This primary solidified the Log-Cabinization of the Social Left

[Prism]

Log Cabin Republicans have always been funny things to me. They're gay, but other than that, they never care much for the gay community. They can be counted upon for marriage equality arguments and anti-discrimination measures, but otherwise, you're all on your own. Given their demographic - generally white, male, and affluent - it's understandable. They're looking after their personal interests. They're looking after their money. But they want the best of both worlds. They want their money, and they want their identity.

Now, if you're an LGBTer on the ground, you know the problem with their attitude. It isn't as simple as just being gay or lesbian. There are a lot of factors. What is known as intersectionality. LGBTers of color are vastly more likely to suffer from economic disadvantage. Our trans brothers and sisters doubly so. A white, affluent gay male doesn't experience the same world as a poor, black lesbian. I, as a white gay man, can move relatively confidently through society, while a Latina trans sister is always in fear of assault or even death.

So, we're all connected. If you're a liberal of conscience, you understand that. There's no "Gay Issue". It's a variety of issues, where orientation is the core of a nimbus that billows out into every fact of life.

And yet. In this primary. All the work we've done to be united seems to be coming apart at every angle.

What set me off was "Brocialism". And the idea behind it that economic justice is merely a complaint of the white working class.

First, let me say, how much crack have you been smoking, and when did you first take up the pipe?

Economic injustice is not only a problem afflicting white male Millennials. Which part of anywhere in the USA would you like me to point to to bear this out? I live around Oakland, I'm a social worker, so I will share my general experience.

San Francisco is outrageous with housing prices. Tech companies moved in with their high salaries, rents skyrocketed, and everyone who couldn't pay started leaping out of the city like it was a Titanic re-enactment. East Bay, Oakland, and Berkeley were immune for awhile. Oakland, especially, is a city of color, and yet it's getting thumbed down, piece. by. piece. "Oh hey, we live near Lake Merritt. It's fine. Oh, shit, our rent is now $3,000. But, meh, it's fine, let's go to Temescal. Oh shit, no one can afford to live here! My roommate works for Pandora! Well, whatever. No one wants to live in West Oakland. It's a crime-ridden nightmare, and who could possibly . . . why are there hipsters on my street, and what the fuck is a brewery?"

And so all the poor people of color get shoved and shoved and shoved. Right now, they're going north. To Vallejo. To Santa Rosa. But make no mistake, they're being shoved out. Berkeley is the same. When I moved here in 2009, the neighborhood around 4th Street was a poorer neighborhood with people of color. There's an Apple Store there today. And lots of affluent white techies. They just plowed down my favorite family-owned Indian buffet so they could build luxury apartments with fancy names like "The Aquatic". The entire Indian-American strip along University Ave. is to be "repurposed". How long will they last? Probably not as long as all the 20, 30, 40 year old ethnic businesses along Shattuck that are suddenly retiring at their landlords' suggestion.

But economic injustice does not concern people of color. It is the cry of young white men. Bros.

This rambling aside isn't rambling. It's an illustration. Economic injustice has far reaching effects. It not only displaces communities of color, it creates an institutionalized system against them. When affluent people move into an area, they don't want to see the homeless. They don't want to see the poor. And so they agitate law enforcement. "Clean this shit up!" they cry. And guess who suffers? The people who have always been there.

I saw a story just the other day about the number of 911 calls in Oakland skyrocketing. What changed? The number of wealthier people who moved in. That is all that changed. They saw people who didn't "seem right" and "didn't fit with the neighborhood" and they called the cops.

To say economic injustice as a call to arms is merely some disaffected white guys is the dumbest. fucking. thing. I've ever actually heard.

This far in, you might ask how I brought up LCR's. Well, here's why.

The Social Left has become severely self-interested. What is my cause. That's the only cause that matters. Is feminism your thing? Then you may find all things anti-Hillary sexist. Forget she's a hawk (wars disproportionately affect women and children), and forget she's a corporatist (economic downturns disproportionately affect women and children), she's a woman! And we want her! And that's all that matters. It's a middle-class sensibility, brought to you by the same people who think we need New York Times articles on why offices are a mite too cold and why the Black Widow doesn't have a good movie yet. First world feminist problems. If you're a comfortable person, you get to engage in stupid, meaningless bullshit. And so, voila!

Same with Black Lives Matter. Now, I love Black Lives Matter. What's happening in our criminal justice system is the most bizarre inversion of justice a body can possibly imagine. We're living in an age of a stealth Jim Crow. But what matters is the celebrity case of the week. And not even well chosen half the time. Has anyone looked at Baltimore? That shit is disintegrating before everyone's very eyes because the prosecutor and DA thought politics were better than making an actual case. You want to know about black lives? Explain to a mother of six how she feeds her kids. Because those lives matter, too. They're just not very media friendly. Ever sit down with someone and work out food stamps for a month and how to not starve? I have. I do. Those lives matter, too.

But they're never talked about. No one cares.

In this primary season, economic injustice became "That White Male Thing!"

Do you know how easy you must have it to be able to sit back and with a straight face say such a thing?

Like the LCRs, the only people who could shit on Bernie Sander's message are people who are comfortable, people who don't actually deal with too many problems, people who think of the ideas of poverty and race as message board exercises rather than lived experiences. People who can pick their bugaboo and go to town about it, because intersectionality is just a whispered hypocrisy on the wind.

Brocialism? Fuck you. How dare you people shit on the poor in that way. And all to merely prop up your celebrity politician crush of the moment.

You've failed. You've failed yourself, and you've failed those you ostensibly claim to champion.

Stop failing.

Hillary's our candidate. Great. Now disen-fucking-gage and go back to actually caring about the problems of the actual disadvantaged. If all you care about is your pet issue, you're just another LCR, and I really don't understand why on earth you're in our party.

[geek tragedy]

1. I'm sure people appreciate you mansplaining/whitesplaining how their civil rights

are "pet issues."


The mentality behind this post is why the person who won, won, and why the person who lost, lost.

[JoePhilly]

3. + 1

[Prism]

4. You're automatically disqualified

"Mansplaining"

You throw out a vocab word and think "Shit, my work here is done!"

You're exactly the problem.

If you have something useful to contribute to the substantive issues I raised, by all means.

[JimDandy]

13. +1

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. +1 nt

[cali]

16. Pretty horrifying the post you're responding to.

[PufPuf23]

34. Testify Prism. kr

[tabasco]

39. How appropriate that the first response you got

perfectly exemplifies the shallow thinking you discussed in your article.

Very sad, as well.

[TheFarseer]

107. + 100

If Bernie was anti gay black or woman in any way, he may have a point, but that is not at all the case. Hillary is only winning because it's her turn. Bernie is so obviously better on almost every issue.

[Live and Learn]

161. +1000 nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. I don't know how you managed to miss the OP's point so completely.

Which was that everyone's rights are interconnected and that dismissing concerns about economic inequality as a middle-class male issue is stupid. Which it is.

[geek tragedy]

7. We've heard the "social issues are a distraction" lecture

before from Paleo Leftists.

It's a failed ideology.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. But what you place in quotation marks is not what Prism said at all, it's your characterization

which is inaccurate, contrived and yet presented in quotation marks indicating you are citing Prism. That's a form of dishonesty and you fall directly into it. It's part of your Straightsplaining to Prism.

[Prism]

90. I'm laughing my ass off

A plea for intersectionality considerations somehow becomes "You're saying social issues are a distraction!"

Like . . . how much acid must one be on to take that and go to there?

I want Lewis Carroll involved.

[Chan790]

155. I love you for this response.

Geek's been "splaining" to everybody for months on the premise that he understands the issues better than minorities, LGBTQ people, poor people, and people who have dedicated their careers to actually tackling the issues these communities face.

[PufPuf23]

36. Bet you cannot see yourself in a mirror. eom

[VulgarPoet]

173. "Democratic" vampire? nt

[Squinch]

82. This is interesting. Do you notice they are now

subtly trying to distance themselves from their former, staunchly defended "social issues are a distraction" stance?

They're not doing it very well, but they do seem to be trying to do it.

[geek tragedy]

110. can't avoid the sneering "pet issue" comment though.

I wonder if someone should tell the family of Freddy Gray that their cause is a "pet issue."

[Squinch]

125. Yes. Because we are right up there with the pets. And they STILL don't see it.

[Prism]

84. Really, that's what you took from that?

That I, as a gay man, pleading for intersectionality considerations, decided social issues suck?

Holy hell.

Did you read any of it?

[Chan790]

156. Clearly, Geek read it.

Geek just didn't comprehend a word of it.

[bvar22]

98. A "Failed Ideology"????

Have you ever heard of Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Netherlands, Finland, and others.
Don't you find it interesting that those countries ALWAYS top the list of the "Best Places to Live" and the countries with "The Happiest People".

Every developed country in The WORLD has been able to successfully implement the changes that Bernie and his supporters advocate.

"Failed Ideology "... you're making me laugh harder than you usually do.

If you want to find a "failed ideology", open your eyes and look around.
NeoLiberalism has been a complete and total failure except for the top 1%...which is exactly what it was designed to do.

My suggestion: Lay off reading the Ayn Rand for a while, and unsubscribe from the Reagan Talking Points mail list.

[cannabis_flower]

147. Isn't it something that

people who say socialism is a "failed ideology " always want to talk about Russia, Cuba and Venezuela. Any time I hear that I try to point out that socialism is an economic system and not a political system. So there can exist Democratic Socialism or Socialist dictatorship or even Fascist Capitalism or Democratic Capitalism, ect. So for example, there is a big difference between Cuba, Russia and Venezuela and Denmark, Sweden and Canada. Most of the time their eyes glaze over because of the cognizant dissonance.

[Chan790]

157. It's befuddling to me.

Most days it's nigh impossible to differentiate between the casual classism of anti-intersectional Clintonites and Randian Objectivists...but we're the ones that are betraying the Democratic party and cozying up to conservatives?

I guess it's true what Marx argued:

"Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."

First as tragedy (Reagan Democrats), then as farce. (Clintonites.)

[Chan790]

153. ...yes and that's the position you staked-out against the argument Prism made.

You might be so proud of yourself to be so self-aware to realize that you're part of the problem. To hell with actual solutions to social justice problems...let's nominate a fake feminist who is terrible for minorities, people in poverty and women because "It's her turn" on account of her two X chromosomes.

He's arguing for interconnectivity; you're defending the "distraction mentality" and "social justice faddery" that got us Hillary as the nominee.

[AgingAmerican]

69. The person you are replying to systematically uses that strawman to avoid talking about

Important issues that he finds uncomfortable.

[uponit7771]

185. The OPs point is an overt strawman, that's why it's "missed"

[CorkySt.Clair]

21. Wow nailed it.

I read every word in the OP.

The sanctimony:

[Squinch]

43. Exactly, geek. +1.

[Armstead]

49. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512204351#post47

[La Lioness Priyanka]

65. Yup

[La Lioness Priyanka]

92. Wtf does that even mean?

[obamanut2012]

102. That you're a WOC and LGBT so toe the line?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

104. It was such a random threat just to a 'yup'

[Squinch]

130. I think you have a fan.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

134. i need fewer of these fans

[Squinch]

135. Yes. That was weird.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

136. especially after someone sent me that email warning me not to criticize white men

then the doxxing of my info etc. 'fans' are what i need less of

[Squinch]

137. Oh, shit. I had not heard of the doxxing. I am so sorry that happened.

I knew about the email, which I thought was sick and white-hooded.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

138. ugh, yeah. had to change my phone number and everything. super annoying.

[Squinch]

139. I'm so sorry.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

140. thanks. the internet is very hostile to women and POC who are critical of whiteness and maleness

[Squinch]

143. Yes. And it's frightening to think that people are sick enough to do that.

[Mr Maru]

179. That is sick and scary.

[AgingAmerican]

66. "Mansplaining" is a strawman

Deigned to absolve you and yours from intellectually looking at issues that make you uncomfortable.

Oh, wait, you're a man too!

[workinclasszero]

74. You got it.

I guess this screed just goes back to that infamous troll post earlier in the primary about "Stockholm Syndrome" horseshit.

Some people never learn.

[geek tragedy]

79. it never occurs to Paleo Socialists that maybe

POC and women fail to buy into Paleo Socialism for very good reasons.

Has its roots in the Marxian doctrine of false consciousness, which was a hoity toity way of saying that anyone who disagrees has been brainwashed.

[Prism]

89. Which part would you like to debate?

You're saying words and plugging in phrases, but I don't see you addressing the problems raised.

Would you like to help minority communities in some way against this trend?

Do explore your ideas here.

[Squinch]

131. Same argument, different words. If they don't get it after all this time, and after their

stubborn refusal to see it has lost them this election, then they never will.

[obamanut2012]

87. JFC I know

[Starry Messenger]

93. And then some.

[lumberjack_jeff]

108. He had me at "Brocialism? Fuck you."

I would expand that to include "mansplaining" too.

[riversedge]

141. Spot on geek t.!!

[Number23]

145. Nailed it on the first fucking post

Well done.

[w4rma]

152. Tragedy, you SUPPORT the neoliberal economics. You SUPPORT the TPP.

You twist people's words because you want *more* corporatism,not less.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Thank you!

You've articulated what's been wrong with the Democratic Party for the last 30 years. We have to fix it.

[geek tragedy]

5. Yes, the problem is that it's under inclusive of

the white male perspective. Those POC, women etc need to listen to the white men who tell them what's really important.

Make the Democratic Party great again!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. You got it backwards.

The point of the OP was that economic inequality is NOT a white male issue. The OP discusses the problems of women and PoC that result from it.

[geek tragedy]

10. Some are more unequal than others.

This presumes that people who aren't hardcore Paleo Socialists are unaware of or indifferent to economic inequality.

Like the OP needs to explain black unemployment to racial equality activists.

Classic whitesplaining.

One size fits all socialism is an obsolete and failed ideology.

[Surya Gayatri]

17. "One size fits all socialism is an obsolete and failed ideology."

Discredited and defamed in practice on the ground, wherever it's implementation has been attempted.

[geek tragedy]

18. Nader's "gonadal politics" is still the mentality with some nt

[Viva_La_Revolution]

38. 'paleo socialist' is the 'insulting' 'talking point' of the day from the establishment camp*

*This has been a public service announcement. We now return you to the revolution in progress.

[adigal]

174. Tell that to Sweden, Finland, Denmark - it's not failed at all

It is very successful and the people are the happiest in the world.

[geek tragedy]

176. the Scandinavian countries do not have the same problems

that the US does.

[adigal]

177. What problems are you referring to? nt

[geek tragedy]

178. historic levels of violence, legacy of slavery and apartheid, vast geographic size,

ginormous population, cultural/political variation by region, lack of cultural cohesion, dysfunctional political system, etc etc etc.

it would be great to be like Sweden at some point, but the US is a long ways from getting there.

[adigal]

180. The south does seem to be a sticking point in all of the ways you mentioned

But if progressive got out and helped elect progressives for every office, from dogcatcher on up, I think we'd see we have a lot more in common than different. All parents want good schools, choices for their kids, at a fair price, just to mention one. Who would be against that if clearly explained?

[geek tragedy]

181. the goals aren't generally disputed, it's how to achieve those goals.

I forgot to mention the biggest impediment to Sweden-style governance here: the general public does not like government and is generally hostile to expanding the role of government in citizens' lives.

the US was founded as a rebellion against centralized authority.

so the real challenge is winning the culture war over the role of government.

people are okay with expanding government when it means it provides benefits they like, but when it comes to having the government have more power and levying much higher taxes, people are not on board.

[Adrahil]

71. Guess what, we all fucking know that...

But some of us believe that the issues are more complicated than the Sanders perspective, and chose accordingly.

[Lord Magus]

114. The OP's point seems to be that women & PoC & LGBT should ignore their civil rights issues and...

...focus entirely on economic inequality. Economic inequality impacts every demographic but that doesn't make it the only issue that exists.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

116. That's not what the OP is saying.

They are not suggesting that anyone should ignore their civil rights issues, but that economic inequality is inextricably part of everyone's civil rights issues. It's not really a separate issue at all. The people most negatively affected by economic inequality are PoC and women and other minority groups, not white men. It's ridiculous to imply that white men are concerned most with that problem because it particularly affects them - because it doesn't.

[Lord Magus]

117. The "pet issues" line shows that's EXACTLY what the OP is saying.

He dismisses everything that's not economic as being an irrelevant "pet issue."

[Chan790]

160. I get that you don't get it...

but that line is a well-deserved slam against affluent anti-intersectional people that only give a shit about whatever they're protesting until they retreat to their Starbucks-infested suburbs in their $60,000 SUV status-vehicle, then live their lives willfully-ignoring that they're part of the problem because they have no skin in the game and their commitment is time-limited and shallow.

Trust me, I live in a wealthy part of CT...surrounded by people that vocalize support for BLM and can't call the police fast enough if the neighbor hires a black gardener because he "might be casing their house" and will continue to call until the police run off this working man because he's tired of the harassment.

Do they really support social justice issues or is it the social fad of the day for them?

In either case, anecdotally, my experience is that they're overwhelmingly Clinton supporters.

[Lord Magus]

165. It's a vile slam against anyone who thinks civil rights could be more important than economic issues

The OP very clearly thinks that civil rights issues are (as Republicans like to call them) "identity politics" that ought to be ignored.

[bvar22]

171. Civil Rights ARE an Economic Issue and a Social Issue.

The two are impossible to separate.

[Squinch]

132. Read it again. It IS what the OP is saying.

[tonedevil]

9. Making things up...

pretending someone else said what you made up and arguing against that is a really effective method of argument. Does that method have a name? You are very good at it I can't tell you impressed I am.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

23. It's basically a "straw man" method of argument

wherein an argument is misrepresented to make it easier to attack. "The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man&quot and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man&quot instead of the original proposition." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[tonedevil]

24. Well now...

I think it seems very unfair to those men. Even if they are made of straw don't they deserve more dignity than to be treated like they were in the post above? When you explain it the way you just have instead of a brilliant new debating technique it seems maybe it's more like dishonesty.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

25. "Maybe it's more like dishonesty."

Yup. But that's what's so clever and sneaky about straw man arguments. If you're good at it you can make people think you just demolished their argument when in fact you just demolished an entirely different and perhaps completely unrelated argument, and never laid a glove on them. You can be as dishonest as all hell and not get called out for it. But only if your straw men are convincing...

[Autumn]

60. Let me womansplain to you. This old Latina is telling that old white man what is important to me,

and he's listening.. to me. Unlike your old white woman who has no clue what is important to me.

[Prism]

91. The fact you think that's what I said says two things

There's the charitable explanation: You didn't actually read the post where I discuss intersectionality

And the less charitable explanation: You don't care what I said and want to ratfuck as hard as you can.

And let me just say, you, in the past, gave the LGBT community a lot of shit as often as you could in the past.

So, I don't actually know what you stand for.

As a liberal.

[Alex4Martinez]

11. In this primary season, economic injustice became "That White Male Thing!"

Nailed it.

And this was no accident-- it was the politics of personal destruction and quite well and deliberately orchestrated.

It's just sickening that we may be entering another era of dishonesty, wars, and sheer failure to even stem the tide, much less reverse the tide, of social inequity and injustice.

Thank you.

[forjusticethunders]

20. I was going to explain this for the 2342343242th time

But you know what, fuck it. You guys are irrelevant. Enjoy the dustbin of history. We don't need condescending types living out their socialist-flavored white man's burden fantasies to achieve economic OR social justice.

[Scootaloo]

54. You're sort of proving the point

[geek tragedy]

73. Do you think smugly lecturing people of color is an effective

way to demonstrate that your 'movement' appropriately takes their concerns, ideas, experiences, and perspectives into consideration?

This kind of lecture is very good for white socialists to gratify their own egos but it's the exact opposite of what actual movement activists do to further a cause.

"Shut up we know what's best for you people" sounds more in privileged authoritarianism than it does in empowering egalitarianism.

[Scootaloo]

149. I don't think you get to talk about "smugly lecturing," Geek

Especially since you keep setting up these straw men. Hypocritical straw men, at that.

[geek tragedy]

150. "Pet issues" was rather curious verbiage, no? nt

[Scootaloo]

151. Not if you read the entire piece

And understand the context in which that piece is written. The audience it's directed at. The references it makes.

I suppose if you come from a world where any political thought with more than 164 characters is TL;DR, though, you could make the mistake.

[geek tragedy]

158. "Pet issues" is never not used dismissively nt

[Chan790]

162. I'm getting that you don't get who is being dismissed by its use in this case.

A hint: A lot of people who only give a shit about the social justice issue they're protesting for until it threatens their luxury lifestyle living in a wealthy suburb, driving an Expedition, sipping Starbucks and checking the balance of their hedge fund on their always-the-newest iPhone.

The same people that turned out in droves here in CT for Clinton.

[rhett o rick]

148. They don't get it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. exactly right. nt

[cali]

15. really thoughtful post. thanks.

And I think it's sadly true.

[Autumn]

22. Recommended.

[MelissaB]

26. K&R!

Nailed it.

Some of the comments up thread...

[gaspee]

27. Oh great

Another person lecturing Hilary voters about how stupid they are and if they would just "get it" we'd have a utopia.

Stupid women and people of color ruining it for everyone!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

28. That's not what the OP said at all.

But I think you know that. Gotta keep the Bernie Bro myth alive, though.

[gaspee]

33. I think you know

That is what he said. I just restated in fewer words.

[Squinch]

42. And don't forget that we are being selfish in wanting our needs to be acknowledged, rather than

simply working for the OP's needs.

How stupid and awful of us!

[geek tragedy]

48. "Shut up, of course we care enough about your

gonadal politics and pet social issues like civil rights. Just not enough to listen to you."

[Armstead]

50. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512204351#post47

[Squinch]

56. Yes. We COULD address economic issues AND social issues at the same time. That is the

point that the Hillary supporters have been making all along.

When you say:

There are many priorities. We can't put one off until the otehr is solved. We can't let the economy continue to slide towards corporate feudalism while focused on race and nothing else.

you mischaracterize what has been going on here. Throughout this campaign, women and people of color have been told by BS supporters that what was needed was to address the economy exclusively because economic improvement would benefit everyone.

No one EVER said they wanted focus on race and nothing else. No one EVER said they wanted focus on women's issues and nothing else. BS supporters COMMONLY said they wanted to focus on economic issues and nothing else. Hillary supporters have ALWAYS said that we need to walk and chew gum at the same time.

So xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx yourself.

[Armstead]

59. That is also the point Sanders has been making

yeah, Bernie placed the emphasis on economic justice because that is what has been basically ignored all these years by BOTH parties. He is saying something that has not been said in such honest, stark terms in the mainstream partisan political dialogue for the past 30 years.

But he has never said that addressing "social issues" was a separate thing that had to be put off. Nor have his supporters.

Yes, when we're scolded and told -- economic justice does not matter until racial issues are resolved, yeah. That's just a "progressive priviledged white male concern" ....yeah, we're going to come back with the argument that economics affect them as much as anyone.

But that artificial separation of "social issues" from "economic issues" is a result of the Clinton campaigns strategy to pit those against the other.

[Squinch]

70. He has never addressed social issues unless he has been dragged to it kicking and screaming

and had no choice. And yes, his supporters have insisted, consistently, that economic issues were paramount and that social issues would be taken care of if the economic issues were addressed, so there was no separate effort needed to address the social issues.

And yes, economic issues ARE a white man's issue. In those thirty years of economic disaster you reference, the ONLY ones who have experienced economic disaster are white men. Women and people of color have all seen improvements in their economic status in those thirty years.

And yet, that economic disaster, that white men are SO desperate to fix? After ALL that disaster, white men are STILL better off economically than women and people of color.

So sorry. The rest of us hear you all talk about how terribly you all have it, and all we can think is, "Cry me a river, bub." We can't even say, "Welcome to my world," because you'd have to experience significantly more economic disadvantage to be in our world.

And that is why it crystal clear to most women and people of color that a candidate who insists that fixing economic issues will fix everything for everyone, and who seldom even discusses social issues, is not a candidate who understands their interests, and he is not a candidate who will address their needs.

[Armstead]

78. Oh horsehit...I'm done. Your candidate won.

Check with me in about 2 years to see if Clinton and the Centrist Democrats have done ANYTHING meaningful to challenge the entrenchment of Corporate Wall St. Power and the declining economic status of EVERYONE but the affluent.

If those are still alive as political issues that the Clinton and the Democrats are ACTIVELY pursuing, I'll apologize to you.

[Squinch]

80. And check in with me in 2 years to see if Sanders, as a Senator, has done any of what you list.

Anything that resulted in a change or in actual legislation. Not just the "making a point" proposals that he trots out every couple of years knowing they will never pass.

If he has, I'll apologize to you.

And by the way, nothing I said about relative economic benefit in the last thirty years is horseshit. You can look up the numbers yourself.

[Amaril]

46. Wow

You certainly did restate the OP's point in fewer words by proving the exact attitude and sense of privileged entitlement Prism was talking about that has infected (or maybe infiltrated would be the better word) the Democratic party.

That you were able to twist what the OP said into a personal insult against you, women & people of color is an amazing feat of contortionism.

[gaspee]

51. Blah blah blah blah

That's all I hear now from people like you and the OP who insist on painting anyone who doesn't vote for your candidate as either stupid or evil. It's been going on for months and months and months now and I am sick and tired of it.

[Squinch]

133. Also, we're on crack. Don't forget that part. But he isn't condescending. No sir!

Seriously though? This is exactly why they lost the election, and they STILL don't understand what they are doing because they STILL haven't listened even a little bit.

[Adrahil]

29. Yes, of course. If we didn't agree with your candidate...

We must not be intersted in the important issues.

Ever thought that people DO. Care, but that some us just don't think Bernie is the man for the job?

[gaspee]

52. NAILED IT!

I almost responded to another post that said HRC supporters are pro-war and pro-gun and anti-equality - than I said - what is the freaking point of even responding to such utter bullshit.

[Scootaloo]

57. You didn't read the OP, did you?

[Adrahil]

63. Yes, I did. Read that last paragraph. NT

[Scootaloo]

64. Is that all you read?

Did you go back to check after I asked?

[Adrahil]

68. Thanks for the condescension. Yes. I read the entire screed. Twice now. NT

[geek tragedy]

67. .

Now disen-fucking-gage and go back to actually caring about the problems of the actual disadvantaged. If all you care about is your pet issue, you're just another LCR, and I really don't understand why on earth you're in our party.

Paleo Socialist "white socialist men know best" nonsense.

It was outdated 40 years ago.

[Scootaloo]

83. Don't use quotation marks to frame something that no one said.

It turns what you're saying into a lie and reduces your credibility in the eyes of the audience.

Prism' point is that for a year, Clinton supporters have made a career of sneering "I don't care!" about everything, if it wasn't immediately beneficial to their candidate's career.

Black Lives Matter? You applauded Bill for "standing up to those bullies" when he yelled at them that they were supporting rapists and murderers. You cheered Clinton for "defending her podium" when security frogmarched htem out from one of her events, when all they did was sing. You don't care about Black Lives Matter unless you can use them to further your candidate, and then you discard them as "screaming bullies."

How about woman's rights? Well, you're comfortably for them... Until you find out that she supporters chipping away at those rights. And hten you have a walleyed screaming fit that Sanders wants to force people to have abortions. No, really. Abuse of women? Well, that's bad... unless it's done by a clinton supporter, and then it's Bernie Sanders' fault.

It's sort of like the whole "voter diversity" thing I brought up to you not too long ago, where 81% white Pennsylvania is "diverse" while 30% white Hawaii is derided as "too white" - all depending on who wins the state and nothing more.

Prism's particular point is about the insane hatred directed towards the very notion of economic justice by you guys. This notion that if you think economic justice is a thing that needs to be addressed, then that makes you - as you put it "paleo socialist white men know best nonsense." Why? Well, because that's your candidate's weakest point, really. So you've got to attack it, destroy it, defame anyone who understands or talks about it. Pretend that anyone saying "economic justice" is a white supremacist who doesn't care about anything else. All to try to take down a guy who's bringing it up in competition with your candidate.

Prism's point is that this endeavor has worked. Your candidate is the nominee. Now maybe you could cut the opportunistic "I Don't Care" bullshit, and go back to being liberals who actually do care about all areas of concern. Instead of just doing the salad bar thing of only supporting things that benefit your candidate, only for as long as they do.

[geek tragedy]

105. You should try debating actual Clinton supporters

instead of the straw people your imagination has conjured.

Toodles.

[Rilgin]

121. I think the OP did that. Your first response was put down buzz words and not debate (NT)

[geek tragedy]

123. Because comparing Hillary-supporting feminists

and racial equality activists to Log Cabin Republicans is so rational and civil

[Snarkoleptic]

30. Here's a short/sweet look at the socially liberal/fiscally conservative canard.

http://dailyprincetonian.com/opinion/2014/11/the-curious-case-of-the-socially-liberal-fiscally-conservative/

But (Socially Liberal yet Fiscally Conservative) self-identification is contradictory. This juxtaposition of social liberalism with fiscal conservatism is a glaring paradox. It is impractical and unrealistic to fully seek social liberalism — gay rights, the legalization of marijuana, a welfare state, universal healthcare — without big government, without spending, without taxes, without fiscal liberalism. On one hand, social liberalism refers to the compromise of freedom in search for social justice and greater civil liberties while, on the other hand, fiscal conservatism refers to cutting government spending and debt while pursuing small government. It is not feasible to have to seek social programs (like the Affordable Care Act), which necessitate government spending while simultaneously seeking small government with curbed powers.

It turns out this centrist ideology has a name — libertarianism. And yet, many people who constitute this new bloc of voters aren’t even aware of that.

The manner in which this title is used by so many today is inaccurate and misconstrued. It’s important to know what “socially liberal” and “fiscally conservative” entail. Myriads of people associate social liberalism merely with “letting gays marry” and fiscal conservatism with “lowering taxes for the rich.” However, these two ideologies connote more than that. Social liberalism is the belief that champions the alleviation of poverty, the expansion of education and universal healthcare. Fiscal conservatism is a policy that opposes deficit spending and supports the reduction of the national debt and overall deregulation of the economy.

[joshcryer]

31. Social justice is economic justice.

There's no such thing as a fix all.

[TheKentuckian]

32. This is no accident, misunderstanding, or misdiagnosis but an aggressive and willful effort

These folks actively oppose economic justice, it isn't a matter of priority either when clearly they have a high priority on de-legitimizing, minimizing, and otherizing any and every effort or focus.

Dismiss environmental concerns though admitting their existence bridging the gap with hand waving when about any effort to mitigate it is brought forward unless it is Machiavellian in nature like unleashing fracking.

Open sneering and mind fucking opposition to civil liberties, which section of Bill of Rights have these folks not pushed back on over the years? Think about these exact same folks and where they stood on each count as an issue came up over the years.

Use of military force? Always down and quick to go to the right wing and/or neocon arguments to defend it too.

Voting integrity (yes, general elections too)? Much eye rolling and accusations of conspiracy theories.

Stupid and failed drug war? Life is a Rickroll cause they ain't never gonna give it up.

You name it and amazingly consistently there is antipathy rather than different priorities or the much proclaimed but clearly phony different strategies to reach common goals that puts it's self to a lie when the venom oozes at the actual aims.

[tabasco]

35. Excellent analysis. Very nice piece of writing.

I really don't recognize the Democratic Party anymore.

[Lazy Daisy]

37. It's the Democratic version

of vote against your own best interest because of "them". Only on the D side the "them" is white.
The Democratic PTB have found their Republican talking point to divide and conquer.

On both sides it's all about the power and money. How people can't see it is beyond me.

[99Forever]

40. Well put.

The neoliberals have all but destroyed the basic tenets of what it means to be a Democrat, thru the exact same exact tactics they point to in Republicans.

As such, my days as a Democrat are behind me. I doubt I'll ever open this site again after today. Or vote for ANY Democrat, after having voted and working hard for them for almost 45 years. Never again.

[Squinch]

41. Let me guess: you are completely unaware of the irony and projection in your OP, aren't you?

[BumRushDaShow]

44. The problem with this dissertation

that continues to be missed by all who make this argument, is that there are issues that impact POC, women, and other minorities (whether by gender association, religion, etc), that do not impact the "straight white male".

E.g., when you have this type of thing go on - and it has nothing to do with "economic justice", but the descriptions, perceptions, and finger-wagging (or lack thereof) about similar types of destruction caused by 2 disparate groups, are like day and night. That's not "economics". That's bigotry by those who choose to characterize these instances differently.

You almost "get it" with this -

I saw a story just the other day about the number of 911 calls in Oakland skyrocketing. What changed? The number of wealthier people who moved in. That is all that changed. They saw people who didn't "seem right" and "didn't fit with the neighborhood" and they called the cops.

But then completely rule out the phenomena that exists with "wealthy" POC living in self-same neighborhoods who, regardless of their income, are considered "not right" or "didn't fit with the neighborhood". Incident after incident after incident. In this case, "economics" becomes irrelevant and the preponderance of this type of thing going on are NOT "isolated" incidences.

The daily insults, innuendos, suspicions, and other disparate treatment that do not relate to "economics" are what impacts many of us the most. Walking while black, driving while black, shopping while black, even "Presidentin' while black". And the groups that keep promoting "economic justice" intentionally leave race out because really, they have no solution for taming a power structure that uses race/gender/religion to oppress (as yet). So the default becomes that anything other than "economics" is not really germane in their worldview, and thus the idea of anything impacting people day-to-day beyond money (including the trappings of such, or benefits of such), gets minimized or completely dismissed.

[Armstead]

47. Have you EVER heard of doing more than one thing at a time?

You do know that we are also in danger of frying and polluting the earth so that in the near future it may not be able to support ANY race of humans, don't you?

That too is a priority.

There are many priorities. We can't put one off until the otehr is solved. We can't let the economy continue to slide towards corporate feudalism while focused on race and nothing else.

That's self destructive for everyone because we ALL suffer consequences of critical problems that go unaddressed. Including POC. If the earth dies, and/or if the economy sinks into corporate feudalism, it matters nothing what other identity a person has.

[BumRushDaShow]

81. Reality is that "multi-tasking" often fails

because as the mind focuses on one "task", the others are suspended. I.e., there is a "cost" involved. In fact, the phenomena regarding how this is handled and how the decision-making occurs to "switch" was illustrated here -

What the research means

According to Meyer, Evans and Rubinstein, converging evidence suggests that the human "executive control" processes have two distinct, complementary stages. They call one stage "goal shifting" ("I want to do this now instead of that&quot and the other stage "rule activation" ("I'm turning off the rules for that and turning on the rules for this&quot . Both of these stages help people to, without awareness, switch between tasks. That's helpful. Problems arise only when switching costs conflict with environmental demands for productivity and safety.

Although switch costs may be relatively small, sometimes just a few tenths of a second per switch, they can add up to large amounts when people switch repeatedly back and forth between tasks. Thus, multitasking may seem efficient on the surface but may actually take more time in the end and involve more error. Meyer has said that even brief mental blocks created by shifting between tasks can cost as much as 40 percent of someone's productive time.

And in the bolded parts, both of these reasons for making a switch tends to result in the needs of POC and others to get something done for issues that are a priority to them with respect to this "multi-tasking" effort, fails, because the ones involved in performing the tasks are NOT "us" (because we are rarely in positions to bring about meaningful changes to circumstances not caused by us), and are subconsciously using their own worldviews to decide where to "change the goal post" (i.e., what is more important to "them&quot or how to "turn off rules" that will again, benefit "them" for concentration on a "task".

So in response to this -

You do know that we are also in danger of frying and polluting the earth so that in the near future it may not be able to support ANY race of humans, don't you?

That too is a priority.

There are many priorities. We can't put one off until the otehr is solved. We can't let the economy continue to slide towards corporate feudalism while focused on race and nothing else.

That's self destructive for everyone because we ALL suffer consequences of critical problems that go unaddressed. Including POC. If the earth dies, and/or if the economy sinks into corporate feudalism, it matters nothing what other identity a person has.

A question for you - If your house is burning down because someone threw a molotov cocktail through your window and posted a poorly written note that in part reads "N*****R go back to Africa" on your door, what is more important" -

1.) Climate change
2.) Presidential election
3.) Goldman Sachs, Citibank, JP Morgan "banksters"
4.) A firefighter to get to your house to put out the fire but who might not come because you "don't belong" in that neighborhood although you paid your taxes, keep up your property, and make more than the firefighter

[Armstead]

95. You miss my point..

Convoluted academic/political analyses on how priorities are set are irrelevant.

The simple fact is that it is NOT mutually exclusive to pursue social (racial) and economic justice at the same time....Just the opposite. It's illogical to separate these things in an "can't do this til that." They exist as individual issues, but there is also plenty of overlap too.

Perhaps an individual or interest group focuses on their own priorities. Fine. That's not what this is about though.

And -- as the OP pointed out -- who loses out in the "economic" issues like gentrification? It isn't privileged white people at the short end of that stick.

To address your strange analogy -- No, economic justice will not solve the problem of someone who is f'ed up enough to throw a Molotov cocktail through the window. Obviously that would be a priority.

But, let's say someone who loses it because they lost a job and are homeless and "goes postal" and is desperate and goes around indiscriminately shooting people regardless of color. Wouldn't that be a momentary priority too?

And in the bigger picture, If POC who start dying alongside white people because of massive and intense heat waves, maybe that could be placed into the category of racial problem too.

[BumRushDaShow]

99. "Convoluted political analyses on how priorities are set are irrelevant. "

And there is your problem. When historically (for centuries), the "priorities" of certain groups have been put on the back-burner, in a similar fashion to those told to go sit "at the back of the bus", then those arguing on behalf of those "priorities" becomes germane due to chronically being told to "wait" or being told that certain "solutions" that have already been tried in the past and failed, should be given another chance... because. "We know better than you."

And you all continue to make these dismissive statements despite posters contrary to your views, telling you that we are very much aware of all the pressing issues that impact "humanity" and that we in fact agree with them needing a solution. However because of our history here in this country, we know that grandiose "solutions" will not be had in short order without realistic planning on how to overcome such problems, and over-focus on one category with simplistic jingoism while dismissing other categories as a "pet project" or "identity politics" or some "turd way, DLC GOP-like conspiracy" to stop a certain candidate from gaining a high public office, only illustrates this viewpoint as one made from the position of paranoia.

Meanwhile, many of us belong to groups whose ancestors have been through this type of struggle for centuries and have battled over and over and over for rights that the distaff side have never had to demand. The default position that "all boats rise" upon solving economic issues completely ignores the "how high" part due to where one is starting from.

In response to this -

And -- as the OP pointed out -- who loses out in the "economic" issues like gentrification? It isn't privileged white people at the short end of that stick.

To address your strange analogy -- No, economic justice will not solve the problem of someone who is f'ed up enough to throw a Molotov cocktail through the window. Obviously that would be a priority.

But, let's say someone who loses it because they lost a job and are homeless and "goes postal" and is desperate and goes around indiscriminately shooting people regardless of color. Wouldn't that be a momentary priority too?

And every time it happens, many groups of all persuasions, have risen to the challenge to take it on, but the issue is whether one is empathetic to the complexities of the causes, which is something that those making the simplistic "economic justice" argument seem to refuse to deal with, or whether one wants to engage in a meaningful way to acknowledge the complexity, without dismissively minimizing what others are saying over and over.

And in the bigger picture, If POC who start dying alongside white people because of massive and intense heat waves, maybe that could be placed into the category of racial problem too.

You continue to miss the point because of a rampant lack of empathy, something that used to be a trait of liberal Democrats, but has now been hijacked by those with a more narrow agenda. In your above scenario, the "dead" would be an assumed fact of both races, but upon the "burial", something else may occur - i.e., the fact that someone black might be steered away from a de facto "whites only" cemetery - a final insult to the injury, and this is something that many cannot even conceive, and is something that the white dead would not experience.

For many of us, race is the imposed extra overlay that impacts every single aspect of our lives, and that is the lens that many of us speak through.

[immoderate]

106. Good rhetorical bullshit deflection.

You skipped over that, Meyer, Evans and Rubinstein were studying the psychology of individuals, not the functions of government. So that's irrelevant.

Straw man.

--imm

[BumRushDaShow]

118. It is naive to dismiss analagous behaviors

of individuals versus groups because when groups are comprised of individuals with similar mindsets, including similar fears, they can and will act as if they were a collective "individual". And in this case, the "group" dynamics eschew "collectivism" and "consensus", and moves to "herd behavor", where priorities as set that may run counter to what individuals not part of the herd, need or want. And thus the multi-tasking priorities get set based on the herd.

And this is what has happened in this country for centuries (and is actually a part of human nature). And the argument then becomes whose "herd" is "right" and whose "herd" is "wrong". And we see this playing out right now in these types of threads.

[lumberjack_jeff]

113. It's worse than that.

When identity politics is the be all, end all, we never get to #2 on the list of shit to do.

It's being used in exactly the same way the war on terror is; so long as an insoluble problem is the only issue, one never has to address anything else.

[Armstead]

45. Great Post -- The disconnect that has been created is depressing

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. Identity politics is the death of the left. By design. nt

[Armstead]

55. I used to think it was just the GOP design.....I'm thinking I was wrong in that naive assumption

This damn primary has made me rethink that.

[Fumesucker]

76. The 2016 primary casts the 2008 primary in a different light too...

Much has been made clear that was formerly obscure.

[tk2kewl]

170. yup

[Squinch]

58. Social justice issues are the death of the left? Okie dokie...

[Armstead]

61. When challenging the excessive Corporate Power that is imposed on everyone...

is called just a concern of "white male progressives who do not have to worry about anything".......That does make identity politics a tool of destruction of a widespread progressive challenge to the Elites.

Just a mirror image of the GOP's strategy.

[Squinch]

75. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2204829

I hesitated to use that "X" thing, because it's really obnoxious, but you know. Good for the goose and all.

[Prism]

85. Nailed it in one

You cut to the heart of it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

88. Agree. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

72. There is no social justice purpose that is served by nominating HRC.

[Squinch]

77. Thanks for telling us your opinion.

[lumberjack_jeff]

111. The idea that HRC = social justice is stupid

I have no respect for the snake oil salespeople who insist that it is and not much more for the gullible rubes who nod.

[Squinch]

126. Again, your opinion is... in existence.

[forjusticethunders]

169. So 80% of the black Democratic electorate? nt

[Lord Magus]

115. "Identity politics" is a term invented by the right to dismiss civil rights and social justice.

It's truly disgusting to see progressives adopting that smear.

[lumberjack_jeff]

119. social justice has been turned into a logo

And you can apparently affix that logo onto fucking anything to effectively bring the left to heel.

[Squinch]

127. And yet they are so sure they are the true progressives. Really crazy.

[uponit7771]

186. Overt Strawman... denotes lack of listening and minimizing of Dem Base issues

[ms liberty]

62. Really well said, Prism.

It's so sad that how many replies prove your point.

[msongs]

94. everyone who deviates from your definitions is a crack head. thanks for sharing nt

[Uncle Joe]

96. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Prism.

[2banon]

97. Outstanding OP...

Winner of the Year!


Indeed, a refreshing perspective and analysis, and so beautifully written.


We are neighbors apparently.. and I am familiar with each and every single one of these districts you have so accurately and cogently described, with regard to the dramatic changes and socio-economic conditions all of these communities have been witnessing and subjected to in just the past few years.

Thank you for putting to words the perfect description of what we, who consider ourselves as Leftist, have been struggling to change.

[Starry Messenger]

100. Intersectionality means actually listening to what the people in that group have to say.

Of course other groups than white males suffer from economic disadvantages. What people have been saying for year here is that one-size fits all solutions that historically only benefit one group do not address the issues you raise in your OP.

Perfect example, gentrification. Oakland and other parts of the Bay Area have raised their minimum wages, something I worked toward too. However, gentrification is still happening, as you note.

Cities don't even record data on evictions and move-outs from rent hikes by race--those of us who see it happening know it is a racial issue. The organizers I work with know it is a racial issue. But we cannot even try to make a case of a civil rights issue because the data is never collected.

What jobs program, raise waging, expanding SS is going to stop people of color from getting evicted? To keep this gentrification from erasing the racial component by no systemic way to track it?

When people here have tried to point these things out they get called vagina voters and now crack smokers. Please take your intersectional self down to a neighbor and call them those things for supporting Hillary and then report the results back to us.

[obamanut2012]

101. Excellent post, Starry -- I agree with every single word

Fixing poverty does not fix racism or misogyny or homophobia or anything else. If it did, wealthy women/POC/LGBT wouldn't be discriminated upon, beaten, disenfranchised in so many ways.

If that makes me a "vagina voter," then I fucking own it.

[Starry Messenger]

103. Same.

The other stuff about media representation, I didn't even get into. I can't believe any smart person can't see how being erased and demeaned in public media correlates with negative public opinion on social issues by a country that gets a lot of its information from TV and magazines.

[TheKentuckian]

146. Neoliberal economics fix sexisim and racism how? What is all of this fixing Clinton is

going to do anyway?

I heard tell of some listening, no policy that is fixing shit.

All about the hat rhetorically, painfully short on the cattle even from the perspective of intent much less results.

[DemocraticWing]

164. Diversifying the wealthy doesn't bring about economic justice either.

Of course Prism's point was that we must achieve social and economic justice in tandem, and you can't fix one problem without fixing the other.

[Squinch]

128. Exactly! Great post.

[SpareribSP]

109. Did people even read this?

I feel like you could have copy-pasted half the replies from this thread from generic posts made from Markov chains build from average DU replies.

[geek tragedy]

112. yes, including the part where a white dude sneered at women's and black folks' civil rights as "pet

issues."

This stuff was stale in the 1970s.

Here's a way you can tell if someone is in this for their ego or for the cause:

when it's shown that this line of arguing and thought drastically limits its demographic appeal to non-privileged demographic groups (Sanders dominated white men and younger voters, lost every other group), doubling down indicates it's about ego, whereas a "gee maybe we should listen and be more inclusive" would be something actual activists would say.

[1StrongBlackMan]

122. In my estimation ...

You are too kind calling it about "ego."

[Squinch]

129. This is really true. People of color were talking about BS's shortcomings with them very

early on. They were giving constructive criticism when there was plenty of time for BS to listen, absorb, and turn the situation around. Same with women.

If BS and his followers had listened and addressed any of the criticisms, his whole campaign would have been a very different story. Instead they insisted that women and people of color were wrong about their own experience, and the BS supporters knew better.

I think many people, myself included, originally liked much of BS's message. It was when I noticed his stubborn refusal to address social issues in any meaningful way that I began to realize he was not what I thought he was. It was what turned me off with him.

If he had been ignorant at the beginning of his campaign, but then listened and responded meaningfully, I would have had no problem. I probably would have ended up supporting him. But instead he and his followers said to me and countless others, "You don't know what you are talking about. I know what is best for women. I know what is best for people of color."

And this thread is his followers holding onto the same rank ignorance and doubling down on it.

[uponit7771]

188. +1

[uponit7771]

187. Yes, its the same damn strawman from a year ago... dem base priorities are as diverse as the

... dem base.

Not subscribing to this MORE homogenizes the message and then the listeners and then the followers... case in point

[RandySF]

120. News flash

It's Bernie's precious milenials who are pushing everyone else out of SF.

[Teamster Jeff]

124. kick rec

[felix_numinous]

142. K&R Thank you Prism

These are life and death issues for millions of people.

[Arazi]

144. Fuck!! You got banned off your own thread. Harsh

Here's a kick and a rec to counter that bullshit

[lancer78]

154. I have had

to deal with "Ivory Tower Democrats" in my personal life.

[Betty Karlson]

159. wonderfully said.

[DemocraticWing]

163. I think some people just don't like the poor very much. They think we're all stupid and bigoted.

They ignore that the poor are diverse, both demographically and politically, because the narrative would get screwed up.

[Duppers]

166. K & R

[JonLeibowitz]

167. K&R. One of the best OPs on the last day of GDP. See you around, Prism.

[redwitch]

168. Thank you!

Thank you!

[adigal]

172. I am a woman and I agree with you 100%

People don't really care about the poor, minorities, the suffering in our country. If we cared, we wouldn't have black kids shot down for no reason, parents who can't afford food at the end of the month and an increasing homeless population.

I don't know the meaning of Democrat anymore. I thought Obama would care, but he had to be bullied into speaking against the Keystone Pipeline and never talks about the 1/4 (wrap your brains around that, good Democrats) of American kids living in poverty.

And we care?? Ha. What a joke.

[VulgarPoet]

175. Brocialism... Fuck 'em, man.

Don't waste your time. I'm guessing the vast majority of replies I can't see are a lot of intentionally missing the point to try and silence you, or goad you into saying something that you can be alerted for. Don't waste the time, electrons, or neurons on these people.

[redgreenandblue]

182. Agreed. nt

[Autumn]

183. Thank you.

[Garrett78]

184. First of all, so-called social issues aren't "pet" issues.

In fact, so-called social justice concerns (racism, sexism, heterosexism, etc.) help give rise to and maintain economic injustice. If you address those matters, you effectively address economic disparities, because things like racism and sexism are used to justify those disparities.

Also, a POC can be wealthy and still get treated like sh*t by various institutions, such as law enforcement.

And while the approach may differ or not be radical enough for one's liking (including my own), mainstream Democrats such as Clinton do, in fact, make an effort to reduce economic disparities.

Lastly, nominating someone who can't win doesn't help those in need. Sanders would have faced an onslaught of attacks unlike anything he's ever seen before. Photos of him being arrested might impress his supporters, particularly the young and rebellious, but they wouldn't go over well in a general election campaign. Nor would photos of his supporters burning the US flag. Nor would his essay about women having a rape fantasy. Nor would his tax proposals, which would be twisted into something they aren't. And so on. Nominate on principle and then lose in November...sorry, but that lacks appeal.

[uponit7771]

189. +1, Same damn strawman argument from a year ago...