared his presidential candidacy in the Senate caucus room in 1968, virtually everyone in attendance that day was a white dude. Did that prove that Bobby didn't care about bigotry and social oppression?

I don't revere Bernie, as far as that goes. I just hate to see a good, trustworthy person attacked withouot justification.

And it isn't about whether Bernie has a job or not...that's his problem.

It's wrong to judge Bernie just because of who showed up at his kickoff. He had no control over who would be in the crowd.
And he didn't exclude poc from the podium...he just hadn't found the people to bring in. You do realize that, with Obama pushing for HRC, it's going to be fairly hard to get AA politicians to feel comfortable publicly endorsing anybody else.

I'll back HRC if she's nominated...but I won't apologize for backing someone else now who actually cares more for people than ceo's.

[cui bono]

271. I don't think you were corrected. There is no hint of neutrality with that person.

[Ken Burch]

272. It's in the sig line on her posts. Small print, but its there. n/t.

[cui bono]

273. There's also people claiming to be Sanders supporters who do nothing but question him

while defending Hillary, and some have a big Bernie pic in their sig line.

[Ken Burch]

275. True, but Bain isn't in that category.

The Clinton campaign basically invented the "Bernie can't be trusted to care" meme.

[cui bono]

277. I don't agree after the posts I've seen. Particularly this OP and replies within it

and some of her posts referenced in here.

[Ken Burch]

278. She's been harsh, but I don't think she's part of the orchestrated smear campaign.

I believe that, unlike them, Bain is sincere.

[Ken Burch]

250. I wasn't referring to that article at all. I had never read it.

But having read it now after reading DanTex's link, it's clear to me that you're misrepresenting the article. The article wasn't actually saying that diversity as a concept was neoliberal-and every one of us here supports diversity, as does Bernie.

What the article actually said was that the concept of diversity, invented by diverse people ON THE LEFT, is used by apologists for corporate greed and neoliberal economics to get people to accept neoliberal economics and things like downsizing and austerity. It's to the debate about American capitalism what "pinkwashing&quot an excessive emphasis on how LGBTQ-friendly Israel supposedly is)to to the debate on how the Israeli government treats Palestinians.

Pinkwashing is an unjust co-optation of the LGBTQ cause-misusing a historic and honorable anti-oppression cause to justify the perpetuation of oppression against another group. The corporate adoption of "diversity" as a way to improve the "brand" is about the forces of greed using the lip service they give to the fights against sexism, racism, homophobia and trans-phobia to deflect attention away from offshoring, downsizing and massive increases in economic inequality.

Diversity and LGBTQ rights are sacred, holy causes and must always be fought for from below. Oppressive governments and oppressive corporations can never be true supporters of those causes.

[DanTex]

188. The OP is partly referring to this previous post, which says exactly that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026737942

[Ken Burch]

243. I hadn't read that OP when I wrote mine.

Why isn't enough just to ask Bernie for more details? Does he really deserve to be treated as if he knowingly did something offensive and dismissive?

Do you really think they outrage we're seeing is in any way justified?

[DanTex]

253. Fair enough. And you bring up some good points. However...

First, I'm not outraged, and I don't think he knowingly did anything offensive and dismissive. The whole meme claiming that people have called Bernie a racist is completely false. Nobody said that. All people have said he didn't address race, at least not as forcefully as they would have liked him to. This is legitimate criticism, even though it might be unfair -- true, you can't talk about everything in a finite speech, but the things you choose to emphasize in speeches give insight into what priorities you would have as president, and if those priorities aren't aligned with your own, that's a legit reason to complain.

Furthermore, if you look in the AA group, you will see that people there have a different take on the significance of Bernie's omission of race issues in his kickoff speech (and more generally his lack of explicit emphasis on it) -- and also of the dismissiveness towards people here in GD towards other DUers who brought up this point. Now, if you want, you can go into AA and tell them that they are idiots for criticizing Bernie, because racial issues are implicitly addressed by talking about economic injustice. No I don't think you are going to do that, although it is noteworthy that at least one other DUer has recently done just that, to the point of getting banned from the AA group.

Finally, although you hadn't seen that other OP before, this is BainsBane's OP, and part of what she was talking about was that other one (and other similar ones). And ideas like that form the backdrop of this recent flare-up. It is in fact trendy among some progressives to claim that social issues like race and gender are tools that the oligarchy uses to divide the working class. And then when people point out how strong Hillary has been on social issues, there is also the tendency to dismiss them as secondary to economic issues. When black people are being murdered by police officers across the country, maybe this kind of argument doesn't really strike a chord with everyone.

And then part of this, of course, is "taste of your own medicine." Bernie supporters have been pounding Hillary here for every slightest misstep -- real or imaginary. Can you imagine if Hillary kicked off her campaign in a crowd full of white people, with sailboats in the background, and didn't address race?

[Ken Burch]

256. I was fully expecting her to kick off her campaign in exactly that way-

With Nixon rally-like rows of fascist and almost entirely white cops lined up behind her the way Bill used to have(when he used to gloat about murdering black people...sorry, I mean supporting the death penalty, which is the same thing). I was expecting HRC supporters to defend that because she was "pro-choice&quot as though no other Dem candidate is and as though that made the conservatism on the other issues no biggie, like we were told in the Nineties) and because we supposedly have to look just as psychotic on "Law 'n Order" as the other parties.

HRC was party to betrayal after betrayal on anti-oppression issues, yet she is given a total pass on that history by those who claim Bernie "doesn't care". Can you not see the manifest unfairness in that?

[BainsBane]

190. Force Bernie out of the campaign?

What are you even talking about?

[Marr]

246. No, only corporatists neoliberals USE race to divide the Democratic Party. /nt

[el_bryanto]

2. Who has insisted that people of color have no right to question

Sanders commitment to their community?

Bryant

[BainsBane]

4. Look for the threads expressing outrage over

questioning Sanders commitment to Civil Rights. Look for the thread that shows 87 percent of African Americans support Clinton. Look for the thread accusing those who charge Sanders with "racism" (which I never seen no one do) of being neoliberal. Especially look for that last one. At least two of those threads are on the first page of GD.

[NorthCarolina]

10. Hillary camp knows they are unlikely to get the votes of the progressive base

so in order to marginalize them, they need to garner the votes of the Black community, Women, and the Latino vote. Get those locked up and the vote of the progressive base is immaterial. They are just struggling to come up with palatable ways to insinuate to these groups that Bernie is not their candidate. Tricky road indeed.

[BainsBane]

11. That doesn't respond to my OP either

other than providing evidence for my point. This is about respect for your fellow citizens. If you can't manage that, don't pretend to be a leftist. There is no white men only leftism. That doesn't exist. There is no leftism that says people of color are easily manipulated. There is nothing progressive about such ideas. They are profoundly anti-egalitarian. You are not better or smarter than women or voters of color. You have one vote, equal to but not better than anyone else's.

[gollygee]

15. You see speaking to the concerns of women, poc, LGBT

as marginalizing? And you also seem to assume that poc, women, LGBT, aren't also part of the progressive base. How interesting.

[Exilednight]

18. Go back and read the post again. HILLARY INC is trying to

Marginalize those camps. No where did they suggest that they were marginal issues.

[gollygee]

20. He says that HRC is trying to marginalize "the progressive base"

which seems to be made up of people other than women, people of color, and LGBT people, according to that post. Maybe you need to read it again.

[Exilednight]

29. First thing to correct: you added LGBT, not him. Second: don't confuse

The Democratic base with the liberal or progressive bases of the party. PoC and some women, make up the base of the Democratic Party, but not necessarily the progressive base.

LGBTs are more a part of the lineralbase, and not the party or progressive base.

Here's the difference: liberalism and progressivism is an ideology and not an identity. That's not to say that PoC or women can't be liberal or progressive, but they're not mutually inclusive.

Just look what happened in California when gay marriage was struck down by ballot initiative due to the AA vote.

[BainsBane]

30. All the more reason to avoid treating them like shit.

Which for some reason is beyond the capability of some folks.

[Exilednight]

35. I agree. Hillary shouldn't be treating people like that in an attempt to marginalize them.

[BainsBane]

36. Are you saying Clinton shouldn't seek to appeal to people of color?

Is that your point?

I don't see any evidence Clinton is marginalizing progressives. In fact, she is adopting a number of Sanders positions, which tells me she is courting their votes.

My comment wasn't about Sanders. It was about self-entitled posters on this website.

[Exilednight]

40. My point is simple: it's fine for her to court PoC, but not at the expense of others. Just because

She took a liberal position on gay marriage, a strictly social issue, does not mean she is not marginalizing other progressive groups with her socioeconomic positions - policy positions, that in the end will do little, if any, to lift large sectors out if poverty, including PoC.

[BainsBane]

41. Her approach is the same as all Democrats have done

when running of the presidency in recent years, appear to the demographics who support the Democratic party. Progressives do not resent the concerns of women and people of color, and they do not resent the fact politicians speak to their issues. That position that there is something divisive or inferior about addressing the majority is a RW argument made frequently by the Republicans against Obama and the Democratic party more generally. There are issues particularly to women, LGBT Americans and people of color, as well as Latinos, that white men don't have to worry about. Understanding that is basic to any Democrat's election and hostility to it is anything but progressive.

As for you and folks like yourself on DU, you have made clear you do not like Hillary Clinton. Why should she spend her time courting people like you who see something wrong with politicians who address the concerns of the majority?

I see little concern for poverty here. I see people insisting they know what is best for the poor, but it's the issues they care about: drones, Iraq, the NSA, and TPP. A Sanders supporter insisted to me that funding foodstamps was his candidate's solution to poverty, and that it somehow amounted to income redistribution. That is a position supported by every conservative, Third Way Democrat. I don't know all of what Sanders has actually said on the subject. Be clear that I do not assume what his supporters say here constitute the sum total of his views and plans. I'm waiting for the debates to evaluate the candidates. Rather, the foostamps comment was what that member who regularly goes around insulting posters far less fortunate than himself decided was an adequate solution to poverty. I see a lot of charges against other Democrats as corporatist, Third Way, allied with Goldman Sachs, yet when those people get around to discussing an issue (which is rare) they are usually mainstream, status quo positions. Food stamps is not a solution to poverty. It is the result of a system based on rampant inequality. I would submit any progressive/lefitst approach should involve a living wage. Unlike that other poster, I have lived on food stamps. It was like buying groceries with the Mark of Cain. I think the poor, such as I was growing up and again later in life when I needed food stamps, deserve true equality, a right to a living wage, not to be an after thought of the bourgeoisie's concerns to regain what they see as their rightful place atop the capitalist world order.

[Exilednight]

47. A lot of that made absolutely no sense. You lost me when you started

Talking about food stamps, redistribution and status quo.

You, also, admitted that you know nothing about where Bernie stands on issues, but yet mad a thread to attack him.

[BainsBane]

52. No, I didn't make a thread to attack him

You don't seem to read very carefully at all. I didn't attack Sanders at all.

As for the part about food stamps, it was the perspective of someone who has been poor. It was saying that food stamps is not a solution to inequality but accommodating a society based on rampant inequality. There are currently necessary but not adequate, and the position that some DUERS have articulated that it is enough to deal with poverty show they are not concerned about inequality but rather their own class privilege.

I earn a living from my writing. I know for a fact I write quite well. If any particular part is unclear, I can explain or clarify it If you don't understand, it's because you do not care, and the issue I discussed is one you claimed to care about.

I have no problem with Sanders. My problem is with posters like yourself who see something wrong with appealing to the majority rather than to a privileged minority. I see something wrong with people who claim to care about poverty but demonstrate in positions that they take that they do not.

[Ken Burch]

252. We both know HRC would fight like hell against a living wage, though.

Bernie most likely does back it.

HRC has devoted most of her career from the mid-Eighties onward to arguing that Democrats shouldn't even mention the poor. That's why she worked so hard to build the DLC-you don't back a group like that if you still care about the poor.

[BainsBane]

258. No, I do not know that

At all. You claims about Clinton are patently false, to the point of ridiculousness.

Who worked to implement Single Payer in this country? Hillary Clinton.
She has worked on childhood poverty, elevated women's rights to human rights, and worked for poor women around the world to have access to reproductive planning. She has also worked to end human trafficking, modern day slavery, something people here can't bother to give even half a shit about. When I bring it up, I'm told "It's already illegal," like that means a fucking thing. As I've learned, people are more concerned about their access to the porn and prostitutes provided through human trafficking that doing anything about the problem that enslaves more people now than at any point in human history.
Clinton's more recent discussions about poverty. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/23/hillary-clinton-gets-wonky-about-poverty-and-exploding-potholes/

Now, I was saw your mansplaining post to bettyellen about how you know what was best for us little women. We can't possibly determine our own interests, just as no one dare question the great man's commitment to civil rights. Who are we to articulate our own interests, when you know what we are supposed to care about and that is your completely irrational loathing for a woman who wants to be president.

Your comment is typical of the absurd and completely fantastical caricatures of her that are touted around here. It is the other side of the hero worship for Sanders: one embodies evil; the other must not be questioned. In the process, you deal with politics at its most simplistic, reductionist level. The best reason to vote for Clinton I can think of is that so many self-entitled keyboard warriors loathe her. Just as they make it extremely difficult to support Sanders, they make the prospect of supporting Clinton close to irresistible. The more crap you shovel, the better she looks.

Now, I meant what I wrote in my sig line, especially the last sentence. I ask you to heed it, unless you really want to make sure I feel like I have no choice but to vote for Clinton.

[Ken Burch]

251. It's never legitimate for the more-conservative candidate to claim to care more about those groups

than the more-progressive candidate does.

And it's totally illegitimate for the HRC campaign to have organized this cabal on DU who claim(even though they know it's not true)that Bernie doesn't care about social issues.

It can't be a victory for the anti-oppression cause for HRC to beat Bernie.

[Scootaloo]

56. It's not Hillary doing it, Exilednight

But boy there sure are a lot of people who like to hide behind her while they do it, aren't there?

I like Clinton just fine - I like Sanders better, but that's how it goes. But a substantial portion of her fan base freaks me the fuck out, and have since the last primary we had.

[BainsBane]

177. You like her just fine?

Yet you go around making snarky comments to people you merely suspect of being sympathetic to her?

[Scootaloo]

183. Interesting word choices and framing.

Got some examples of what you have in mind?

[BainsBane]

185. Yeah, like every response to me in the past month

[Scootaloo]

187. You mean the month you've spent shit-talking and harassing people?

Take a look at this OP of yours.

Members here can insist people of color have no right to question Sanders' commitment to their community.

Nobody here has done this. It's a lie.

They can insist he is too important to be questioned.

This hasn't been done either. Still a false claim.

I myself find it offensive that a few white people feel entitled to tell African Americans they have no right to ask whether a candidate speaks to their interests, that they need to assume he has their best interests at heart.

Again, hasn't happened. Still make-believe.

I find it profoundly undemocratic to insist a politician not field questions about his positions and plans, that he is more important than the people he seeks to represent.

There's been no such insistence. It's a fake claim.

Yet here people insist such questions are hostile, Third Way, neoliberal. Daring to ask what his plans or accomplishments are is treated as heresy.

We're still in your land of fantasy, BainsBane. Nothing even remotely resembling reality here.

Placing uncritical adoration of a politician above equal rights, above the concerns of people of color, and above the people's right to question their representatives is as clear an abrogation of civic engagement as I can imagine.

It would be an abrogation. Good thing that this isn't happening!

A politician should not ever be elevated about the people he serves.

Nobody's doing this with Sanders. Did you get confused with another politician, perhaps?

If you believe Sanders will better represent the people than other candidates, why would you so resent your fellow citizens asking what he will do?

No such resentment is harbored.

Now the real kicker is... you've got no shortage of posts just like this one. different in specific content and thrust, but the same nonetheless. You've attempted to cast Sanders as a gun nut, you're trying to cast his supporters as socially-hostile racists, and you've spared no post disparaging him or us. And then of course play beleaguered and persecuted victim if someone dares tell you that you're wrong.

Now this is kinda frustrating for me, as had it in my head that you and I were batting for the same team. Then you started with this weird sort of nonsense where opponents of the TPP are wrong and useless, that Bernie Sanders is a cross-burning racist, that people who aren't supporting Clinton all love Vladimir Putin, that people hoping for Warren to run are akin to rapists, that "The Left" is the real problem in the democratic party, and that anyone who disagrees with you about anything is rooting for the republicans or isn't a democrat and is persecuting you.

You've been earning my snark. In fact, you've been earning more than I can deliver, because fuck's sake, I only have so much time in a day, and unlike some posters here, i don't run sockpuppet accounts to bolster myself.

[BainsBane]

192. All of that is done dozens of times everyday

You yourself insisted asking about a policy was the same as the Fox News question. That was you just yesterday.

This OP was in direct response to one calling someone who asked about the lack of diversity at Sanders' opening ceremony a POS and said who was that person to challenge the great Sanders.

Someone just posted something in another thread saying someone was using women and people of color to smear on honest man. No questions about policy or accomplishments can be posed without hostile response. Someone made a response to me saying Sanders had some successes and failures but was the new LBJ of the senate. I asked what some of those successes were, and she said "FFS, look it up." I already had, of course, but I was hoping she would know more than I did. And you equated asking Sanders about his views concerning civil rights equated to the Fox News question mark. That was you just yesterday.

And absolutely. I do not revere Sanders. Nor do I revere Clinton. I revere no politician. I will vote for one when it comes time, but at no point will I ever hold any of them above the people they serve.

Sanders has voted against gun control. That is the nature of his record. Now I care about violence. You care about Sanders. That is your right, but this entire post shows that your pretending to be open to both candidates is complete bullshit. You aren't at all. In fact, the mere suspicion that I may not be suitably adoring of Sanders prompted the whole litany you just produced.

Your last paragraph is off the charts. I oppose TPP. How am I going to accuse people of opposing TPP of being x y or z? I opposed the treaty openly in threads, called my senators to ask them to vote against Fast Track and posted about that in threads on the vote. I never called Sanders a racist. What complete and total garbage. I never even thought it. I never engaged in any of that rape shit about Warren. Other have, but not me. Complete bullshit.

You deny your own posts and totally invent positions you claim I take. You don't bother to even ask my positions on issues. Your allegations only demonstrate my point. You merely suspect someone of heresy and you engage in snark, but you don't even bother to inquire what my positions are. I fail to stick to the simple-minded orthodoxy and you assume I'm on the other side because I don't respond in the exactly six syllables you expect. I dared to point out Chapter 11 of NAFTA was the basis for the TPP investor clauses. Never mind I was total critical of it and said it was awful. I introduced information that departed from the proscribed narrative.

You don't even know what my views on issues are. You don't bother to ask because you don't care. You only care around finding people to make nasty remarks to. That you just named a series of issues you claim to know where I stand yet are completely wrong on demonstrates as much.

Screw it. Save yourself the agony. We won't be batting for any same team ever. You are on the side of great men., I am on the side of the citizenry. I care about issues and causes, and I do not fall in line in deference to anyone. Sanders says the campaign is about the people, not him. But on DU, he must come before the people. Such an attitude is anti-egalitarian and anti-democratic. It runs counter to civic engagement and social activism. A politician is not a cause. He is a public servant and should never be treated as anything else.

So count me out. Not on your team, not your ally, and entirely opposed to the entire ethos that you represent. Forever and ever. You wanted an enemy, you got one.

[Scootaloo]

222. No, I'm afraid it's not.

You yourself insisted asking about a policy was the same as the Fox News question. That was you just yesterday.

No, I pointed out that making an assertion and then tacking a question mark on the end was not actually "asking a question." Or rather, I let Jon Stewart explain it.

Why do you only hate the Jewish candidate, BainsBane?

...See? That's not a question at all, is it?

"Why is Sanders ignoring social issues?" also is not a question. It's an assertion - "Sanders is ignoring social issues!" - rephrased as a question, so the "questioner" can spread their assertions without looking like they are doing so.

This OP was in direct response to one calling someone who asked about the lack of diversity at Sanders' opening ceremony a POS and said who was that person to challenge the great Sanders.

Using the demographics of a town in Vermont to attack a candidate as racist (remember, not really a question) is a shitty tactic one expects from shitty people.



where's the diversity? Is Obama ignoring social issues while campaigning in Iowa?

...I also looked for one of Clinton, but I actually couldn't find a picture of Clinton speaking to an Iowan crowd.

Does Hillary Clinton hate Iowans? Do her worshippers see iowans as so far beneath her to not be worthy of her feet on their soil?"

(cough) Are you seeing the problem of the question marked assertion yet?

And absolutely. I do not revere Sanders. Nor do I revere Clinton. I revere no politician. I will vote for one when it comes time, but at no point will I ever hold any of them above the people they serve.

I never said you revere anyone. I asked if you were confusing Sanders with another politician when you claimed he was being elevated above the people he serves. 'Cause that's... really kind of the opposite of the Sanders campaign.

Sanders has voted against gun control. That is the nature of his record. Now I care about violence. You care about Sanders.

he cast a single vote against a particular bill. You used this to cast him a a crazed gun-humping madman without any reservations against violence.

Weirdly one of our candidates voted to obliterate an entire country, slaughter over a million if its people, and create a sucking chest wound in the middle east. But that one isn't the one you try to cast as the brown-hating violent sociopath.

That is your right, but this entire post shows that your pretending to be open to both candidates is complete bullshit. You aren't at all. In fact, the mere suspicion that I may not be suitably adoring of Sanders prompted the whole litany you just produced.

I said I like clinton just fine. This does not mean I am open to voting for her in the primaries, though. As i said, I like sanders more.

And no, your month of harassment and bullshit, paired with your persecuted victim act, brought you the "litany" of me pointing out how full of shit you have gotten.

Your last paragraph is off the charts. I oppose TPP. How am I going to accuse people of opposing TPP of being x y or z? I opposed the treaty openly in threads, called my senators to ask them to vote against Fast Track and posted about that in threads on the vote.

I did a search (as i do) and while I found you snarking at progressives over it. i saw you deflecting a question about Clinton's stance on the TPP to a (then) non-candidate. But then you also do seem to oppose the treaty and its nafta-isms.

So allow me to stand corrected - you aren't against the TPP. you just harass and mock other people for being against the TPP and daring to ask what a presidential candidate's position on it is.

I never called Sanders a racist. What complete and total garbage.

Yeah, actually, you've been insinuating exactly that. not just in posts liek your OP here, but in a constant stream of posts in defense of other people who are doing the same thing. You do it here in this post where you rush to the defense of someone asserting racism because Vermont is a very predominantly white state. Not just Sanders, but anyone who supportes him, precisely becuase they support him.

I never engaged in any of that rape shit about Warren. Other have, but not me. Complete bullshit.

I went back and... Wow,. Yeah. Someone else entirely. I'm sorry BainsBane, on this i am quite mistaken.

You deny your own posts and totally invent positions you claim I take.

I've never denied anything I've posted on DU, BainsBane. I don't much see the point when someone can just quote me.

You don't bother to even ask my positions on issues.

because i assume that you mean what you post as well.

You merely suspect someone of heresy and you engage in snark, but you don't even bother to inquire what my positions are. I fail to stick to the simple-minded orthodoxy and you assume I'm on the other side because I don't respond in the exactly six syllables you expect.

No, I snark at you because you say stupid shit like what you just said, and expect it to be taken seriously and affirmatively. I snark at you because you think a crowd of white people in Vermont is proof positive that a senator from that state doesn't care about minorities. I snark at you because you make posts claiming that "the left" is something awful that is damaging the Democratic Party. I snark at you, as i said, becuase you've spent the last month earning more snark than I can deliver.

You don't even know what my views on issues are. You don't bother to ask because you don't care. You only care around finding people to make nasty remarks to. That you just named a series of issues you claim to know where I stand yet are completely wrong on demonstrates as much.

I was wrong on one, mistook your aim on another, and am completely right about the third. And you're the one who decided to come after me on this thread BainsBane, cut your victim bulklshit act.

Screw it. Save yourself the agony. We won't be batting for any same team ever. You are on the side of great men., I am on the side of the citizenry. I care about issues and causes, and I do not fall in line in deference to anyone. Sanders says the campaign is about the people, not him. But on DU, he must come before the people. Such an attitude is anti-egalitarian and anti-democratic. It runs counter to civic engagement and social activism. A politician is not a cause. He is a public servant and should never be treated as anything else.

See the first section of my previous post, about the shit you make up and then try to pretend is real. You're really good at writing pulpit-thumpers, but not so great at actually supporting them.

I'm on the side of "great men?" No, I'm just telling you you're completely full of it in your baseless attacks against people who support a candidate you dislike.

So count me out. Not on your team, not your ally, and entirely opposed to the entire ethos that you represent. Forever and ever. You wanted an enemy, you got one.

Oh for fuck's sake, does Steven Segal ghostwrite for you?

[Marr]

248. +1000.

That was perfect.

[NCTraveler]

16. Wow.

Pretty shocking post.

"Hillary camp knows they are unlikely to get the votes of the progressive base"

"they need to garner the votes of the Black community, Women, and the Latino vote."

You mean the base? They aren't progressive?

[BainsBane]

21. You know, the second-class votes.

[workinclasszero]

193. "You mean the base? They aren't progressive?"

IKR?

Just sweep Blacks, women, Latino under the rug. They don't count.

They aren't "progressive"! Wow! Is that really the message Bernie wants to send??

Its crazy how this contest seems to be breaking down across racial lines.

[Tarheel_Dem]

279. As Bains has pointed out recently, "Bernie's supporters are his greatest liability". I sure as hell

hope none of them shows up at my door asking for support for their candidate.

[DanTex]

17. Umm what? So "blacks, women, and latinos" are not part of the "progressive base"?

Who knew?

[NorthCarolina]

23. In no way did I intend to imply that those groups are not progressives,

and I suspect you all know that, but whatever. Attack away.

[DanTex]

24. LOL. Well I guess someone else hacked into your account then.

There's no other way to read your post than that the "progressive base" is distinct from "those groups".

[NorthCarolina]

27. Only in your mind

where making that leap serves your purpose. For the record, that was not my intention. My intent was that if the Hillary camp can peel these groups from the progressive base by resorting to insinuations that Bernie does not feel their pain, then they can effectively marginalize the base as a whole.

[seabeyond]

32. she already has 87% black vote. how much peeling needs done? the issue is, can sanders PEEL any of

these groups away from clinton

get the dichotomy?

the point is, his campaign address only a certain crowd. if he does not expand it, he will not PEEL anything from clinton.

[backwoodsbob]

179. I think that's the point

as Bernie gets more press and more people learn who he is he WILL peel away some,if not most of the Black vote.

Hillary's supporters are doing everything they can to stop that from happening

[Tarheel_Dem]

280. Unless Hillary planned that optical fiasco of a "kickoff", Bernie's campaign seems to be "doing....

everything they can to stop that from happening".

[backwoodsbob]

282. good luck pushing that *fiasco* mem

you may need all the luck you can get

[Tarheel_Dem]

284. Bernie's high watermark is about 20% - 23%. He took that from Elizabeth Warren. Bank on it!

[backwoodsbob]

287. and the numbers are climbing

The desperation from the Hillary camp is amusing

[Tarheel_Dem]

289. You know what's really "amusing"? Trying to pretend that BS had some stratospheric bump from this:

Like I said, 20%-23%.....TOPS.

[backwoodsbob]

290. then why are you guys so worried?

If Bernie hits 20% tops why are you guys so worried?

If Hillary has it wrapped up let us have our fun and relax.

Or are you worried Bernie is going to win?

[Tarheel_Dem]

292. "Worry" is your word. Every candidate gets the same treatment at DU. Stick around.

[treestar]

31. Huh?

Illogical. Are you saying the "Progressive Base" is white and male?

[seabeyond]

33. you know, the economic populist. what sanders is running one. but hey... cant talk about politics

on a political discussion board. that would be calling sanders a racist.

[Ken Burch]

261. "Economic populist" doesn't equate to "only cares about straight white dudes".

Nor does it even mean saying social issues don't matter anymore.

You have this notion that what you care about is under mortal threat, and I'm sorry, but even the people who you call "economic populists" aren't trying to silence social justice advocates. Some of them may be a bit blunt in the way they speak, but that's out of frustration with how difficult it is to get the party to stand up to the rich.

And I'm sorry I said what I said about the Supreme Court-the comment came out of frustration with two-and-a-half decades of Democratic politics in which our party leaders justified moving to the right on almost every issue(even state murder of black men, aka the death penalty) by saying "think of the Court". That phrase was used to silence almost all discussion on any issue and all dissent from any increased conservatism(including increased social conservatism, like DADT, DOMA and "welfare reform&quot .

It's good to have a decent Supreme Court, and I never meant to belittle your concerns. But the words "The Court...The Court...The Court" have been used as a verbal bludgeon inside the party for way too long. Yes it matters...but is it fair to say it outweighs everything else?

My anger on that is towards the right-wing leaders of our party-not you. I respect your commitment.

[seabeyond]

263. no. i do not have the "notion"... over the last 3 weeks you refuse to hear what i have

actually been saying. i am not fighting it any more ken. i am done.

i was a supporter.

i saw an issue in his campaign.

i worked hard to bring it to supporters awareness, because in my opinion it is the difference between a win and loss.

for me, that is what one does when they support a candidate, not blindly follow.

i was continuously attacked, called names, insulted, mocked, ridiculed and called a liar.

i think i understand populist now and i think i understand sander now. i will continue to listen. always being open.

i could be wrong on fuckin everything. i doubt it, but i could.

i am leaving you all alone

unless pro sanders continue to claim we are calling him racist. then i will call that out. cause never happened, never will.

but... know. i have tried to make it clear every way i can. and still, you do not give me my words back to me the way i say. but the way you want it to be.

so, i am done.

[Ken Burch]

264. I've heard everything you've said and I've shown your fears were unfounded.

You insist on assuming you're being belittled when that isn't happening.

[seabeyond]

265. you are not hearing if you suggest the belittling is merely in my head. i am the one that is

being told i am calling sanders a racist.

i am the one having an OP created to mock me. so, i humbly disagree.

and no. you do not hear me.

IF sanders feels that his way to take care of social justice is thru economic equality, as the one article says he believes, that is not making him a racist. but a vision. seeing that the racist problem being addressed thru economics. he is allowed.

if he does not have the same passion from a social perspective, because he does not feel it is effective, i can respect that. disagree. and respect that.

no, you have not shown me my fears.... are ungrounded.

sanders is a good man, and a fighter for the people. no question.

he is for blacks, gays and women.

it APPEARS he wants to address it in a manner he feels is most effective.

why isnt that enough?

[dlwickham]

54. and obviously straight

[hrmjustin]

34. Yeah because we all know that African Americans, woman, and Latinos are not progressive!

dumb post!

[Starry Messenger]

38. Wtf

Those constituent groups *are* progressive. Check a poll sometime.

[NYC Liberal]

62. Hillary's strongest support is with Liberal Democrats.

So the statement that "Hillary camp knows they are unlikely to get the votes of the progressive base" is flat-out silly.

[KittyWampus]

197. #1. you wrongly presume that blacks, women and latinos are not progressive.

#2. you wrongly presume no progressives support Hillary. (I don't. but many do).

#3. Hillary and camp Clinton know minority votes are essential and has decades of outreach, inclusion and partnering with them.

And looking at Sanders first Rally, his campaign manager didn't seem to get that memo about outreach and inclusion.

[dsc]

293. I am sure your message is attractive to people of color

I find implying people are easily manipulated dupes does wonders when reaching out to them.

[frylock]

78. The fact that Sanders' commitment to Civil Rights is being questioned is fucking outrageous..

and is based SOLELY on the fact that he didn't speak at length about it during his announcement. Sanders' record on Civil Rights speaks on it's own merit, and is a part of the public record. If his detractors are too fucking lazy to research that, then that's on them.

[seabeyond]

84. "Sanders' commitment to Civil Rights is being questioned" i dont even think that is the conversation

people, minorities, those of us with considerations of sons being shot in the back, or daughters using hangers, want to hear the same PASSION he has for the economic issues, with our issues.

we are not even asking we get priority for our sons nad daughters LIVES. simply an EQUAL conversation.

why, .... is that asking too fuckin' much?

[KittyWampus]

198. No frylock, it's also based on his campaign not bothering to be inclusive at his opening Rally.

You can pin it on his campaign manager for being that myopic.

What do you expect from some guy who has mostly only ever worked for Sanders, an independent in Vermont?

[frylock]

207. I'm sorry, but I missed where he stated that PoC weren't welcome to the rally..

maybe you could point me to that?

[YoungDemCA]

254. No one said that they weren't welcome

But where were they?

[beam me up scottie]

260. Of course not, I know for a fact Bernie personally told poc to stay out of Vermont that day.

If that was a serious question you can find your answer here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026743489

[frylock]

269. would you have them bussed in?

[Ken Burch]

274. It's Vermont. By happenstance, not many of them live there.

It's not Bernie's fault that the state is relative homogenous.

If Bernie were to hold rallies in Harlem or East L.A.(which I think will happen) you'd see a different picture.

[Ken Burch]

130. Until last month, most voters, let alone most AA voters, hadn't even heard of Bernie yet.

What are posters who post that poll result arguing...that if HRC is getting 87% support right now among AA voters that the discussion is already over and Bernie has been proved to be unacceptable?

Can you understand that there's a certain level of absurdity in HRC beating Bernie among AA voters(or LGBTQ voters or women if that is the case), given that Bernie's actual record on issues involving those groups is far superior to HRC's? Given that HRC played a major role in founding the Democratic Leadership Council, a group whose whole agenda was based, primarily, on distancing the party from blacks(and feminists, and gays, and anybody else who wasn't a Southern hetero white dude)?

The only reason Bernie's commitment to anti-oppression issues is subject to any real question is that it serves the interest of the HRC campaign to pretend that Bernie doesn't care about those issues.

What you hear as presumption or imperiousness is actually frustration...frustration that a good and impeccably anti-oppression candidate is being smeared as not caring about social oppression when he's done nothing whatsoever to deserve such a smear.

I agree that he should make a major speech clearing the air on this, but can you not see that it's ridiculous and kind of insulting to Bernie for anyone to be acting as if he can't be trusted on these issues?

If he's been voting 100% anti-oppression his whole career, why the hell isn't that enough? What possible argument exists that HRC is better on them? Yes, she gets more money(since she's always backed everything rich white people want), yes she's currently leading in the polls for the nomination...but how does that equate to anyone seriously arguing that she's better on the issues of racism, sexism, homo-and trans phobia, ableism, religious and ethinic persecution, or any other anti-oppression cause you could think of? Does "electability&quot assuming she's actually more electable than anybody else, which is problematic) equate to superiority on issues?

This isn't sincere inquiry...it's a vilification campaign against a good man who has never done anything to deserve it. That's why you see the responses to see. Bernie is being asked to prove himself when he's spent his entire life proving himself.
Why should he be getting this treatment, when Bill Clinton got the votes of those groups even though his whole program in presidential politics was to fight to lock them out in the cold? How is there any degree of fairness in that?

[Art_from_Ark]

194. Great post!

[BainsBane]

161. I can give you names

but not in a public forum because it would be hidden.

[morningfog]

5. Lol. This is ridiculous and baseless garble.

[BainsBane]

8. Well that adds exactly nothing to the discussion

but thanks for the thoughtful critique.

[morningfog]

14. Adds as much as your OP.

[HERVEPA]

108. And in fewer words.

The Bernie race comments are all trash. Because someone says that, they're accused of not caring about race issues or saying they're less important. This place is unreal.

[seabeyond]

19. no it is not. last night i was accused by 3 or 4 i called sander racist. never happened. ever.

i support sanders. wouldnt support a racist. never saw a racist in the democratic party. yet i was repeatedly attack for calling sanders a racist. who knows what they have said after i went to bed

so ya

it is happening.

[NaturalHigh]

91. Where? Link?

Who said you called him a racist?

[seabeyond]

93. sanders is not a racist, OP by brother ivan. as a matter of fact, i think you were in the thread.

maybe not

you can hunt it down

[NaturalHigh]

133. "i think you were in the thread"

I'm pretty sure I wasn't.

[BrotherIvan]

140. It was my OP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026737441

It was a real party.

[beam me up scottie]

143. Yes it was.

219 recs and still counting.

[BrotherIvan]

144. Never forget how a dedicated group of 20 posters can fight for what they truly believe in

Whitesplaining and paternalism, it's what's for dinner.

[NaturalHigh]

150. Same 20 by any chance?

[BrotherIvan]

154. Well one poster who is on time out for too many hides recced them all!

A lot of crossover, yes.

[beam me up scottie]

151. They picked the wrong fight with the wrong people.

The desperate attempt to co opt women and lgbt people into their losing battle was incredibly short sighted.

I don't forget when people use me, do you?

[BrotherIvan]

153. Well apparently I'm supposed to have amnesia over the 2008 campaign

[beam me up scottie]

155. That was ugly.

The space under the wheels of the bus gets awfully crowded during election years.

They didn't just tell folks to get in the back they actually threw them off.

[BrotherIvan]

157. Apparently not all of the PoC on DU forgot either

I'm waiting for them to shut this shit down.

[beam me up scottie]

159. I suppose they're tired.

Just like a lot of lgbt people and women who've been told over and over that we'll be taken care of if we shut up and sit down.

[BrotherIvan]

163. I think that those that don't jump up and down screaming "LOOK AT MEEEEEE!"

Actually have the most class. I used to be like that on DU, reading mostly. I don't claim to own the mantle of racial justice, not by the distance of galaxies of a long shot. But I do hate lies: wanton, narcissistic lies. I'm glad to see that every time this manipulative deception shows up, lots and lost of posters show up to call it out. Very few recs, lots of replies. But the concern is so FAKE, so ginned up to create controversy, it really is sickening. Shameful.

[beam me up scottie]

166. I noticed that too.

If these ops were really about social justice they'd have hundreds of recs.

I love it when other Hillary supporters call them out on it. Now that's class.

[BrotherIvan]

168. Sadly, too few

You have a good night. It's been great talking with you.

[beam me up scottie]

169. G'nite, BrotherIvan.

You rock.

[Tarheel_Dem]

286. Well, if 87% of us favor Hillary, it's not "amnesia", it's called forgiveness. While Bernie was...

doing this:

Bernie Sanders: Obama Primary Challenge From A Progressive Would 'Enliven' 2012 Debate

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/bernie-sanders-obama-primary_n_837819.html


Meanwhile, Bill Clinton was doing this to help re-elect our president:





So I seriously hope you guys have a Plan B, because if you've placed your hopes on some leftover resentment from 8 yrs ago, you're already sunk. And of course, it would make this news a lie, unless you're depending on the 13% who haven't decided:

87% of African Americans view Hillary Clinton favorably

<...>

But if you look at what the polls are telling us so far, Democrats seem quite happy to have Clinton as their presidential nominee. In the latest Pew poll, 77 percent of Democrats see her favorably, and she has strong approval across ages, incomes, and races. (African-Americans, the most important Democratic sub-group, rate her particularly highly, at 87 percent favorable.)

<...>

http://theweek.com/articles/556175/hillary-clinton-fewer-problems-democratic-base-than-might-think

[NaturalHigh]

146. Yeah that turned into a real wing-ding.

Dang - it's like you lit a handful of firecrackers and threw them into a crowd.

[BrotherIvan]

147. I can't take credit for it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6737025

[NaturalHigh]

148. I saw that. Disgusting, no?

[BrotherIvan]

149. Oh no, apparently we all need to talk about it again

Hence, this thread. And this one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026749877

Check the recs, both 23

[beam me up scottie]

171. Juror #1 is spot on.

I feel exactly the same way.

[BrotherIvan]

201. Wow, that's impressive

Thanks jury.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

119. I can see you have an S key on your keyboard. There are 2 s's in Sanders.

I'm not sure why you do this, but many of your posts end up calling him Sander.

[seabeyond]

120. i am sure it is nefarious, arent you? just sure, i mean. really, sure...!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

126. You sound a little paranoid. I wrote it off to laziness.

But laziness, black helicopters, or anything in between, would you please consider using both S's in his last name? Thanks.

[seabeyond]

128. ah. uh hu.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

131. You're unique to be sure, but try this hypothesis:

not everyone is out to get you all the time. If I wanted to ascribe dark motives to you, don't you think that asking you to add an S to the man's name would be a fairly fucking stupid way to go about ascribing dark motives? Make it a koan. Turn it over a few times and consider.

[seabeyond]

132. "but try this hypothesis" no interest

[JaneyVee]

6. I'm sure Bernie is more than willing to address all voters concerns.

He seems more than willing to answer questions from anyone who will listen. He even goes on FOX News to address questions. If there is one thing Bernie is about, it's addressing the concerns of all voters.

[bigtree]

13. he is very eloquent and honest in his responses

...and appears to be a very thoughtful and considerate man.

I also expect him to be more forthcoming on issues of race, gender, sexual orientation, immigration and other issues which he has yet to address in detail in this campaign he's just entered. The op acknowledges this...

"I suspect Sanders himself will not behave so imperiously, that when voters ask him what his plans are, what he will do for them, he will answer. He has (to). That is expected of any politician."

I do think it's going to be a challenge to communicate his beliefs and intentions effectively to the broader community. That's going to take a great deal of effort and directness. I look forward to that - and also to representing him in his expressions of support for the issues and concerns particular to communities and individuals.

[tammywammy]

37. Good post. n/t

[JustAnotherGen]

77. This right here

I do think it's going to be a challenge to communicate his beliefs and intentions effectively to the broader community

Yesterday someone posted the demographics of Vermont. I never *considered* that as part of his campaign. This will be the first election for a national office where he is going to have to appeal to a much wider base.

For the evolution alone - that is going to be interesting to watch.

[seabeyond]

87. so. since this is so obvious, wouldnt pro sanders embrace other suggesting maybe it is something to

be aware of, rather than covering ears, lol

[JustAnotherGen]

115. I would hope so!

And his supporters are going to have to be patient as he evolves. .

[seabeyond]

118. absolutely. there is plenty of time. this is all just the beginning. who knows where it will go. nt

[foo_bar]

7. "a few white people feel entitled to tell African Americans ..."

Slight repost:

“It’s been a traditional perception that African-Americans are a monolithic community and <the Clintons> took that tack in 2007 and 2008,” says former state Rep. Bakari Sellers, an enthusiastic Hillary 2016 supporter who backed Obama against Clinton during her last campaign in the Palmetto State. “They realized their mistake during the primary, but it was too late by that time.<..>

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clinton-south-carolina-return-campaign-visit-118333.html

The crowd, which was also made up of staff members and friends of the Clinton family, was overwhelmingly white, largely female and dotted with children, many on their parents’ shoulders.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/us/politics/08dems.html?pagewanted=all

Re: "Is if they vote for him..."

But Clinton is no longer resting her candidacy on the delegate count. She hopes to persuade party leaders, who hold the balance of power, that she would be the more electable candidate against McCain, based on her support among white, blue-collar voters who have not embraced Obama's candidacy in the same way as black, more affluent and better-educated voters.

West Virginia's demographics closely matched Clinton's political base. Interviews with voters leaving polling places showed an electorate that was 95% white, less educated and poorer than in most other states. Four in 10 were over age 60, and a little more than half came from rural areas.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/14/nation/na-campaign14

[BainsBane]

9. How does that relate to my OP?

[AgingAmerican]

74. Double standard

nt

[ismnotwasm]

12. Hillary is actively courting African Americans

She not only needs to, to win the election--provided she was the nomination--her campaign is starting right up with addressing social justice.

[Exilednight]

22. You can't have social just with clintonomics.

[BrotherIvan]

135. Yes, because we forgot about 2008

And her tough on crime stance and support of the Clinton crime bill and welfare reform.

[Bonobo]

25. Baine, Baine, I told you. There are POC here who have not forgotten Hillary's racist-tinged campaign of 200

Are you ignoring THEM?

Are you telling THEM it wasn't true?

Are you practicing what you preach?

[BainsBane]

26. Go read number 23's thread in the AA group

She addresses that very point. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1187&pid=14610

Now, I know you think, Bain is a girl. Hillary Clinton must be her fault. Guess what? I'm not Hillary Clinton. I'm not even a Clinton supporter. As my sig line makes clear, I remain undecided. As I have told you several times now, I am not invested in the nomination. I don't define myself politically around politicians. If you want to argue with a Clinton supporter, I suggest you confront Skinner, since he has quite publicly come out in support of her. True, he's not a girl feminist, so you may not blame him for the downfall of humanity, but life can't always be perfect.

[Bonobo]

28. Wow, you are really a piece of work. nt

[fishwax]

39. not really, since one can only vote for one candidate

It's certainly possible to believe that multiple candidates speak to one's concerns, but one can't vote for all of them.

[WillyT]

42. Who Is The Person Of Color Running This Time ???

Ben Carson...

Marco Rubio...

Ted Cruz...

[BainsBane]

43. Willy, I'm discussing voters, American citizens

who have a right to ask what any politician will do to address their concerns.

[WillyT]

51. I Hear Ya... And I Agree In Many Respects... Maybe This All Got Off On The Wrong Foot By...

Somebody calling Sanders a racist.

So dumb, that I cannot go to those posts.

So your valid concerns are being tarnished by those posts and that argument.

That said... I ask you to see something you wrote with just two words changed...

It shows disregard for the electoral process and profound lack of respect for the voices and democratic rights of citizens. A politician should not ever be elevated about the people he serves. That kind of reverence for a public figure is more akin to monarchy or celebrity worship that electing a people's representative. If you believe Clinton will better represent the people than other candidates, why would you so resent your fellow citizens asking what she will do? Such an attitude contradicts the case for his nomination.

Not an attack... but that's how many supporting Sanders/Warren have felt for some time now.





Good luck to us all.

[seabeyond]

53. "Somebody calling Sanders a racist. " except no one did. isnt that even more foolish for so many

to be upset over something that did not happen?

[BainsBane]

55. Who called Sanders a racist?

I've been accused of that, and I never said anything close to that.

I suggest you pose any questions about Clinton's positions to one of her supporters. Since I'm undecided in the election, I don't even attempt to persuade people to support one candidate or another. I won't even begin to make a decision until the debates are underway.

[WillyT]

57. And I'm Certainly Not Saying You Did... But Look Around GD... Seems Many Think That Happened...

I refuse to go to those OPs.

Don't want to be involved in the depravity gutter.

[BainsBane]

58. I see people claiming someone did

but it's like a game of telephone. The message gets more distorted in each retelling. I have read many threads on the subject and have seen no one call him a racist. I think a lot of people scan quickly to determine if they think something is pro or anti-Sanders and don't bother to read the content at all.

BigTree's thread is the best on this subject. He explained the issue quite well. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6739043

[bettyellen]

89. so you repeat lies? Seriously? You've been hoodwinked, lol.

[bettyellen]

88. The posts do not exist, so you don't have a point.

[seabeyond]

92. you cannot believe the number of pro sanders saying they didnt see it, but had to be true cause

other pro sanders people said it. and they were holding to it. and would continue a lie, because.... ????

it works for their narrative?

it is amazing.

[peecoolyour]

44. Bernie's stances on every major issue are out there for anyone who is curious enough to look 'em up.

People are also welcome to attend events and ask him questions. No one is barred from attendance.

Not bothering to look anything up or ask questions is more of an indictment of the people not doing it than the candidate or his campaign.

If people just want to vote for the person with the biggest name recognition, that's also an indictment of them, not the candidates offering the better deal.

[seabeyond]

45. you do get he is way behind and he is actively looking to gain votes. it really is not about,

if anyone is interested, they can check it out. that would mostly be a losing campaign.

you get that, right?

[BainsBane]

48. How can they not get that?

How can they not understand that such an attitude works against their candidate? It's truly bizarre.
I would think if one supports someone, they want to help others understand why he is a good choice. Isn't that basic to any political advocacy?

[seabeyond]

50. " It's truly bizarre." yes it is. nt

[BainsBane]

46. It's early

we haven't yet had a single debate. If you want to condemn every undecided voter, go right ahead. The only outcome of such an approach is to turn voters off your candidate.

[libdem4life]

49. I don't recall him talking about abortion and contraception, either. So I'm a bit miffed

and he might be a misogynist.

Of course not...he was talking to people, of all colors, genders and all races. Also, the poor. Not much about that, specifically. The point being Bernie talked about Macro Issues, as I heard him. If he had to address every special group in one speech, it would have been very long.

I don't get it, frankly. We've got a long time to go until the Primary. Plenty of time for clarifying and expanding on his views.

[BainsBane]

59. You seem to miss the point

Big Tree explains it far better than I can. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6739043

[libdem4life]

66. Sorry, but no. This is an acceptance speech...not a policy platform. And, the Blacks

being, apparently, miffed about lack of special attention to me is just silly. More time has been spent on this worthless thread(including mine) when a short Google Search would indicate what Mr. Sanders stands for. As anyone on this Board more than 2 weeks should know.

My inference to women and abortion and contraception rights (arguably 50% of the population) is just as important as Black Rights, or Hispanic Rights or LGBT rights. Then we could go on to disabled rights, and police violence...the list is endless.

No one minority, regardless, is any more important than any of these minority/human rights. Human Rights include ALL.

That is the point.

[BainsBane]

67. Clearly one is more important

The one Sanders speaks to, the one on the stage with him. The rest of us don't matter. Yeah, I got the memo.

And its "just silly" "the Blacks" being miffed.

You don't know much about the Democratic electorate do you? By all means, carry on making sure the rest of us know we don't matter. That strategy works out really well for the GOP. And now we see for all the hue and cry about Third Way, people are embracing an increasingly GOP view of the Democratic party.

Yeah, we're just silly. Who needs us anyway. Not the important people. Point made. I'm out.

[Zorra]

60. This OP is illustrative of a the cliche, "grasping for straws".

Did you get desperate memo from HQ telling you not to let the phony "Bernie is a racist" meme die, and then responded by producing this disingenuous, steaming pile of elephant poo propaganda?

The man just officially started his campaign, for crissakes.

[BainsBane]

61. Your response is an illustration

in not reading. It is not even remotely critical of Sanders. It is critical of a self-entitled few who respond with hostility to civic engagement and elevate a politician above the citizens he seeks to represent. It is against the bourgeois, reactionary worldview that people claim is leftism and exclusionary politics that treats questions addressed to our representatives--or one representative--as heresy. Is is against people who insist any discussion of black lives and the concerns of people of color amounts to charges of racism. Big Tree addressed the matter quite clearly here. http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6739043

You have reduced this discussion to absurd caricatures. No matter how much time in the day I have, I will not waste it on such cant.

Yeah, headquarters, the same headquarters that has planted women and people of color into the Democratic party to subvert it from its true mission of promoting the interests of the white working class. The same headquarters that has imposed the concept of diversity on the American public. None of those comments are from Sanders. They are from people who do damage to his candidacy by revealing far too much about themselves. I have respect for Sanders. I can't say the same for those working to delegitimate the concerns of the majority, and the subaltern in particular.

[Cha]

65. Says you.. trying to change the subject. What the OP pointed out is real whether you acknowledge or

not.

[Zorra]

152. It would be real if it was written after Bernie was offically campaigning for three months

and had not addressed the issues in question whatsoever.

But trying to imply racism because he did not address race issues within a few hours after his campaign began is so fucking cheap and duplicitous it makes me want to vomit. Bernie has long been a strong advocate for minority rights and equality and is well aware of the problems minorities face in the US and he will address them in time and all y'all god damn well know this, and the meme y'all are pushing is fucking pathetic propaganda in the style of Rush Limbaugh.

I can't help but believe that this trash isn't some type of cheesy preemptive strawman swiftboat attack against Bernie designed to counteract the inevitable questions that are going to arise out of these questionable issues, posted below, events that actually occurred and exist in real life, in real time. If all y'all were being honest, you'd be all over Hillary's shit about this instead of blowing smoke about nothing.

Keith Olbermann's Special Comments on Hillary Clinton and race.

"WE HAVE FORGIVEN YOU ...." Keith Olbermann on Hillary's "assassination" remarks.

God knows, Senator, in this campaign, this nation has had to forgive you, early and often...

And despite your now traditional position of the offended victim, the nation has forgiven you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6738024

We have forgiven you your insistence that there have been widespread calls for you to end your campaign, when such calls had been few.

We have forgiven you your misspeaking about Martin Luther King's relative importance to the Civil Rights movement.

We have forgiven you your misspeaking about your under-fire landing in Bosnia.

We have forgiven you insisting Michigan's vote wouldn't count and then claiming those who would not count it were Un-Democratic.

We have forgiven you pledging to not campaign in Florida and thus disenfranchise voters there, and then claim those who stuck to those rules were as wrong as those who defended slavery or denied women the vote.

We have forgiven you the photos of Osama Bin Laden in an anti-Obama ad...

We have forgiven you fawning over the fairness of Fox News while they were still calling you a murderer.

We have forgiven you accepting Richard Mellon Scaife's endorsement and then laughing as you described his "deathbed conversion."

We have forgiven you quoting the electoral predictions of Boss Karl Rove.

We have forgiven you the 3 A-M Phone Call commercial.

We have forgiven you President Clinton's disparaging comparison of the Obama candidacy to Jesse Jackson's.

We have forgiven you Geraldine Ferraro's national radio interview suggesting Obama would not still be in the race had he been a white man.

We have forgiven you the dozen changing metrics and the endless self-contradictions of your insistence that your nomination is mathematically probable rather than a statistical impossibility.

We have forgiven you your declaration of some primary states as counting and some as not.

We have forgiven you exploiting Jeremiah Wright in front of the editorial board of the lunatic-fringe Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

We have forgiven you exploiting William Ayers in front of the debate on ABC.

We have forgiven you for boasting of your "support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans"...

We have even forgiven you repeatedly praising Senator McCain at Senator Obama's expense, and your own expense, and the Democratic ticket's expense.

But Senator, we cannot forgive you this: "You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6738024

[Cha]

164. It's fair now. many AAs have spoken out about his kick off.. not just us.. this is very important

to a lot of people and Bernie's supporters who are trying to sweep it under the rug aren't helping him. and, not all of his supporters are trying to sweep it away. Props to them.

"Why Bernie Sanders doesn't talk about race"

"But there's a reason I say "those progressives" instead of just "progressives": because not everyone in the Democratic base shares those particular passions, or those passions alone. For other progressives — many of them black or Latino — economic inequality is important, but so is racial inequality. They're extremely concerned about racial bias in policing, and about ending mass incarceration.They're concerned about the treatment of unauthorized immigrants, and about protecting voting rights (an issue like campaign finance where progressives are worried the integrity of the political system is at stake — and where the outcome doesn't look good for them)."

"And Bernie Sanders doesn't speak to those concerns. He didn't mention those issues in his campaign launch yesterday, or in his email announcement to his supporters last month, and they're not on the issues page of his website."

This isn't an accidental oversight. These simply aren't issues Sanders is passionate about in the way he's passionate about economic injustice. When my colleague Andrew Prokop profiled Sanders last year, he pointed out astutely that Sanders's career has been "laser-focused on checking the power of the wealthy above all else." Sanders believes in racial equality, sure, but he believes it will only come as the result of economic equality. To him, focusing on racial issues first is merely treating the symptom, not the disease.

To be clear, Sanders hasn’t avoided talking about race throughout his career because he’s a bigot. His motivations have been unsentimental and practical (again: Vermont is about as diverse as a Simon & Garfunkel concert). But they’ve been ideological, too. “Sanders believes in racial equality, sure,” writes Lind, “but he believes it will only come as the result of economic equality.” A politics of racial justice that neglects the question of economic power — or treats it as a secondary, separate issue — is, in Sanders’ mind, equivalent to “treating the symptom, not the disease.”

Senator Sanders is very smart, though.. and I would think he'll learn all about Social Justice when he gets out on the campaign trail.

In the mean time there's not a thing wrong with pointing this out. I don't care what those who want to "coddle" him have to hammer about it.

little end snip//

"..She doesn't embody any single progressive passion the way Sanders embodies economic populism — but it looks like she's responding to the progressive concerns Sanders has mostly ignored.."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026749264

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6749877

[TheKentuckian]

63. Bernie speaks to my concerns about as well as any major politician in the mix for decades.

Sanders has a long history that has consistently been at the forefront or well ahead of the curve across the spectrum of issues civil rights, social, equality, economic justice.

This whole little tact is a pile of bullshit 120 miles tall.

This man has hell of a consistent track record and policies of greatly positive consequences for the real life, nitty gritty life for minorities, the disadvantaged, and the disenfranchised especially by virtue of being on the bottom of the ship pile should they be enacted.

[Cha]

64. Just kinda what I was saying on another thread..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6744089

I find it "offensive", too.. And, also insulting African Americans who Support Hillary as "voting against their self interests" like they're low information voters or if only they knew more.. they'd vote for Bernie. Give. me. a. break.

[Prism]

68. Your privilege needs a hefty calling out

First off, let's be honest about what happened this week:

People started positing the Kanye West argument: "Bernie Sanders doesn't care about black people." *wink wink, nudge nudge* People were upset because the man's record completely and utterly puts that thought to the vicious, cynical lie it was. But then white posters (mainly Hillary supporters) used communities of color as human shields to defend and duck when the lie was torched and burned to the ground.

Here's the problem, Bain, and it's time someone said it.

You do not speak for minorities. Other minorities don't even speak for all minorities. People only speak for themselves.

From 2009-2012, the LGBT community was viciously hounded and attacked on this board by the same social justice cohort that now deem themselves the personal arbiters of minority issues. Do you know how galling it is to see so many posters now talking about LGBT rights, when they were as nasty as could humanly be to us when it mattered? When the LGBT community was pressuring the President to do the right thing, the Wrath of Nasty was full bore by all these posters who are now totally chill and deeply concerned about the LGBT community, and gee willicker, that's why they support Hillary. It's as slimy and nauseating as it is transparent.

I've not forgotten. And I know that for a lot of folks, their sincerity is as deep as a minority's like or dislike of their preferred candidate and politician.

Furthermore, you and apparently a few others need to be told minorities are not a monolith. Here's where your privilege comes in. It seems to me you listen to only those minority voices that conform to your predetermined ideological preferences. Hell, just the other day, a poster of color was defending Sanders, and I got to watch all these "deeply concerned for minorities" white people talk over, past, and through him.

DU has cliques. But the cliques are not all. I've seen it stated by you and others that there are only a handful of posters of color on this board. But this is untrue. There are only a handful of PoC you're aware of in your favored clique. I see PoCs post all the time who never set foot in the subforums or join in on swarms. They get talked past. By white people.

So it is with LGBTers. Nearly every week, I discover a poster is LGBT who I had no idea about. They don't post in the subforums. They don't get involved in the cliques. They don't care about the meta drama of it all. They just post like regular people.

And you know what? They don't get listened to either.

Check your privilege already. You, as a white person, and many others have decided which minority views have merit and which do not. I see it happen here on the daily. I've also seen minority posters decide that they, and they alone, know what entire communities think on issues.

It drives me batty when people think I as a gay man should think a certain way, and that how I or anyone else thinks is how my entire community does or should think. It's easy for the majority to package us up and assign us opinions. It's easy for the majority to pick and choose which minorities they will listen to (conveniently comporting their established opinions). My social circle is almost entirely PoC, and they do not form any kind of monolithic hive mind on issues or candidates. And they certainly don't need nor want me to go around telling white people about them while dragging them in front of me like the Shield of Moral Justice. Because that would be obnoxious.

Y'all should knock it off already, but I know that's unlikely. It requires self-awareness, and if I haven't seen any in the last seven years, I have no cause to believe it's going to materialize now.

Signed,

Member of the Viper Pit (yep, got called that when LGBTers were mean to Obama by someone who is super awesome concerned about LGBT issues!) Hypocrites.

[BainsBane]

69. I never claimed to speak for "minorities"

I speak for myself, period.

People run around here saying the 99 percent need this, black people need to do that, you don't accuse them of claiming to speak for everyone. I give MY views and you don't like them, so you try to delegitimate my speech by claiming I'm speaking for "minorities." Now if I had posted about how "The Blacks" were "silly," as someone did in this thread, you would have no problem with that. So don't think for a second I buy that transparent game.

[Prism]

70. You do it all the time

Like I said, self-awareness.

[BainsBane]

75. Bullshit

I speak about issues I care about. You just referred to the concerns of posters like Big Tree as the "Kanye West argument." Everyday on this site people tell back people what they are supposed to care about. I do one thing they do not. I listen. I read and pay attention to their points of view of the AA group here on DU.

This OP is not about "minorities"--the term itself is absurd because the only minority is white men. "Minorities" in combination are in fact the overwhelming majority. This OP simply points out that we will know who African Americans see best addresses their issues by who they vote for. That for you amounts to speaking for "minorities" because apparently it fails to tell black people that Sanders understands more about Civil Rights than Obama, a black man who has lived with daily discrimination, ever could. It goes on to critique a view that elevates a politician above the people he seeks to represent

If you gave even the slightest shit about their views, you would read posts in that group. You do not. Instead, you go around working to delegitimate those of us who do not dismiss arguments made by African Americas as "the Kanye West" argument. That is a contemptuous dismissal. Your ploy is transparent. You will not shame me into promoting the class project to restore the white upper-middle class and middle-class to what they see as their rightful place atop the capitalist world order. You can carry on that great and noble struggle without me.

[Prism]

76. What an interesting variety of nonsense. And you again asserted your privilege.

Let's bullet point it, yeah?

- If you had stopped at the statement "African Americans will best address the issue of who best represents them by voting," that would have been a true and uncontroversial statement. But you went on from there into the usual territory.

- I responded to Bigtree's respectful post with a respectful response about why I disagreed. And as an LGBTer, I have a right to disagree on the topic, as LGBT issues were also not addressed by Sander's announcement speech. He and I were in the same boat. We are both minorities whose specific issues were not covered in a speech. Bigtree had one opinion. I had another. But you betray your privilege by declaring his opinion the one you'll accept and mine as the one to discard (with quite hostile language, I might add). Do you now understand your privilege? Because you just did it again.

- I read all kinds of forums, including the AA one. Again with your privilege. Because I don't hold your opinion, I must be out of touch with PoCs. Interesting assertion from a white person. I also balance what I read there with what I hear from my real life friends. As I said, what is said in a group on DU is not a monolith opinion. And, by the way, I actually listen. You know how that's obvious? Because I keep my damn mouth shut and let PoCs make their own OPs and use their own voices and don't presume to swoop in and speak for them.

- You have buzz words and arguments you seem to apply no matter the argument at hand. Which is funny, because I don't assert class over social issues - ever. You can read my recent post history. I have said again and again and again that there can be no economic justice without social justice. So who are you addressing, exactly? Not me, because I don't hold those views. Just blargle, blarge, class, white, capitalism! It's just an ideological soup ladled on in place of a logical argument.

You're swinging at all kinds of phantoms here, largely of your own creation. You're not addressing me as an individual.

Which . . . privilege . . . .

[Prism]

83. You did it again!

Like I said, it's that self-awareness thing. I mean, come on. You went fishing for the opinion that already comported with your own. Dismiss one minority and find another who will tell you what you want to hear.

That totally made my lunch hour. It's like watching Sideshow Bob in a roomful of rakes. You walk into it over and over and over again.

(BTW, some of the people you're seeking assurances from are the same ones who called LGBTers racists and vipers, hounding them across this message board until tons of them left, just for criticizing the President. Ya know, just saying).

It's kind of wonderful almost. I couldn't fabricate something more ridiculous.

You're always admonishing people to check their privilege, but when asked to check your own, you will fight til the bitter end.

Why is that? I'm genuinely curious. If you believe what you preach, this should be an easy thing, done gladly. And yet . . .

[U4ikLefty]

281. That was so much fun to read.

Thanks.

[AtomicKitten]

283. Wonderful imagery.

[Fumesucker]

288. Thank you

Your subthread is a classic fisking of someone who had it coming.

I LOLed...

[BainsBane]

96. That first sentence is precisely the meaning of my post. Exactly

You phrased it better.

I don't even go around talking about "minorities." That is your trope. I speak from my own voice. You disagree, which is your right, but to seek to delegtimate it by claiming I speak for "minorities" is weak.

I absolutely have privilege. I was born white in America. That made me luckier than most. Even though I grew up poor, on public assistance, I never went without food. I was able to get an education and now have a good job where I make just above the median US income. So you're right I'm privileged. I'm damn charmed, in fact. Know what else? I know it. That privilege also means I have no idea what it's like to experience racism or homophobia, and I never will. I will always defer to people who do experience that bigotry about what that experience means. Being gay doesn't mean you know what it's like to suffer racism, anymore than being a straight woman means I know what it's like to experience homophobia. For all your claims of my treating "minorities" as a monolith, you just tried to argue your own experience as a gay man makes you as able to talk about the concerns of African Americans as they are. No, it doesn't. If I were up here trying to argue x, y or z was best for gay people, you'd have a point, but I don't. Know what else I don't do? I don't go around insulting gay men as allied with Goldman Sachs and the 1 percent, or pronouncing that marriage equality is a rich people's issue. I respect your civil rights and consider them essential to the body politic.

You're right that I didn't treat you like an individual in my earlier post. I let my anger get the best of me.

As for your initial charge, I'll let Number23 have the last word:

Number23 (18,360 posts)
10. I think you attempt to speak WITH us. Which is probably why you piss off so many here

The only thing some people hate worse than a poc speaking for themselves is the white person that agrees with them and uses the power of their own voice to advocate with them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1187&pid=14942

[Prism]

109. I'll try to explain this one more time

Because you're either willfully not listening or not understanding.

When one minority says something, and another minority says another on an issue they share, it's usually good to let them hash out that conversation. What's obnoxious is when the nonminority picks the side that fits neatly with their pre-existing opinion, and then attempt to use it as a battering ram in a debate by making it seem as if that's the "real" valid opinion of the community.

You've been doing this. You are not aware of how privileged it is. I'm letting you know.

Instead of reflecting on this, you instead invoked your privilege again, ran to a minority community where you knew your opinion would be affirmed, and then came running back using individuals of a minority community "as evidence." You might as well have said, "Well, I have a black friend who said it's ok, you guys, so it's ok!"

It is face-palmingly clueless. It's actually offensive, but it's so hilariously un self-aware, I can't get too worked up about it.

I would never behave this way. I would be mortified to do this. If I ever do, I hope my friends of color would immediately knock me on the head Three Stooges style for being so utterly oblivious as a white person.

Privilege problem number two. The AA group isn't every poster of color on this board. Not by a mile. Just as, say, History of Feminism is every woman poster on this board. Nor does LGBT reflect every gay person who posts there. But you -again!- run off and try to use it as a source of monolithic backing opinion.

That is also just totally face-palm worthy.

Seriously, I'm begging you. Instead of going on the attack and trying to bunker in with human shields, spend some time reflecting on your own behavior and how you are operating. It's unsightly at best. It's out of control privilege at worst.

And again, some of the people you're seeking affirmation from have a real, real ugly history with LGBTers on this board. So invoking them really isn't helpful or even interesting to me.

Anyway, you can have the last word. The brick wall draws closer, and I value my noggin.

[seabeyond]

116. "What's obnoxious is when the nonminority picks the side that fits neatly" or 87% AA support

a particular candidate.

i mean, wtf, right? reality. numbers. math.

[BainsBane]

184. I don't know how your subject position relates to this discussion

in the OP. This isn't a case with you talking to an African American. You came to me. You aren't having a conversation with the members of the AA group. You were accusing me of speaking for them. There was no discussion between the two "minorities" to hash out. Then you note that some of those posters have an ugly history with LGBT members. That's the first I've ever heard that one. But again, that has nothing to do with the subject of the OP. You have decided it's about LGBT v. AA. No. It isn't.

The discussion hasn't nothing to do with LGBT rights, as important as a subject is. You're very keen on this notion of being a "minority." In that 20th century term, I am also a minority, a woman. So here we are. All with different subject positions. Now, if there is some post you think I am trying to speak for LGBT people, you should let me know. However, I don't believe your being gay gives you greater authority over the subject of black voters. So no, I'm not understanding your point at all.

Of course the members of that group are not the only AA members on this board, but it is a group where people self-identify as black and discuss of interest to them. We don't ordinarily know the race of posters since we can't see them. We only know by how they self-identify, if they choose to disclose that, and the groups are one place they do that. However, we do know this site is overwhelmingly white, and there is a reason for it.

You claim I speak for "minorities." Can you quote the relevant portions of my OP where I do that? And no where does the OP mention anything having to do with LGBT, so you have no cause to accuse me of speaking for you. However, I have been criticized for not including LGBT in some of my posts and a result have tried to do so. Now I gather from your response you think I should not do that, yet even when I don't you accuse me of trying to speak for "minorities."

The OP is not about "minorities." That was your interjection into the conversation. On one hand you observe that minorities are not a monolith. Quite true. Yet then you go claim that you have some sort of standing that gives you authority over the subject of the OP, when it isn't even about LGBT, because you are also a minority. Well so am I. But neither of us are African American, are we?


Now, is the problem I don't stick to talking about my own kind? Do you think I should not post about racism or issues concerning people of color? I know I'm not supposed to post about feminism because good liberal men don't like to be reminded of that, as I have repeatedly been told. And when I talk about my own perspective as a woman I'm accused of speaking for all women, something I have never done. This strikes me as a lot like that. In fact, I know that most people in this thread are simply reacting because they don't see it as adequately favorable of Sanders, even though the critique isn't about Sanders but some of his supporters on DU. If I interjected Clinton above for Sanders, 90 percent of the opposition to the thread would disappear. I don't know if that's your issue or not, but I don't see how your status as a gay man gives you any greater authority over the subject of the OP than any other white person.

Now, there are currently about half a dozen threads in GD with white people arguing that x or y candidate is better for them. You don't accuse them of speaking for minorities. Yet when I point out that people of color will determine who best speaks to their interests through their votes, that you call speaking for minorities. That doesn't add up to me.

[beam me up scottie]

85. You are my new hero.

Thank you for that, so many people have been and are still lost amongst the outrage of the privileged.

You should really consider posting it as an op.

[BainsBane]

97. You'll note that members of the African American group don't share that view

There is a lot of outrage on this board. I don't think my OP comes close to competing. I think a simple statement that people of color best know their own interests is perfectly reasonable.

[beam me up scottie]

123. Stop using posts from poc as cover for your mistakes.

It's beyond offensive.

[BainsBane]

165. What mistake?

The charge was I claim to speak for people of color. A charge that came from a white guy. So I asked the members of the African American forum what they thought of that critique. They clearly disagreed. You don't like it because it doesn't conform to your outrage.

What exactly is my mistake: failing to agree that the white members of this site are smarter and better informed than African Americans, as several insisted in a recent thread? My mistake in saying that voters determine who best speaks to their interest by casting their votes.

[beam me up scottie]

167. And you just keep going on and on about your little "research" project.

What is wrong with you?

Do you really not see how offensive that is?

Jesus fucking Christ.

You've been called out repeatedly for this.

Just stop it.

[BainsBane]

172. If you aren't going to explain your position

It's hardly persuasive. Whatever, I don't really give a shit. You obviously can't articulate a point and what you consider offensive doesn't interest me.

Yeah, it's truly awful of me not to claim I know what is good for people of color. It's awful for me to point out that they will demonstrate that through their votes. If I weren't offensive, I would tell them they are too uniformed or ignorant to know who they should vote for, that they aren't as smart as the white members of the DU keyboard intelligentsia. I could even argue that "corporations" had planted women and people of color in the Democratic party to subvert it from its true mission. I could post an OP arguing against diversity, that the entire concept was a neoliberal plot. I could post a speech by a former Klansman and then defend the Klan because the person was critical of a politician not very popular around here. That's what passes for non-offensive among the peanut gallery here. But noting that people will show who best speaks to their issues by their votes, that's offensive.

[beam me up scottie]

173. Prism said everything that needed to be said.

And I'm not the only one who thinks so.

[BainsBane]

180. Okay, next time I'll be sure to post

a treatise talking about how diversity has ruined America so as not to be offensive. I'll throw some stuff in there about how AA's who don't answer polls to favor the right candidate are low information voters. I wouldn't want to upset your delicate sensibilities by suggesting all citizens have a right to ask what politicians will do to address their concerns.

[beam me up scottie]

181. Ok.

[BrotherIvan]

141. Yes, we do

[BainsBane]

174. Do you post in there?

Note I said the AA group, meaning members of that particular group on DU, not an entire race of people.

Please, tell me exactly where I claim to speak for people of color in the post above. Give specific quotes.

[BrotherIvan]

202. Omg

[LostOne4Ever]

94. WOW! +infinity (nt)

[LostOne4Ever]

110. So you showed that you don't

"listen to only those minority voices that conform to your predetermined ideological preferences. "

By doing exactly that?

BTW: They are not "research." Those posters are people.

[beam me up scottie]

112. "BTW: They are not "research." Those posters are people."

[mr blur]

95. Thank you, Prism, that was a superb post.

[BainsBane]

99. I did some research on this subject

Star Member BainsBane (31,588 posts)
3. I was just told I claim to speak for "minorities"

Do you think that a valid critique?


BTW, the person referred to the concerns about diversity in the Sanders opening event to the "Kanye West argument."

Response to BainsBane (Reply #3)Fri May 29, 2015, 03:40 PM
1StrongBlackMan (19,797 posts)
6. Heck no! ...

You do, however, speak AS someone who has taken the time to hear what "minorities" have been saying.

You know what (in days, not so gone by) that DUer leveling the charge would have called you ... Right?

Star Member JustAnotherGen (16,030 posts)
7. No you don't

And you aren't arrogant - and you listen.

And in GD - I'm not responding to it - but I see a quote from Lewis and admonishment about basically being an idiot for believing the number one priority for MLK was black folks.

It's woefully ignorant to believe the money he got from black donors - many of them Republicans who had the money to get someone to steal the literacy test -

Was because those folks cared about working class white people in places like San Jose and Seattle!

They cared about the gobs of money they paid in local taxes - yet their children were in physically and mentally sub standard schools. And their concern for the poor began and ended with share croppers, porters, maids, wash women, gardeners, shoe shine boys etc etc who were black. Those people helped build this damn country and they had the right to vote - but didn't have the money to cast it.

Response to BainsBane (Reply #3)Fri May 29, 2015, 06:28 PM
Number23 (18,360 posts)
10. I think you attempt to speak WITH us. Which is probably why you piss off so many here.
The only thing some people hate worse than a poc speaking for themselves is the white person that agrees with them and uses the power of their own voice to advocate with them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1187&pid=14929

[BrotherIvan]

156. By my count, that's two people

Oh, so it must be okay! Proceed.

[BainsBane]

162. Three

actually. And if there is some passage where I claim to speak for people of color, please, let me know. I fail to see how a simple statement that votes will determine who people see as best representing their interests amounts for speaking for anyone. The point was that people post threads advocating one candidate or another, and who is better for people of color, but the the ultimate answer to that question lies in who people vote for. That is the opposite of claiming to speak for anyone.

[whatchamacallit]

98. Bravo!

[BainsBane]

100. See this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6748818

[seabeyond]

103. these people are still feeding the lie someone called sanders a racist. you think they are gonna

listen to our AA community? listen, fug... even read what you have outlined for them? not a chance.

[whatchamacallit]

105. This "these people" hasn't claimed anyone said Sanders is a racist

Go check.

[whatchamacallit]

104. What's going to happen if POC start supporting Sanders in number,

and there isn't an apparent consensus? I'll tell you what: those coopting ethnic cultural issues for exploitation, will have to STFU. It will be a glorius day.

[seabeyond]

106. then it will inevitably mean sanders is talking to them. cool. that works for me. work for you? nt

[whatchamacallit]

107. Of course it works for me

My point is it's folly to represent a group as homogeneous unless it truly is. I know Hillary currently polls well in the AA community, but if those percentages change, there's going to be some really obsolete (and dumb) OPs floating around here.

[seabeyond]

114. you dont think sanders is not sitting looking at the numbers, strategizing? or clinton. or omallery?

this is running a campaign. what politicians do. why all of a sudden, for sanders, is it hands off? is the question that should be asked.

the goal is to gain votes. sanders is perfectly capable of addressing and meeting the needs of these communities. yet, for all purposes, pro sanders demand we tip toe, walk lightly or flat out ignore the very real reality of running a campaign.

[whatchamacallit]

124. People are free to scrutinize Bernie Sanders in any regard they like

However, if their scrutiny takes the form of a baseless smear or character assassination, as some posts have, they're gonna get an earful. The same should go for those using overly creative means to paint Hillary.

[seabeyond]

125. mmm, then i guess that would be people that insist we are calling sanders a racist, when in fact

we are only talking numbers. you know. that kind of baseless smear and character assassination of the last two days.

[whatchamacallit]

127. It's one thing to simply ask

why didn't Bernie focus more of his speech on issues of race, it's another to make your point with photos and imagery that leave a deceptive association. That's what got the "Not good enough, Bernie" OP in trouble.

[seabeyond]

129. the conversation has been going on for a month. wasnt out of the blue. i have/was accused of the

same thing, by more than one.

this is not a new ploy to shut up certain conversations.

and still, no one called sanders a racist. no one believes sanders is a racist. no one has suggested or implied sanders is a racist, yet MANY pro sanders supporters are claiming that yes in fact, that is being said about sanders.

back to ..... baseless smear and character assassination.

and look. all you did was excuse and validate the "baseless smear and character assassination" instead of calling it out.

[NaturalHigh]

142. I have no idea what you're trying to say in that reply...

but you have been on the attack ever since the first two candidates announced. Maybe you should save a little steam for the actual primary season.

[BainsBane]

158. Then we will know he is effectively speaking to their concerns

Which was my point in the OP. That will be determined by whom they vote for, not what you or I say on the internet.

[Lordquinton]

122. privilege needs strong calling out

So many don't get how it works, and there are some who spend time trying to dismiss the whole thing all together.

Bravo for your efforts calling this out, the op is doing more harm than good by spreading "bernie has a problem with race" instead of letting the people being spoken about say their piece.

And good on calling out the sources who spread trash about lgbtq issues before it was popular to support it, far too many posters got a pass on that one.

[BainsBane]

176. Where does the OP say Bernie has a problem with race?

Because I wrote the OP and I don't see that anywhere.

[QC]

134. Bravo. You have said it all. n/t

[BrotherIvan]

139. I L.O.V.E. YOU

I love you. I love what you wrote and I hope you make it an OP. I would love your permission to quote it because you have said better than I ever could what has been so jaw dropping in the last few days.

I am a person of color. Not every other person of color agrees with me. But this board has been taken over by whitesplaining posters who are co-opting the struggle of people of color for their own agenda. It is manipulative and deceptive and smacks of paternalism in the most offensive way.

Thank you for standing up and speaking the truth, because it IS the truth. No one without standing gets to speak to issues. No one gets to co-opt the issues of disenfranchised people. Stangely enough, a lot of these posters could be speaking to feminist issues with authority, but they think they have found some kind of weak spot to attack. It is transparent and disgusting and speaks volumes to their wholly manufactured advocacy.

Really, I don't mean to seem creepy, but I loved your comment.

[Prism]

195. By all means

I actually had you and a few others in mind while writing this. The way you were being treated by those posters was gobsmacking. It's as if your lived experience didn't exist because you weren't saying what some white people wanted to hear. So they pretended you didn't exist and instead fished for the opinions they liked.

This is one of the definitions of privilege. It's one of the biggest no-no's for allies.

But it doesn't matter, because . . . reasons.

This is why I find it so hard to take message board activism at all seriously. It's so transparently shallow and self-interested. People don't really care. They just want to win a board fight. If they practiced what they preached, they'd be horrified at their own behavior. Nope! Unrepentant to the end.

Everyday, I thank my lucky stars that these people do not exist in my office (I do social work). People on the front lines in the flesh do not behave this way. They don't have time for these games.

[BrotherIvan]

241. I have actually learned a lot from your posts

I had not thought of it in terms of privilege, I just thought it was manipulation because it is always followed with "Who me?? You misunderstand! Why are you all being so mean??" and then the predictable run to the protected group seeking affirmation and pats on the back. Then winking and nudging and more bullshit. Then cries of persecution. Rinse, repeat.

But it is privilege. It paternalism. And the fact that people can be such blatant fucking hypocrites without shame is just too much. Too much. I was not here for the great burning at the stake of the gay community, but I have seen mention. I can only imagine. I was stupid enough to think that with Obama's term coming to an end, some of the madness would stop. Nope. Because this is just a handful of people spinning out their psychology to anyone who will listen.

And so I have been shouting into the wind. And it has done no good. And now I feel like I need to take a thousand showers to try to feel clean. I haven't accomplished much of anything, but you have reminded me that I have spent way too much time in this cyber madhouse. The sun is shining outside and the sky is blue. And funnily enough, no one in real life does have the chutzpah to speak this way because they would be able to see me laugh right in their face.

Best to you, Ivan

[Prism]

242. I've learned a lot from you in kind

You are a formidable debater when you get riled =)

I'm about to bounce from this thread and similarly enjoy the rest of the weekend, but let me leave you this story as a positive note.

So, one of the cases I've been participating in at work involves a young African gay man who sought and received asylum here in the States. He had been facing heavy persecution at home. We got him set up in an apartment close to my work. Unfortunately, he hasn't been legally able to work because he didn't have his work visa. So, he's filled his days volunteering and participating in a local LGBT community center.

But! This week we learned his work visa is incoming, and we were able to line up a job for him right across the street from where he lives. When we told him, it was just awesome. I certainly have never been that happy about having to work, lol. He's one of the sunniest individuals I've ever met.

So, even though we read and participate in some crap threads here and wrangle over social justice, being able to see something like that accomplished and just that one life improved puts everything in perspective. We will get there, bit by bit, no matter what anyone says. The day is coming in every kind of increment.

Have a good weekend, BI.

[boston bean]

189. Are you speaking on behalf of black people when you tell another they

are speaking on their behalf?

Who died and left you boss?

Talk about getting some self awareness?

[Scootaloo]

191. This ovation apparently only has standing room

Lovely to see another poster here who remembers shit!

[Prism]

196. Right?!

People who spent years making LGBTers' lives a living hell here are suddenly all, "Only we care about social justice!"

I just go with my mantra. "Prism, they only exist on the internet. They only exist on the internet. They only exist on the internet."

They're certainly not helping me at my day job, that's for sure.

[QC]

206. As Homer Simpson observed, "Oh, everything looks bad if you remember it."

Even the person who famously said:

Gay marriage is for me unthinkable, but Civil Unions have my 100% vote. I believe that marriage is something done in churches, and the Bible does speak negatively about homosexuality.
However, allowed to be "married" by a Mayor, or a power-invested civil servant for gays, and lesbians, is right, and good.

is now DU's very own Harvey Milk.

[BrotherIvan]

221. I thought that my lower jaw was going to meet my upper jaw sometime later today

But after that comment, it will take about a week. What the fuck????????????

[Prism]

240. President Obama said LGBTers are ok

So, we're ok now.

Quite literally. As soon as the President came forward for gay marriage, a lot of the hostility against my community disappeared over night (because a lot of the hostility of the LGBT community towards the President evaporated). Now everyone has always supported gay folks always and forever as our fiercest allies since the dawn of the American colonies.

It's just one of those things.

But seriously. I'm not going to receive social justice lectures from people who treated my brothers and sisters that way. Nope. No way. If people want to be kumbaya and pretend it never happened, that's their choice. I choose different.

You are doing God's work in this thread, btw.

[1StrongBlackMan]

262. I, for one African-American member of this boar/community ...

have yet to disagree with any representation of African-american "minority" positions, BB has stated ... She clearly has been listening to what we have been saying.

And while Black folks, like gay folks, are not monolithic in political thought, BB seems to have heard and articulates what the majority of Black folks on this site have been saying with respect to race matters.

[Puzzledtraveller]

285. Great reply

and spot on.

[AgingAmerican]

71. It's a made up 'issue'

Bernie has a vast record on civil rights. Those who push this meme conveniently ignore this fact. Also they do not hold their own candidate to the same standard, which is hypocritical.

The hostility is against Bernie IMHO. This is the sort of 'issue' highly partisan people resort to when they have nothing concrete to attack with.

[m-lekktor]

79. it most certainly is. nt

[BainsBane]

178. I must be a pretty shitty writer

Since no one is getting the point of my OP. 1) I'm not pushing a meme that he has a weak record on civil rights. 2) I'm saying that we will know which candidate best speaks to the concerns of voters when they cast their votes. 3) In my sig line it is written plain as day that I am undecided, meaning I have no candidate. 3) There is no hostility against Bernie in my OP. 4) it was an observation on threads insisting people had no right to question Sanders on Civil Rights and more generally hostility to other general questions about his plans and accomplishments.

90 percent of electoral politics is made up issues. The media revels in it. If you find an observation about a homogeneous campaign event upsetting, you aren't going to be happy if he gets the nomination because the GOP takes no prisoners.

[seabeyond]

72. i have decided this is just another stance to shut certain people up. if they speak, accuse them of

calling sanders a racist and sexist.

the only ones that are continually saying sanders was called a racist are pro sanders, and they are doing it for a reason.

[Rex]

80. The only people I've ever heard about that were, 'too important to question'

were people involved with PNAC and the main culprits behind the 2008 economic meltdown.

[AgingAmerican]

82. Manufactured outrage

nt

[CANDO]

86. Dear heavens! Another POC issues of concern thread.....without......

Mentioning a single one of them! Holy batshit batman! Wouldn't it be nice to distinguish these issues of concern since apparently none of them have anything in common with any ever mentioned before for the rest of mankind.

[hifiguy]

90. This thread answers the question nicely

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026743489

[BainsBane]

101. My point is simple

That will be determined by how African Americans vote. They are the judges as to who best speaks to their concerns.

[Bonobo]

138. Yes. It is. Or simplistic rather. nt

[CTyankee]

111. No memo here. I will vote for Bernie in the primary and Hillary in the general.

That is all.

[CTyankee]

113. I can tell because he HAS voted (not just talked) in favor of concerns of people of color.

Simple.

That's how.

[Number23]

136. You ruffled some feathers and upset some folks. Probably not a bad thing

Signed,

Friend of the "token" a black lesbian called that by someone who is now super concerned about minority issues and dredging up shit from years ago because they have no life, purpose or friends.

[Prism]

216. Awesome

Because if a racist white person said something deeply offensive on repeated, endless occasions and then followed up with, "Well, I have a black friend," you wouldn't leap across a table and smack some sense into them.

Sorry I slithered out of the pit to hiss a hey how are ya ;/

[Number23]

218. Did someting in my post upset you?

And I'm doing absolutely splendidly, thank you so very much for asking.

[Prism]

220. Nope

You're one of my favorite people on the board, actually.

[Number23]

224. Oh, my gracious that feeling is so COMPLETELY 100% mutual

You better believe it.

[Prism]

227. =) n/t

[Number23]

229. Please don't go there! Please delete your post. That will NOT be happening. Not with me

Not ever. Never. Ever. EVER.

[BainsBane]

231. Done

Oh, you made me laugh.

[Number23]

233. God bless you. Seriously.

I've really got better things to do than that. Like ANYTHING.

[Bonobo]

137. Assuming a lot of things that may be true.

Assuming one, that we do not have a rigged system with a frontrunner pushed by the entrenched powers that be.

Two, assuming that Bernie will spend as much money on his campaign and receive as much support from the mass media.

Etc.

So no, your premise is naive...and false.

[BainsBane]

182. So if the election doesn't go the way you want

People won't think, gee, maybe I should have emphasized my candidate's strengths rather than insulting every voter I came in contact with? They'll just decide it's all due to money and has absolutely nothing to do with their elitist dismissal of the majority of Americans as beneath them.

And no, I'm not talking about Sanders. I'm talking about his supporters. As you note, the media does not favor Sanders. They don't take him seriously, so I'm told. (I'll have to take people's word on that since I don't watch television). That means supporters of Sanders are key in getting the word out about their candidate. Yet for some reason a number seem to think insulting people, sometimes even other Sanders supporters, is the way to proceed. If you ask about his accomplishments or plans, they get angry and tell you that you should already know. All of that can only turn people off a candidate, yet people persist. To be fair, I saw someone do a similar thing in a thread about Clinton yesterday. It's unreal that anyone can think that's the way to advance their candidate, particularly when the vast majority of the electorate is undecided at this point. Yet for Sanders his supporters may be all the more influential precisely because he does not have the same coverage in the media. Yet here they are acting in ways that turn voters off.

So yes, money influences elections to an absurd extent. However, that doesn't mean African Americans or any other voters don't know their own interests better than you or I do.

[BrotherIvan]

145. From the urban dictionary

WHITESPLAIN

The act of a caucasian person explaining to audiences of color the true nature of racism; a caucasian person explaining sociopolitical events and/or history to audiences of color as though they are ignorant children; a caucasian person explaining to audiences of color that what they think will benefit themselves and their families and communities will in fact harm them, and vice versa.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Whitesplain

[BainsBane]

175. Care to point out where I did that?

Last edited Sat May 30, 2015, 06:38 AM - Edit history (1)

Cause I wasn't even addressing black people in my post. I was addressing the people who said black folks had no right to question Sanders.

How would you feel if I substituted Clinton for Sanders is the text in the OP? Would that still be whitesplaining?

[BrotherIvan]

203. And as you linked, some African American members of DU made threads discussing it

Why do you feel the need to make your own?

Did they not do a good enough job?

Do you think their thoughts were insufficient for your taste and so you had to jump onto the board and post your own?

What part of their efforts do you not approve of so you spawned this thread??

And why, when you are speaking to people of color or LGBT folks on this very thread, do you not listen to a damn word they say and yet claim to be their champion, making sure they are well represented at every gathering? Why?

[BainsBane]

213. bigtree's thread was after mine

And says far more about the subject than I ever could, which is why I linked to it here. This thread was before that, when one member posted an OP calling the person who wrote about Sanders opening event a "POS" and asked who they were to question Sanders. You yourself insisted only two white people cared about the issue, and when I pointed out there were ongoing discussions in the AA group on the topic you accused me on name dropping and weren't interested in their concerns in the slightest. I would not have written this thread after BigTree's because his explanation was far, far better.

I'm nobody's champion. NO ONE's. I merely post about issues that concern ME. What concerns me is not the electoral fortunes of Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton. Frankly, I consider that of minor importance. I care about issues of social justice. I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself.

As for LGBT members. You'll need to explain to me why being gay gives someone special status on this subject. His argument was that I should let him have the conversation with the other "minority." He, however, wasn't having a conversation with those posters. He addressed ME, responded to my OP. If the subject of this OP were anything to do with LGBT, that would be another matter, but it doesn't. He evoked his subject position as comparable to your own. I might add that I am also a "minority." I am a woman who grew up poor in America. I don't believe being a white gay man gives him any more standing on issues of the black voters than my being a woman gives me standing on racism or homophobia, or your being a black man gives you standing on issues related to sexism. I don't believe anyone's subject position gives them particular standing when it comes to questioning politicians because we ALL have that right. I did in fact listen to Prism's posts (after some time to cool off, admittedly). What I did not do is agree his voice should substitute for mine.


I don't know of posters of color in this thread besides you and Number23. I can't see people, and if they don't self-identify to me I can't know what their race is. I know the site, per Skinner's own information, is overwhelmingly white, older, and more affluent that the general population.


Here is my basic point. EVERY citizen, all of us, have every right to ask any questions of any politician. I will NEVER adopt a position that elevates a politician above the people he seeks to represent. They are public servants and should never be treated as anything else. I don't understand a view of politics where one is so wrapped up in a candidate. I just don't get it. That puts me at odds with a large section of the membership of this site that has decided that Sanders electoral prospects trump everything else. My view is no different in that regard toward Clinton or any other politician. I do not revere them. I vote for them when the time comes. None of them will ever come before issues for me. Never.

Who I am to raise MY concerns is a citizen of the United States. Now say you don't like that I raise concerns having to do with people of color. Yet I note that you rec'd and responded positively to a post arguing that diversity was neoliberal, accommodating to capital. The poster used it as click bait by attaching Sanders to the title, even though the article didn't mention Sanders or the election anywhere. Those were concerns about people of color, only the concern was that attention to the rights of people of color was pro-capitalist. Do you actually agree with that? Do you agree with that very conservative, anti-diversity agenda? Or did you just read the title and think, it's supportive of Sanders and rec it? I raise that point because in that case you had no problem with a white person voicing their concerns having to do with race, even though those concerns were against diversity. We have thread after thread telling people of color that Sanders is better for them. I don't see you objecting to those threads. We had a thread were all kinds of posters came into say that AA poll respondents who favored Clinton were "uninformed," voting "against their interests." I didn't see you be critical of those posters telling people of color what was good for them. I didn't see you raise concerns about the posters who said Sanders cared more about civil rights than Obama, a black man, ever could, or to the poster who argued that "corporations" had planted women and minorities into the party in order to subvert it from its true purpose of representing the working class. Now those are some pretty questionable posts IMO, yet what you object to is my saying voters will decide who best speaks to their interests, and that I dislike a view of politics that elevates a politician above the citizens he seeks to represent. Of all those posts, mine is the one that bothers you. I can't help thinking my failing is that I don't advocate for Sanders' election to the presidency.

Now, you of course are free to disagree with me vigorously, but I will not forsake my right as a citizen to voice issues I care about. I speak for NO ONE but myself. I am NO ONE's champion. What I am is a citizen of these United States with as much right to express my views and question politicians as any other.

[KittyWampus]

199. thanks for finding the definition of what many Sanders supporters on DU are doing!

People of color only support Hillary cause they haven't had Bernie's awesomeness explained to them yet.

And it isn't whitesplaining to point out the apparent and appalling lack of diversity/outreach at Sanders' opening rally.

Diversity is a touchstone of the Democratic party.

Bernie's campaign didn't get the memo yet.

[BrotherIvan]

200. And then, you proceed to engage in it

Prism is right, self awareness needs to be taught on DU. His answer was pretty thorough, you should read the whole subthread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6746564

I will spell it out: people of color have a right to talk about it. I will listen to their opinion even if we disagree. But they are not the ones posting all of these threads. Get it? If you want to talk authoritatively about women's issues, that is your right. If you want to talk about middle class issues, go for it. But it is nothing more than paternalism and whitesplaining for all of you to get so in a huff about diversity. Especially because you don't even know that there are more than a few people of color in this thread that you are patting on the head and telling us what's good for us. As Prism said in the post you didn't read, your privilege is monstrous.

[Number23]

205. But didn't you post in the Bernie Sanders forum that Bernie's stance on race needs to be discussed?

I don't understand your position.

You obviously think that this conversation is one worth having so why not just let the conversation be had?

[BrotherIvan]

208. In that thread we did discuss it, from a place of honesty

And we put facts and links and information. And then we discussed his comments about incarceration. Then we talked about education. Then we talked about generational poverty. Then people posted more links and discussed it. And we stated our concern and looked up the record. It was productive and fruitful. And I sincerely extend an invitation to anyone who wants to speak about the subject honestly.

But these threads are not discussions, they are white people trying to co-opt the struggle of people of color to win points on a damn message board.

As I have said, all of this firestorm is from parsing a single 35 minute speech as a way to describe not only the entire campaign, but the person of Bernie Sanders. There was a thread that tried to draw a line through history, from slavery all the way through police brutality, with a big arrow pointing to Bernie Sanders. Penned by a white woman and posted by a white woman. And then a pile on of more mendacious threads daily with the clear intention of painting a person who actively participated in the actual civil rights movement, as now only caring about white males. By people so tone deaf, their claim of being an ally is laughable at best.

All of this white concern is FAKE in every way. It is being used to prop up a candidate who became the friend of black people and Latinos five minutes ago. And apparently quite a lot of people, not just me, can see right through it.

[seabeyond]

209. many of us seeing it thru the eyes of women. we too are part of social justice. just sayin'. nt

[BrotherIvan]

210. This thread is titled "How you can tell if Sanders speaks to the concerns of people of color"

You have the authority to speak on womens' issues, so does the author of the OP. But instead, people are trying to co-opt people of color to try to fit your argument and it's offensive. OFFENSIVE.

I don't speak for women. I don't speak for LGBT folk. I speak for me and you speak for you. If we keep all of the fake "concern" out of these posts and speak from a place of honesty, then we might actually learn something from each other which is the promise of DU.

[seabeyond]

211. i do not need an ass chewing. reading your post, what you said, i felt the right to be able to

remind, social justice is not only AA.

i think.... that is permissible.

[cui bono]

276. And yet you refuse to go watch a video I sent you a link to and linked to in posts to you

where Sanders, whom you profess to be a supporter of, speaks out for women's rights on the senate floor. It's a great video I don't know why you wouldn't go watch it. One would think you would, and that you would have rec'd it as well since you keep saying you are a Sanders supporter.

So again, why did you not watch it? Why would you not rec it? Are you putting politics and game playing before women's rights?

[Number23]

212. Bain's comments are coming from what she's read in the AA forum. There are not many of us here

but it's likely you will get a stronger representation of black people's opinions on any issue in that forum than probably any other place on DU.

I don't go into the Sanders forum and probably never will, my feelings for Bernie Sanders - who has never said a single thing I disagree with (Edit: As far as I know) -- notwithstanding. We put out lots of facts and information in the AA forum on these matters as well as well as our anecdotal experiences of being black people in Western culture, something that cannot be qualified and is a unique and individual experience for all of us.

I have to admit, I did not know that Bain was going to use my comments in that thread the way that she did in this thread. I find that problematic. But at least I know she asks the questions and in a place where it is most likely to be seen by the people most affected by it, far different from others who castigate her for "speaking for black people" while they do the exact same thing and from a SUBSTANTIALLY lessened position of doing so.

I am not white and don't consider Bain's concern fake at all. In fact, I am rather grateful that she's speaking out. It's tiring for the handful of black, Asian, and Hispanic people that still remain here to keep doing it alone. And I was always under the impression that trying to understand and empathize with the perspectives of minorities was a liberal trait, though it is seldom seen around here at all.

[BrotherIvan]

215. I thought it was a liberal trait too

And I appreciate anyone who stands as an ally. But the performance of the "allies" in the last few days has been *shameful*. Nothing productive has come of it, just the same twenty people screaming the same thing over and over. No wonder the group of PoC is dwindling, I've been lectured by three walls of text in this thread alone by the same person who only claims to be making a heartfelt plea that "we all just listen to people of color." In fact, the same five people show up to lecture me in every whitesplain thread.

And the funny thing is, I have never and will never claim to be an expert on race or the concerns of all African Americans in this country. Never ever. I know that I live a very different experience and feel very uncomfortable having to argue against this blatant nonsense all the time. But I hate lying. I hate people trying to manipulate. So I tried to stand up for a bit. But I think I'm done. It's making my head hurt so I'm out.

[BainsBane]

219. Note, I am not among those

alert stalking the people of color, which is dome with some frequency. I am not among those denouncing their posts about racism and issues related to the black community as flamebait. When I don't get something--and there are certainly times I don't get something--like why some objected to Patricia Arquette's comments at the Oscars--I try to listen to understand why the comments are alienating. Sometimes I even manage to catch on.


Note that a lot of the same people--obviously not you--arguing that I am trying to speak for people of color have said the same thing when I posted about feminism. In fact, they have done it so often and so successfully, I have quit writing posts outside of HOF on the subject. I wonder if you realize how strongly some posters react to any discussion that isn't about them or that they see as in anyway threatening to their privilege. There is a clear effort to silence discussions related to sexism and racism. Those discussions make some uncomfortable and they don't want them here. I have heard this same argument time and time again when I speak about issues related to women and women's rights. I'm told I'm trying to speak for all women when I simply present my views. So I see these attacks as part of an ongoing effort to shut down anything that is anyway uncomfortable for the dominant group on this site.

[Number23]

223. The reason the number of people of color has dwindled over the years is because of the numerous

racist attacks against our communities that have happened on DU over the years. And the numerous attacks on individual posters of color here as well. Quite frankly, a lot of black posters don't and have never felt welcome here. Bain is getting a very small slice of what that's like around here.

I remember your eloquent and beautiful posts about that gorgeous bi-racial child and how hurt you were that she was considered an "issue" by her parents. I never thought, nor would I ever think that you were attempting to speak "for all African Americans" or biracial people, and it's interesting that you even feel that you need to qualify that statement. You were only representing yourself and your own opinions on that matter, which is not one damn bit different from what the remaining black posters are trying to do here every single day only to be shouted down and told that we are "infiltrators" of the Democratic party or "manufacturing" our outrage because we want our issues to be recognized.

If you feel "manipulated," well just imagine how the rest of us feel. I've got some pretty good ideas why you may feel that way but I'm tired of talking about this stuff too. But your comment in the Sanders forum has been so much at odds with your behavior in GD that I wanted to understand it. I still don't but I'm done too.

[BrotherIvan]

238. I remember that thread and that is always how I think of you, with gratitude

and a fond memory. I think that is going to be my takeaway for the day. I don't know what the answer is and I'm sorry that people have said those things to you and the rest of the African American posters on this board. It's all so mixed up, I can't wrap my head around it. Have a good weekend.

[BainsBane]

217. I'm sorry I violated your trust that way

I will delete those posts if you want me to.

[Number23]

225. It's up to you. I wish you had let us know that you were going to do that before you did

But I didn't say anything in those posts that I haven't said a thousand other times.

[BainsBane]

228. I didn't plan it in advance

I asked the question because I wanted to know. And then when he kept after me I posted it, but yes. I should have asked you. Absolutely. I apologize.

My concern about deleting the posts is that so many people respond to them. But still, I think the point is clear enough even without them, so I will go ahead and delete.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

204. I would imagine Bernie will get a substantial African American vote

other candidates might be frightened that he will get the Latino and African American vote.

[BainsBane]

214. He may well

And then we will know they see him as the best candidate to address their concerns.

[leveymg]

230. Phony flame issue meme and red herring much on this board, BB?

This OP is pure innuendo. It stinks of week-old red herring.

[yurbud]

232. or flop sweat from DLCers who are afraid the rest of us are seeing through their bullhshit BEFORE

an election for once.

[BainsBane]

234. Oh, right

DLC, cause the real Democrats are white and male. I keep forgetting that to be a real Democrat I have to come from the same demographic that supports the GOP. Some day I'll catch on. Hey, I wonder if I'm one of those women or minorities the corporations sent in to contaminate the party?

Ah, the great man view of politics, so "progressive," like 19th century progressive. That is actually an unfair criticism of the Progressives. They cared about reform, not simply elevating one man above the citizenry.

[yurbud]

266. what a straw man. by your definition, Ann Coulter & Ben Carson are progressive because of their

gender and race respectively.

[leveymg]

235. If we learned anything from '08, it's that HRC's campaign is tolerant of

asinine campaign memes.

[BainsBane]

237. Not Hillary's campaign here

Read the sig line. But hey, don't let reality interfere with your contrived narratives. Gotta make sure you alienate every undecided voter so that Sanders doesn't stand a chance. If anyone can sink his campaign, it's you all. The amazing thing is that you aren't even being paid by the other side to act that way. You all just naturally work to turn people off your candidate.

BTW, how's "the committee" going? Any luck with that smoking gun?

[leveymg]

239. Auxillary or Home Guard?

"The Committee?" Which Committee?

[BainsBane]

247. Oh, my. You don't remember

Sadly, I'll never forget. It was a few months ago, before Sanders announced. I don't remember the context, other than it was how Clinton was the spawn of satan, the usual. You referred to "the committee," just like that. No signifier. Turns out you were talking about Issa's Benghazi committee. A thing like that leaves an impression.

[leveymg]

267. You' 'll have to be more specific

Not clear what your meaning is other than hostility.

[BainsBane]

291. Here it is

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6343734

Use even capitalized Committee.

I would describe my response as more awareness than hostility.

[HooptieWagon]

236. How you can tell if Clinton speaks to the concerns of Wall St?

By her record and donors.

[KingCharlemagne]

255. FFS, the adult unemployment rate in Watts, CA right now hovers at around

40%. A program to put Watts' residents back to work, would that be good enough for you and your cohort of race-baiting nay-sayers? Or would you pivot from race to gender or sexual orientation in a desperate effort to find any charge that will stick?

Jesus H. Christ. Sanders was a SNCC organizer at the exact same time Hillary was a Goldwater Girl. Oh yeah, btw, SNCC organizers were under threat of being assassinated.

[beam me up scottie]

268. "Or would you pivot from race to gender or sexual orientation in a desperate effort..."

You nailed it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026749877

Women, prisoners, lgbt people, the elderly, lots of pics, false dilemma - same shtick.

Run for your life!

Bernie's going to sell all of us down the river!

[cui bono]

270. No one has said anything you just stated. Ridiculous OP. Strawman argument.

Good grief.

What is it with the race shit about Bernie? Trying to divide and conquer? I see you posting this shit everywhere, in the AA group, you really are trying to turn the AA community against Bernie. It's despicable. I bet you rec'd that vile sheshe OP too.