This message was self-deleted by its author

[YoungDemCA]

This message was self-deleted by its author (YoungDemCA) on Fri Apr 24, 2015, 10:46 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. I am going to give you a real pro tip

you are using the terms interchangeably and wrong.

I can tell, but I did not grow up in the US, so whatever passes for whatever you fear is the left in the US... trust me, is not. It has not been for over forty years.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. What do you think "which, pro tip: are not synonyms" means?

It means they are saying the terms are not interchangeable.

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. He is thinking radical left...you know commies.

But since he will not defend his trash, I am trashing the thread.

One more pro tip...kid, assuming he is a kid, is dead wrong.

[muriel_volestrangler]

98. You seem unclear of the meaning of 'not synonyms'

The OP says 'leftist' and 'liberal' are not synonyms. You then replied with a 'real' pro-tip, that said he was using the terms interchangeably. But that's was his point: they are not just interchangeable. They are 'not synonyms'.

If he is 'thinking radical left ... commies' (which you seem to have decided for him, without evidence), then that just makes him more correct that they are not synonyms.

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. And I find this boring and cute

So it's each it's own. I know what code he is using. And it is a dog whistle, used by RW both republicans and democrats.

Have an excellent day.

[brush]

110. It takes a big person to admit it when they're wrong.

How's the weather down there?

[NYC_SKP]

2. Nope. I'm neither a Leftist or a Liberal. I'm a progressive and I don't think Clinton is one of us

I'm neither a Leftist or a Liberal. I'm a progressive and I don't think Clinton is one of us.

I happen to think she's old news, one of the "ME" generation, a very rich woman who pretends to be a Democrat but doesn't seem to know the first thing about how badly people are hurting from the policies of the past.

My observations about her are fair and measurable and backed by plenty of evidence in the form of her own votes and statements.

I don't take cheap shots about her sex, her hair, her age or wardrobe. I don't need to.

Her record is all that is needed to criticize her.

Nope, not going to back down.

Too much at stake.

[joshcryer]

4. This "out of touch" criticism was leveled at FDR.

Watch The Roosevelts and it's pretty eye opening, labor basically considered him part of the aristocracy and that he couldn't possibly grasp what it was like to be poor. In reality he couldn't. He had boats, land, his hobby was sailing big family owned boats.

This is arguably why under FDR the World Bank and IMF were created: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_Conference

If FDR was "in touch" he might have gone with Keynes' International Clearing Union idea, as opposed to the system we have now, which many progressives find to be quite corrupt and which ultimately hurts developing countries.

[merrily]

23. Are you very certain that you're not a leftist? Please see Reply 22.

[BlueCaliDem]

78. Well, you claimed in another post that you live in California, so pound away!

California will go to the Democrat whoever he/she is, however imperfect he/she may be in your eyes. I take solace in that and I hope other DUers here do, too.

[liberal_at_heart]

3. I'm so done wasting my time on this crap. Vote for Hillary. Don't vote for Hillary. I don't care.

I'm not voting for Hillary. Call me whatever freakin name you want. It won't change my vote.

[CBGLuthier]

5. No matter what race, gender, or party affiliation, I will never trust any politician like a blind

ass fool. What is the point of having a fucking brain if you are going to let others make unquestioned decisions about your life?

[Ichingcarpenter]

6. Second time you post crap like this and never respond and '' debate

Last edited Fri Apr 24, 2015, 02:27 AM - Edit history (1)

IN GOOD FAITH''...........click bait......

I added quote marks for irony

[cali]

40. with the clear attempt, bound to fail, of trying to shut down criticism

[chervilant]

7. FYI:

On Thu Apr 23, 2015, 10:40 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

No, calling yourself a "Leftist" doesn't make you one
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026558604

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

I'm getting really TIRED of this poster deciding what a Democrat is. What we are allowed to think or say. More importantly, he's calling out things that aren't being said, stating that there will never be true debate, while he posts this stuff and never replies to anyone on the thread. It's baiting and nothing more.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Apr 23, 2015, 10:50 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hey alerter! I'm getting really tired of YOU deciding what a Democrat is.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't AGREE with it, but it's within the rules. Alerter can't make his/her own either.

Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What?!? NOTE to person who sent the alert: in future, use trash thread.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Doesn't violate terms of service.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post is within bounds.

Thank you very much for PARTICIPATING in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[zappaman]

8. Happy to have been on this jury!

[Bobbie Jo]

51. Gee

I wonder who sent that alert?

Nice shut-out. At least the alerter will be cooling his heals with these nonsense alerts for the day.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. Dude, I hope you did your finger stretches first, otherwise you're liable to cramp up

[Ichingcarpenter]

10. He won't debate '' in good faith''

he just calls his mommy or daddy in to defend his posts.

[pa28]

12. Yes, the fingers of irony are very strong with this one.

[bhikkhu]

11. I'm not very sure what a leftist is

or what people mean when they use "leftist" as a label. I think it means someone who would like to see people treated more equally, especially as far as economic opportunity. Republicans pretend to advocate for that through bone-headed market-based shrink-the-government notions, which most of them probably know actually work the opposite way. But a lot of them on the low information side are fooled well enough.

"Liberal" to me means believing that all people are basically good, hard-working, honest, and worth some respect. The opposite is the opposite, clearly - no berating, insulting or viciousness necessary.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

26. The original meaning was you value human rights over property rights.

[Bluenorthwest]

54. DU's current 'leftists' say it's all about money and property, human rights, civil rights do not

matter. That's a big part of what's going on here. I'm sick of it. People really need to stop saying civil rights for others do not matter. I had some bigoted straight white idiot, more than one actually, lecture me on the subject 'Your rights don't matter because jobs matter, you can not eat your rights, what you need is jobs'. How cute. Of course you straights have refused to pass ENDA for many years and so of course, there is no protection from discrimination in employment in 29 States and thus the right we seek, the very first one we sought and which has still not been allowed to us, is the right to not be discriminated against in employment.
One of the idiots who lectured me about rights I don't need uses a screen name taken from one of the 29 States that allows discrimination which the idiot said just does not matter, it's just fine to discriminate against gay people, because that's a 'social issue'.

So, like, whatever. Very much not impressed with postures and poses.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

56. No, they don't. That's the caricature you project onto them to demonize them.

DU's current 'leftists' say that economic justice is inextricably intertwined with all other sorts of social justice. That people who have economic justice can fight more vigorously for other sorts of justice, and those without cannot fight nearly as effectively.

But keep making crap up that isn't supported by what anyone else actually writes.

[RedCappedBandit]

73. I'd be interested to see some posts of "leftists" on DU saying human rights don't matter. nt

[Ichingcarpenter]

75. ''saying civil rights for others do not matter.''

What a bunch of unsubstantiated lard........

[DisgustipatedinCA]

89. Your dishonesty has been noted a few times below.

Start posting some links or find a quieter corner in which to feel sorry for yourself. But slamming progressives with untrue statements isn't going to get you far.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

113. When one is a lifelong Liberal like myself, one knows what's actually "moral"....

And that is every single life is important and needs to be treated with respect.

That applies to the whole planet.

With the exception of this guy:

[merrily]

34. Dictionary definition appears in Reply 22.

[Ichingcarpenter]

36. You need to add more ''quotation marks''

to make it more ''academic''

[merrily]

37. OK. "Dictionary" "definition" "appears" in Reply 22 in "blockquote" "format."

Better?

[bhikkhu]

93. " a member of the political Left or a person sympathetic to its views. adjective "

...not to be unduly negative, but that's a completely useless definition. If you didn't already know what a leftist was and read the definition, you would be just as clueless.

[merrily]

94. The assumption does seem to be that one knows the difference between the political left and the

political right. If you don't, you should probably do some research.

What is far more useless than that definition is making erroneous assumptions about what words mean.

As far as being unduly negative, I don't care. I didn't write the definition. I simply copied and pasted.

[bhikkhu]

100. I suspect that most people make erroneous assumptions about the word

imagining they know what it means. Then the problem becomes trying to figure out what someone means when they use the word as a label, or what they you are trying to communicate when you use the word. More or less an intractable problem - I don't use the word myself.

A word or label that is consistently misunderstood is no longer much use for communication.

[merrily]

104. I think most people have a pretty good idea of the difference between the political left and the

political right.

[betsuni]

14. I'm confused and don't know what words mean anymore.

Different people use the same words but the meaning is sometimes completely the opposite. If my brains overheat and stop working I am blaming everyone on political message boards.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. In a democracy, we're not supposed to "trust" politicians or candidates.

We're supposed to scrutinize them and hold them accountable.

I'm a citizen and a Democrat who votes for or against policies, issues, and principles not parties or politicians.

[Jesus Malverde]

16. Lulz

You're good.

[jtuck004]

17. And calling yourself a Democrat may not fool anyone either. n/t

[BlueCaliDem]

79. Yep. If it posts, acts, and criticizes as a RWer...it's NO Democrat. eom

[Ichingcarpenter]

81. He won't defend his posts that what a RW does

or he has his mother do it.

[BlueCaliDem]

90. Likewise, viciously and virulently attacking, mocking, insulting, and being suspicious of

-America's first black President, a Democrat, and a symbol and icon to people of color everywhere;
- the woman who is likely to be America's first woman President, a Democrat, and a symbol and icon to women (especially feminists) everywhere;
-and the people who dare to support these popular Democratic Party leaders on an (ostensibly) Democratic message board,

is very Rightwing, too, even if it comes from the Left.

[Ichingcarpenter]

91. That 's bullshit and we know it.

but you don't can't tell the difference between rabbit shit and horse shit.

[BlueCaliDem]

96. Your post clearly shows just why YoungDemCA doesn't debate with your ilk.

If you take a breather, calm down, and sit back for a moment to contemplate, you'll see it, too.

Oh, and I can tell the difference between the two "shits", all right. But that doesn't change the fact that they're both shit.

[BlueCaliDem]

106. Yeah, being condescending is really mature, Ichy.

Shows how open you are to debate, and correct YoungDemCA is to ignore you.

And since I'm getting a RW-vibe from your little tantrum, I'll bow out and seek out more intelligent conversation. Tah-tah.

[nxylas]

18. Margaret Thatcher was a woman too

Are "leftists" supposed to revere her as a symbol of hope for women everywhere?

Edited to add: and no, I am not saying that Clinton=Thatcher, just pointing out where the road of simplistic identity politics can lead.

[merrily]

35. Bill Clinton = white male New Democrat.

This nonsense should not be dignified. However, when reading the umpteenth post about how sexist and racist criticism of New Democrats is, one may get tempted to point out the patently obvious.

[BreakfastClub]

50. That is a really weak argument. Just like Obama

is a symbol of hope for black people everywhere, Hillary Clinton would be a symbol for women everywhere too. If a right-wing black man had won the presidency, he would NOT be a symbol of hope because he would NOT be on the side of people of color. Right wingers generally don't even "believe in" racism. They think it doesn't exist! Margaret Thatcher was not a woman who promoted women's issues. She was part of the right wing. A right wing woman would never have a feminist agenda, and Hillary Clinton clearly does.

[blkmusclmachine]

19. NSA,

TPP ,

Union bashing ,

Destroying public education ,

Catfood Commission ,

Running from a fight ,

...

What's NOT to love about (some of) our elected DEMS?!?!

[merrily]

38. "Real" Democrats don't criticize Democratic politicians. Everyone knows that.

After all, it's Reagans' Eleventh Commandment and Reagan was the perfect Democrat.

[RufusTFirefly]

20. Sanctimony reminiscent of another "Democrat"

[betterdemsonly]

21. Supporting someone for being in a discriminated against group even

Last edited Fri Apr 24, 2015, 04:49 AM - Edit history (1)

though they support conservative causes doesn't make you a leftist either. How come you guys always forget Warren is a woman too?

If Obama's people are such loyal dems how come they don't turnout at midterms. If they need dems so desperately, how come we have a republican congress?

No they won't threaten not to vote like some anti-Hillary people will but they won't bother, never the less, simply because they have no interest in politics beyond the symbolism of Obama's Presidency.

Many of Obama's followers aren't loyal dems. They don't care about politics all that much beyond just him.

The democratic party is facing extinction in several states, but they turnout just to elect or reelect him.

At least Cornel West's "Black Lives Matter" has inspired the the election of local and state level dems. It is an issue based movement cultivating real voters rather than personality cultists. It is also a movement promoting "Real Social Equality" rather than symbolism.

West and Black Lives Matter are growing the party in a red state but the leaders offers him and his followers derision.

[merrily]

22. Oh, goody. Another "acceptable" meta post telling DU's left what it should and shouldn't post.

Nothing rightist about incessant attempts at message control, nothing at all.


FYI, OP:

leftist
[lef-tist]


noun
1. a member of the political Left or a person sympathetic to its views.
adjective

2. Of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or advocated by the political Left.

This post courtesy of the only DUer I've so far noticed calling himself or herself a leftist, though not a poster especially prone to virulent, vicious attacks on politicians, as the OP would have it. I tend to focus more on issues, facts and analysis than on mindless rants. Examples.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12777036

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12776799

[Art_from_Ark]

24. The term "leftist" took quite a beating in the '60s, '70s and '80s

I remember news stories about "radical leftists in South America", or "student leftists taking over a campus building", or "popular uprising against a leftist government". "Leftist" was often equated with "Marxist-Leninist", "Stalinist", or even "Maoist", regardless of the degree of "leftism".

[merrily]

27. with the adjective "radical," leftist does mean something different from how I use the term.

And somehow, some members of DU's right feels obliged to pile on modifiers to words like "left" and "leftist."

The word "left" has taken a beating since the start of the Cold War. For just one thing, the Russian revolution scared the poop out of the 1% and no expense was spared to make them feel secure again) Therefore, a lot of blood, treasure, time and effort has gone into discrediting the left. However, as I posted a few minutes ago on another thread, whenever the long arc of the universe is bending towards justice, it is always bending toward the left. Always has and always will. Never toward the right and never simply straight ahead.

[Scootaloo]

25. Being a leftist does not mean granting a free pass to someone for their identity

Now, as someone who has crammed their name full of "Democrat Stuff" I'm sure you regard yourself an expert on the subject - after all, that's all you have to do in order to "pass" on a liberal messageboard.

But, no. No, it doesn't work that way.

Yes, we are suspicious of the TPP. becuase w look at previous "trade deals" and the impact they have had... Which have been wholly negative. President Obama has not done anything to foster trust in this newest in a long line of "trade deals," except of course to smile and say "trust me." I'm sorry, but that is not sufficient from him or any other politician. And no, despite what your friends in more traditional cave systems have told you, the color of his skin is utterly fucking irrelevant to the policies he promotes.

Yes, there is a strong preference for "anyone but Hillary" on the left. What's strange is that you think her uterus has anything to do with it, when a lot of people on the left are crossing fingers and toes hoping that Elizabeth Warren changes her mind (a futile hope, I'm sure, but eh.) Now last I heard, Warren is a woman. The important thing is that she speaks out against corporate control of our government. This is what has won her her fan club. She speaks from a populist position, and acts in the interest of the people. We compare and contrast to Hillary Clinton who is, at the best, ambivalent on the subject.

And yes, the people like you are very, deeply, wonderfully worthy of every criticism piled on you. And every time you and the rest of the looney bin trundle out to snarl and snap at those old bugbears, "the left" or - as your fellow anti-liberal posters call us, "Tealeft purist rapists" - you deserve every proverbial axe handle to the face that you get. And you will deserve it every time you get it, from now til nomination - I doubt most of you will stick around that long, and if 2008 was any indication,, stragglers are going to fuck off on their own accord anyway.

Support Clinton if you like. She's an option. Not the best option, if you ask me, but there she is. If the lot of you could actually maybe find some merit, some praise, some policy position or the like to merit your support and offer to others, maybe you'll even increase in number, who knows? But all your snarling and pissing in the wind about the awful horribleness of "THE LEFT OMG!" is doing is exposing you for what you are.

[merrily]

32. I don't give Bill Clinton or anyone else a free pass for being a "New Democrat"

or for spreading the DLC philosophy.

And I find downright bizarre the idea that all the women on this board who are critical of Hillary are so because she is a woman. I know women can be exist, just as people can be biased against their own race or religion or anything else, but all the Democratic women on this board who are not enamored of Hillary are sexist? Really?

Your post is on the money. Not that that will stop the false accusations, though.

[RiverLover]

45. Thank you.

You expressed my feelings on this perfectly.

[sendero]

61. Well said...

.... and bitingly correct.

[MannyGoldstein]

62. !!!

[RedCappedBandit]

74. Well said. nt

[MissDeeds]

80. Excellent

Thanks for saying this, Scootaloo!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

28. How does that fit with our urge to question authority?

[Ichingcarpenter]

30. He won't debate '' in good faith''

its flame bait.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

31. That's okay. I don't actually "debate"...

I more or less provide others with the opportunity to point and laugh.

[merrily]

33. Yes, but do you really want to read more of the stuff in the OP?

As my niece once sagely informed me, "Auntie, you have to be very careful what you wish for. The wish fairy has no return counter."

[BainsBane]

29. i agree with some of what you say

I agree, and find irritating, that people seem to think using the words left and progressive over and over again makes them that. They assume the meanings are self-evident when in fact they are contested. I also find it annoying when they posit themselves as leftists or liberals in contrast to others on this site they disagree with or suspect they might disagree with, since people often don't stop to ask one another what their actual views on positions are.

I agree that too many view politics throw a narrow race-, class-, and gender-based lens to the point where they dismiss experiences and voices that differ from theirs in exclusionary ways that undermines the solidarity necessary for collective action. I agree there is an Alice through the looking-class type effect where some repeat right-wing arguments in defense of what they claim is leftism, and insult regular Democratic voters as DINOS and insist they are the true Democrats, all while saying they may not even vote for the party's nominee.

However, I do not believe that the fact a President is black or a candidate is a woman means they should not be vigorously vetted and critiqued. I expect you don't mean to suggest that politicians should not be criticized, but some have taken your OP that way.
The issue, in my mind, is how that is done. People have legitimate and principled concerns on issues, and as citizens it is their responsibility to raise them. Yet, I believe, they should be mindful not to adopt RW or bigoted arguments and memes in doing so.

Above all, I think it essential to listen to people from a variety of backgrounds and not assume one's own viewpoint is the only legitimate one. Too many here are quite adamant in their refusal to do that with other members on this site, and I can only presume that attitude is part of their interactions offline as well. Such a position makes it extremely difficult to build the solidarity necessary to bring about the kind of changes they want to see.

[nomorenomore08]

65. You said what I was trying to. But much better.

[brer cat]

112. I wish I could rec this post, BB.

Well stated, and you cover the elements necessary to have reasoned and meaningful debate.

Some years ago, I took an on-line survey designed to match me to the person(s) running for office that best met my beliefs and priorities. No surprise, mine were then-Congressman Dennis Kucinich and sometimes candidate Al Sharpton. Neither of them, nor anyone matching their platform, would ever win the Democratic sweeps much less the general election. Therefore I must start each election season deciding the places I am willing to make compromises. Does this make me a DINO? Of course not, just a realist who attempts to get the most bang for the buck from the candidates running and not waiting for the "perfect" candidate who will give me rainbows and ponies and declare chocolate as the official food of the Democratic Party.

However, it seems that if one publicly takes a compromise position on DU, or shows support for one of our imperfect candidates, we are immediately attacked for not being a real Democrat/progressive/liberal. Frankly, it destroys any hope of solidarity that, as you mentioned, we need to bring about the change we want to see.

[BainsBane]

114. Yes, I think many of the disagreements

are less about ideology and more about attitude toward elections and candidates.

[cali]

39. to some, any criticism of policy is a virulent, vicious

insult or attack.

[cali]

42. run away

Run, run, run. Post incendiary crap, and then hide.

Such behavior is worthy of nothing but contempt

[KG]

44. I lulz'ed

enjoy every crumb.

[Scuba]

46. I miss the unrec button.

[Dirty Socialist]

47. To Me, Leftist Means

Socialist or Communist. Democratic Socialist wouldn't be far left enough to be called "leftist".

[merrily]

49. Dictionary definition appears in Reply 22.

[nomorenomore08]

66. So "left" = "anti-democracy" by that definition?

[Dirty Socialist]

111. Most people would believe that

I bet most people would believe "leftists" are anti-democratic. The word "leftist" means different things to different people, IMO.

[HereSince1628]

48. This time the untrue scotsman is eating red herring?

[merrily]

52. "Nicely done" would be an understatement.

I worry that the OP might not be able to appreciate it fully. Tant pis.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

53. "leftists" care about policies, not personalities.

And ALL of our rights, opportunities, security and very lives depend upon politicians being elected who actually support "leftist" policies, and do so honestly. You don't have a 'No True Scotsman' lock on being the only one(s) whose lives are drastically affected or shortened by who gets elected. Those of us who "attack" or "are suspicious of" ANY politician do so *because* they're acting like Republicans. When they act the way Democrats should, they get PRAISED. When they act like Republicans, they get "attacked", because they're doing things that hurt or endanger us.

If you can't or won't recognize this, then there'll never be any debates in good faith.

[MannyGoldstein]

55. If I disagree with any person of color, I am a racist.

If I disagree with any woman, I am a misogynist.

Do I have that right? I just want to make sure I label myself properly.

Thanks.

[deutsey]

92. Right...I suppose by the OP's logic I should've supported Condi Rice

because she was African American and a woman and the first woman of color to be national security adviser.

[MannyGoldstein]

102. Condi 2016

You've convinced me. It's the only way we can make amends.

[marmar]

57. There will be no debates in good faith when people whine about any criticism.....

..... as being an "attack".

[whatchamacallit]

58. Rye chess in dig nation

[still_one]

59. This is a discussion forum, with a spectrum of voices from different aspects that make up Democrats.

When Johnson accelerated our involvement into Viet Nam, a lot of Democrats were quite upset with this, and after the release of the Pentagon papers their concern was justified. That did not take away the good things that were the result of the Johnson administration, such as Medicare and the Civil Rights Act, but it rightfully separated those policies that needed to be criticized with those that needed to be praised.

Unlike what the republicans have become, Democrats do NOT walk in lock step. They are NOT step-ford wives, or take things on blind faith, and that is a good thing.

Right now there is a debate going on within the Democratic party regarding the TPP, and that is the way it should be also. The final agreement will be made public for analysis before the vote. People will then see for themselves which side was being honest about the agreement, and hopefully based on that will be able to influence their Senators and Congress people to vote accordingly

That is the way our Democracy works

[Autumn]

60. Well let's see, as a "Leftist" and as a woman who thinks for herself

I fucking dare support whom I chose to support, be they popular or not. Look in a mirror before you toss the accusation of viciously insulting,attacking, and berating at other people. One can say they are a democrat, if they don't act like one the Democrat label doesn't make them one.

[Bluenorthwest]

64. When I see folks claim to be on the left, but they never reach out to the people but instead just

carry on about how lefty they are I am not convinced. I see those who actively characterize themselves as 'the left' on DU as not being very strong in support of human rights, employment equality, fairness in housing, they seem to reduce LGBT rights, for example, to vague social concerns like shopping and fucking. They seem unaware of the legislative history and the fact that the very first legislation we sought as a movement was to protect LGBT from discrimination in employment. Been trying since the late '70s. ENDA still has not passed.
It strikes me that a lefty would care about discrimination in the workplace. But on DU those who take that identity do not even seem to know that goes on. They say 'we are about economics, you are about social issues' but our issues are about jobs, tax equality, justice in earned benefits. Economics.
The 'left' should have always been the first and most natural allies to LGBT politics, but they have not been. Starting in the 80's, we've been demonstrating against Wall St, Big Pharma, calling for universal health care.
It's just insulting that gay people protesting Wall St profiteering is called 'social issue politics' but when straight people mimic the idea years later, that's a people's economic revolution.

[Autumn]

68. Reaching out works both ways, I didn't see it when I was a Hillary supporter in 07

and I'm not seeing it now. The left here have always been allies to LGBT politics. And as a woman in manufacturing I have well known discrimination in the workplace, I lived it. You say you aren't seeing them do anything and they aren't reaching out but you don't know what people are doing in the real world.
It shouldn't be us against us, it should be us against them. We are allies.

[Bluenorthwest]

69. I don't know what's going on in the 'real world'? Why do you say such a thing? Based on what?

I'm an actual AFL-CIO Union member, civil rights activist. But you claim I don't know the 'real world'? You do not know me. But you make personal assumptions and assertions about me. And that was my point.

[Autumn]

71. I didn't say that, I said you don't know what the Left 'here' is doing in the real world

all we see are words on a screen, we don't see their action in the real world outside of DU. I made no personal assumptions and assertions about you.

[Jester Messiah]

63. Discrimination by race and/or gender is wrong.

The ONLY thing that matters is policy. I voted for Obama, not because of his race, but because his policies and platform made him the best choice. Hillary will have to pass the same test. Her gender doesn't make a damn bit of difference one way or the other.

[nomorenomore08]

67. I usually like your posts a lot, but I think you're oversimplifying things here.

Yes, there are liberals/progressives who are just as reactionary in their own way ("reactionary" in the knee-jerk sense, not the right-wing political sense) as any Republican. But there are many legitimate criticisms to be made of Obama, the Clintons, and other prominent Democrats. And though I'll still support the "lesser evil" if I have to, I don't blame people for advocating alternative candidates, especially this early in the process.

[99Forever]

70. Honestly.

I don't give a damn about how YOU choose to define words. Any words. At all. Anytime. Anywhere. Anyhow.

[RedCappedBandit]

72. "virulently and viciously attack, insult, mock, and are suspicious of"

I've seen a lot of critical debate, and healthy and less-healthy criticism. I haven't seen that which you've chosen to describe, as you've described it.

The disenfranchised populations you reference are exactly the populations leftist thinkers fight for.

It's funny that you bring up debating in "good faith" while implying that people who support different candidates than you are somehow enemies of the people. Seems like you're doing exactly what you're complaining about.

[Javaman]

76. meh, hit and run post.

I don't give any credence to a poster who does it and runs.

[ismnotwasm]

77. My states legislative session has Democrats who are fighting Republicans

1) Rebublicans are trying to sneak in "right to work" laws, starting in smaller communities. I would love to think the state of Washington would never be like Wisconsin--, but it could be of we don't elect Democrats

2) Rebublicans are fighting reproductive health, in the middle of a very serious community health care crisis-- with community health clinic staff and resources being "decimated" in the words of one public health nurse, using things such as birth control as political blackmail. If people pay attention to what gets cut, and I've noticed they do, it's the vulnerable populations first.

On that note--The ACA is not perfect, but 2 million people in my state have health insurance because of it, with the Medicaid expansion. Republicans are fighting that tooth and nail with a Supreme court decision due out in June.

3) Rebublicans in my state, fight against raising taxes on the wealthy (it's more complicated but that's easiest to say) to help fight a budget deficit in the billions

And Washington has it easier than many other states. Attending my Union convention has strengthened my resolve to fight Rebublicans and fight to elect Democrats every chance I get. This is my political reality. Period.

[BlueCaliDem]

88. Hear! Hear!

Some (loud) critics of Obama and other Democrats who these people believe aren't "left enough" don't understand the simple concept that we live in a democracy, and in a democracy the majority wins and NO ONE is an island (unless you're as wealthy as a Koch brother).

Everyone has their pet-peeves when it comes to every single politician. Every politician has something that we might not agree with or like. That's just political reality. But to claim not to want to vote for a Democrat or not want to support a Democrat that the majority of the people support means they don't really believe in democracy at all.

In a democracy, the majority wins, and as a person who believes in a democracy, sometimes we have to put our personal pet peeves aside and stand with the majority for the greater good. Pouting, picking up one's ball, and going home to make waffles is defeatism and petty.

Sometimes I get very perturbed by the negative posts against this president and against Democrats who actually have a snowball's chance to win the White House from well-funded Republicans, but then I take solace in the fact that despite their yammering and howling, President Obama won his re-election with over 51% of the vote - despite having lost the White vote to Mittney and despite the howling and wailing that was happening on DU. And that makes me smile.

[ismnotwasm]

99. Local and state politics brings it home I think

Thats where it starts--when you see and feel the results of Rebublicans ideology.

I'm very clear on Democracy, because I voted Socialist for many years. Until George W. I was through then. President Obama has been a good president, and he is what all good presidents-or leaders--are, a change agent. For all the OOT criticism (versus respectable thought out criticism, nobody's perfect) he has changed the course of history in a profound manner.

[LWolf]

82. The fact is

America's first black president, a Democrat, threw the American left, however you choose to label them, under the bus from the moment he was elected.

The fact is that the Democratic Party being vulnerable to attacks "from the left" IS the problem.

[rhett o rick]

83. You have it backwards. Those on the Left always challenge their elected representatives.

Those on the right blindly follow their leaders without EVER questioning them. Questioning Pres Obama on why he didn't work to roll back the Patriot Act like he promised as a candidate is not an attack. It is called an attack as an ad hominem attack on those that hold their government accountable by those that try to shut off all dissent.

Let's talk about dissent. Those on the Left understand and often provide dissent. Those on the right hate dissent, hate whistle-blowers, hate journalists, hate protestors, rationalize the brutal mistreatment of OWS.

Some non-progressives think that because they support social equality, they can call themselves progressives. But if they side with Wall Street, the NSA/CIA and the MIC, THEY ARE NOT LIBERALS. Another clue is that if you bash the Left, you must not be on the Left. So where are you?

Holding your elected representatives accountable is the foundation of the Democratic Party. Hero worship is the foundation of the Right.

[Bluenorthwest]

97. What is 'social equality' and who supports it? The basic and ongoing issues of the LGBT and women's

movements both are issues of economy. 'You people only care about social issues' they say about a minority that has been seeking legislative protection from discrimination in employment for over 30 years. ENDA is still not passed. Discrimination in employment is legal in 29 States. Social issue, because it's not straights being discriminated against? Is that it?
Stonewall, about police and local political corruption, violent oppression and protection rackets. Not the sort of things Progressives care about I guess.
ACT-UP, the activist group that organized at the time of the AIDS crisis held their fist ever action on Wall St. 'No More Business As Usual'. The ongoing issues- abusive, profit driven pharmaceutical industry, reform of health care for all. The first several 'gay rights' actions I took part in during the early 80's were demonstrations against Insurance Companies and financial institutions.

So the thing is, people who think LGBT people have 'social issues' not 'economic issues' simply display their own lack of knowledge. We did the first occupation of Wall St in 1987. 17 arrested. The next year, back on Wall St, 100 arrested. Then September 14, 1989: ACT UP once again makes history by stopping trading on the Stock Exchange floor. Seven ACT UP members infiltrate the New York Stock Exchange and chain themselves to the VIP balcony. Their miniature foghorns drown out the opening bell, and a banner unfurls above the trading floor demanding "SELL WELLCOME." Other ACT UP members snap photos which they then sneak out and send over newswires. Four days later, Burroughs Wellcome lowers the price of AZT by 20%, to $6,400 per year.

Siding with Wall St? Back then, to be blunt, Senator Warren was taking six figure consultancy payouts from some of the same Corporations I and my friends were demonstrating against. Yeah.
And where were the rest of you? How is it that instead of looking to LGBT and Pro Choice women as examples to follow and as areas of collective progressive victory, so many look at groups that have lead the way on economic issues and sneer 'Pro Wall St'? I mean, what the fuck do you expect of us? During just those few years I listed, thousands died, the government did nothing, most straights did nothing, and there were hundreds of actions all over the country, banks, Insurance companies, pharma corps, hospitals, State capitols, Wall St, Congress, the White House, Donald fucking Trump and other real estate criminals, the Catholic Church and on and on.
On DU, when any of this time comes up, straight DUers tend to focus on the demonstrations against the Church, which they sneer at as being 'too much'. Because they are so boldly progressive that they think we should have all sat down and died for Ronnie.

[rhett o rick]

107. I agree that social equality really can't be separated from economic equality.

So when a candidate supports specific social legislation to support LGBT and women's rights but also supports programs that transfer wealth from the 99% to the 1%, that person is not a true friend of social equality. The better candidate is one that supports social equality knowing it's necessary to stop the massive transfer of wealth from the 99% to the 1%.

[KingCharlemagne]

85. Fail for the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, as in "No real 'Leftist' would

do or say x, y or z."

Your argument begs the question of what a leftist is or means.

[Zorra]

86. I don't support Democrats because of their race, color, sexual

orientation, gender, what have you.

Imagine this: I sincerely and genuinely don't give a shit about any of that. I leave that kind of crap to the racists, sexists, homophobes, who vote for candidates for those reasons.

I support Democrats if they sincerely try to do what I want them to do. If they don't sincerely try to do what I want them to do, I tell them about it. I have every right to do so. They work for me. I help pay their salaries.

I'm totally sick of all this sophomoric Third Way bullshit, I don't worship and blindly obey those in authority, and as a proud lifetime Democrat and member of the Professional Left™, I resent being told to STFU.

[Bluenorthwest]

105. I am also sick of hearing that LGBT people only care about 'social issues'.

We invented the occupation of Wall St. I spent my youth demonstrating against Insurance and pharma companies, financial institutions, governments and religious bigots and I come to DU to be told that those are just 'social issues' when homosexuals do that, but when straight people protest on Wall St, that's about 'economic justice' and really important, unlike when the gays kept getting arrested on Wall St, protesting he high cost of poppers and shoes or some silly social issue.
It's insulting.

[Zorra]

109. Well, whoever does that shit is wrong. I'm LGBT, too, and make this very clear

to everyone in real life and here on DU as well.

By this perfect transparency I live the struggle every minute of every day.

Just because I support democratic and economic justice and equality in all aspects of life and government, it does not mean I don't struggle every fucking minute of every fucking day for the advancement of LGBT rights and equality.

I'm allowed to, and I do, have concerns about all economic issues and all civil rights issues all at same time.

If someone, anyone, god herself, posts that social issues are irrelevant here on DU, please PM me immediately, and I will happily tell them to to go fuck themselves with a barrel cactus, except you can be sure that I won't phrase it with that much kindness. I have not witnessed it here since somewhat after Obama "evolved". So if you see this, and I don't, please give me a heads up.

I support Bernie Sanders. He has a 100% rating from HRC and totally supports our rights, and all the rights of everyone. He also has a 100% rating from Naral, and a 95% rating from the League of conservation voters. He's also totally against corporate control of government. He is allowed to do this. If he doesn't get nominated, I'll vote for whichever Democrat is nominated. It's that simple.

Liberals are allowed to believe that homophobia, transphobia, sexism, and corporate control of government are wrong and need to be stopped all at the same time. Liberals are allowed to have multiple issues to consider when voting. Liberals are generally very good at multi tasking.

Declaration and Manifesto of Occupy Wall Street Movement

As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

"As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power.

"We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.

They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.

They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.

etc

http://occupywallst.org/forum/first-official-release-from-occupy-wall-street/

[BainsBane]

115. Well said

Their issues are economic. The rest of us are "social," and they don't seem to care at all how exclusionary that attitude is.

[deutsey]

108. +1

[louis-t]

87. What if Rush Limbaugh calls you a leftist?

Oh, right, that means you're a white supremacist, Glenn Beck-loving Bircher who just murdered a bunch of people.

[Zorra]

95. You forgot "Leninist". nt