Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

La Lioness Priyanka

(53,866 posts)
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 07:34 PM Dec 2016

If you think HRC focused on social justice more than economic justice

It is because you don't care about social justice and it likely doesn't apply to you

As someone who needs both to live, I found her to be very focused on both.

Not one to the exclusion of the other.

If you didn't maybe its because you believe social justice should be secondary to economic justice. Not equal to, but inferior to.

72 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If you think HRC focused on social justice more than economic justice (Original Post) La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 OP
Mahalo, La Lioness Cha Dec 2016 #1
So what criticisms can one level about how HRC handled economic justice? el_bryanto Dec 2016 #2
I'd say ones that do not perpetuate the lie that it cost her the election. bettyellen Dec 2016 #3
Hmmmm so we aren't allowed to critisize how she handled the campaign el_bryanto Dec 2016 #4
Better a half loaf than nothing at all leftofcool Dec 2016 #10
Yeah that'd be great - if your candidate had won. But I don't think she did. nt el_bryanto Dec 2016 #12
"Your candidate?" mcar Dec 2016 #34
As I've said elsewhere I voted for Clinton - I wanted her to win. el_bryanto Dec 2016 #49
That means she was your candidate too. So you should have said "Our candidate", right? nt stevenleser Dec 2016 #68
Well I said that after the election - technically she's nobodys candidate el_bryanto Dec 2016 #72
I was specific about perpetuating the nonsense it was a deciding factor. bettyellen Dec 2016 #18
Ones based in actual fact La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #5
Just a suggestion, but this is not the appropriate website to trash Democrats. n/t Lil Missy Dec 2016 #7
Ah - ok. el_bryanto Dec 2016 #8
Is Bernie a Democrat now? When did he change from being Independent? leftofcool Dec 2016 #11
Just confirming - you can crap on Bernie Sanders and his supporters el_bryanto Dec 2016 #14
Clearly, there are plenty of people dumping on both Hillary and Bernie. TwilightZone Dec 2016 #15
Bernie is not a Democrat, nor are many of his supporters. This is not the place to trash Democrats. Lil Missy Dec 2016 #33
No its not. Especially given the rules GummyBearz Dec 2016 #56
He was "registered" as a Democrat for a couple minutes. Before and after he was Independent, Lil Missy Dec 2016 #58
Some people see what they want to see. And perhaps still smarting about ... someone else ...... Lil Missy Dec 2016 #6
The people insisting that economics is the answer to everything seem to want an easy solution. TwilightZone Dec 2016 #9
No one doesn't know this. RadiationTherapy Dec 2016 #43
K&R ismnotwasm Dec 2016 #13
Exactly mcar Dec 2016 #16
Her policies addressed both, but due to Trump's rhetoric she focused more on one NoGoodNamesLeft Dec 2016 #17
She won on the economy, including in the rust belt states, TwilightZone Dec 2016 #26
I think she was covered more or social issues, then on economic issues La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #39
Mostly right Cosmocat Dec 2016 #51
Post removed Post removed Dec 2016 #19
Sorry we don't exist to amuse you La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #20
What do you exist for? Red Oak Dec 2016 #27
Not for your amusement La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #36
Trump was the entertainer, Clinton was the pragmatist. Solving problems and addressing issues.... George II Dec 2016 #22
No one is forcing you to stay here. So please go somewhere where you won't be bored.nt pnwmom Dec 2016 #28
It was a long campaign and she pretty much focused extensively on just about every issue... George II Dec 2016 #21
If one remains ignorant of her positions on the issues... TwilightZone Dec 2016 #23
Simply put - "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink"! George II Dec 2016 #31
You are so right, George! brer cat Dec 2016 #24
She was focused on all the right issues elmac Dec 2016 #25
THIS Cosmocat Dec 2016 #52
Social justice and economic justice are NOT mutually exclusive. PoindexterOglethorpe Dec 2016 #29
knr, La Lioness Hekate Dec 2016 #30
I truly don't think anyone here believes that. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #32
Why is it so important for you to minimize my concerns La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #35
Concerns can be raised without accusing people of planning to betray or exclude you. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #66
you act as though you experience the world, or DU, or democrats the same way i do La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #69
I know you and I experience the world differently. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #70
You seem to never mean to belittle but somehow always do La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #71
Agree with all you said! Madam45for2923 Dec 2016 #37
One could accuse you of being wealthy for the same simple reasons. RadiationTherapy Dec 2016 #38
one could, but one would be amusingly wrong. nt La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #40
Precisely. I am similarly amused at the assessment in your op. RadiationTherapy Dec 2016 #41
i did start the OP by saying both are important to me, i want a job La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #42
Post removed Post removed Dec 2016 #44
and what ideas are you offering? let me hear your brilliance. La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #46
His brilliance is... TwilightZone Dec 2016 #48
I don't think she focused on either very much. hollowdweller Dec 2016 #45
that is completely untrue. she had so many policy speeches and conversations La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #47
for the 1,000,000 time Cosmocat Dec 2016 #50
I thought the election was over Faux pas Dec 2016 #53
Because you're in the post-mortem forum BainsBane Dec 2016 #55
lol because this is posted in 2016 Postmortem (Forum) La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #57
lol Faux pas Dec 2016 #63
well then trash the forum. i will defend HRC as long as this forum is open La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #64
It's hard for me to see those efforts BainsBane Dec 2016 #54
I think her focus on social justice was perfect. OnionPatch Dec 2016 #59
yes, we can. however, let's just get a few fact straight first La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #60
I don't think the jobs issue was the only factor. OnionPatch Dec 2016 #65
I've never been able to figure out how you could have one without the other. Pacifist Patriot Dec 2016 #61
FDR can show you how to have economic justice without social justice La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #62
Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2016 #67

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
2. So what criticisms can one level about how HRC handled economic justice?
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 07:55 PM
Dec 2016

Or do you feel that all such criticism is invalid at best and insensitive and possibly bigoted at worst?

Bryant

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
3. I'd say ones that do not perpetuate the lie that it cost her the election.
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 08:00 PM
Dec 2016

Lots of people were pushing that meme because they "just knew". But polls show it was immigration and terrorism. The media pushing the email crap hurt her more. The double standards where the most honest and transparent candidate was accused of not being as open as men hiding their taxes and medical records hurt her.

The economic message some here favored was fatally flawed- with huge tax increases. It didn't matter enough to help Feingold or Teachout.

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
4. Hmmmm so we aren't allowed to critisize how she handled the campaign
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 08:14 PM
Dec 2016

And the economic message - i assume that means that if i say "Obamacare was at best half a loaf when the American people desperately need a full loaf in the form of single payer or some similar plan that guarantees health care for all" - that's fatally flawed?

Bryant

leftofcool

(19,460 posts)
10. Better a half loaf than nothing at all
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 08:29 PM
Dec 2016

Nothing at all is exactly what you will get with Trump. Single payer was never going to happen, not under any Democrat. Democrats knew this and have always known it. As much as Hillary would have liked to see this, she knew full well that the ACA and making it better was the first step to something better in the future. And I for one appreciate that she never promised anything she knew she couldn't deliver. I also agree with Jennifer. I would rather lose with Hillary who ran her campaign on inclusiveness and love than win with bigotry and promises of bullshit. Thank you very much.

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
49. As I've said elsewhere I voted for Clinton - I wanted her to win.
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 09:31 AM
Dec 2016

That didn't stop me from being concerned that she wouldn't and wishing that we had selected someone else to represent the party.

Bryant

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
72. Well I said that after the election - technically she's nobodys candidate
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 08:23 AM
Dec 2016

I said that to distinguish between those who thought she was a great candidate in the primary and those who voted for and supported her in the general despite not believing her to be the best of the candidates available. I didn't support HRC in the primary.

Bryant

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
18. I was specific about perpetuating the nonsense it was a deciding factor.
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 09:02 PM
Dec 2016

It's not helpful to ignore that candidates like Teachout did a lot worse than HRC did.
I think it's fine to advocate for whatever policy you want but not to pretend it's an imperative from the electorate.
Sadly it remains a very hard sell- because taxes.

 

La Lioness Priyanka

(53,866 posts)
5. Ones based in actual fact
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 08:18 PM
Dec 2016

And account for why voters who prioritized the economy voted for her, why people making under 30k voted for her, why she got more votes than Russ feingold.

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
8. Ah - ok.
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 08:25 PM
Dec 2016

So in your mind trashing Bernie Sanders and those who supported him is ok, I assume? That's usually how this works.

Bryant

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
14. Just confirming - you can crap on Bernie Sanders and his supporters
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 08:32 PM
Dec 2016

But I have to shut up about Hillary Clinton. Just making sure I understand the rules of this board.

Bryant

TwilightZone

(25,342 posts)
15. Clearly, there are plenty of people dumping on both Hillary and Bernie.
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 08:40 PM
Dec 2016

And it's quite obviously being allowed, within reason. Some idiot who thanked god that Hillary lost and wrote about 50 posts about it was understandably suspended a little earlier today. So, there's your limit.

Considering that the vast majority of discussion is about why Hillary lost, the dumping is currently weighted pretty heavily toward her, justified and otherwise.

Just because you think you're oppressed doesn't mean you are.

 

GummyBearz

(2,931 posts)
56. No its not. Especially given the rules
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 11:34 AM
Dec 2016

Don't bash Democratic public figures.
Why we have this rule: Our forum members support and admire a wide variety of Democratic politicians and public figures.


Given he was the runner up in the primary, I think that qualifies Sanders as a "Democratic public figure"

Lil Missy

(17,865 posts)
58. He was "registered" as a Democrat for a couple minutes. Before and after he was Independent,
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 12:41 PM
Dec 2016

working against the only Democrat in the race. Makes him more like a parasite.

Oh, and he was the "runner up" because there were only 2 in the Primary with a chance of winning - even so that's being generous since he never really had a chance, even though he psyched some followers to believe otherwise.

Lil Missy

(17,865 posts)
6. Some people see what they want to see. And perhaps still smarting about ... someone else ......
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 08:19 PM
Dec 2016

who didn't win the primary.

TwilightZone

(25,342 posts)
9. The people insisting that economics is the answer to everything seem to want an easy solution.
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 08:26 PM
Dec 2016

In reality, nothing is ever easy. The issues are intertwined, but resolving one isn't going to magically make the others go away. Fixing income equality, for example, isn't going to protect Roe v. Wade or the Voting Rights Act or marriage equality.

There's no one-size-fits-all solution to *anything*, much less complicated issues.

RadiationTherapy

(5,818 posts)
43. No one doesn't know this.
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 12:00 AM
Dec 2016

No one thinks anything is a simplistic "answer to everything." That is just a convenient excuse to dismiss an ideological rival.

 

NoGoodNamesLeft

(2,056 posts)
17. Her policies addressed both, but due to Trump's rhetoric she focused more on one
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 08:48 PM
Dec 2016

And she did not even go to some areas in the rust belt at all. To reach people you have to actually show up, and in some cases she didn't. No matter how great her policies were, most of her ads didn't mention much about them. Trump was so horrible that there was so much focus on social justice because his campaign was an attack on social justice. Hindsight is 20/20...but she really should have focused a bit more on economic justice in the rust belt.

TwilightZone

(25,342 posts)
26. She won on the economy, including in the rust belt states,
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 10:18 PM
Dec 2016

and on foreign policy.

Trump won on immigration and terrorism. Latinos and Muslims. Build a wall and throw 'em over it.

Those were the four issues most noted by exit pollsters. The assertion that she lost primarily because of economic issues is demonstrably false.

 

La Lioness Priyanka

(53,866 posts)
39. I think she was covered more or social issues, then on economic issues
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 11:53 PM
Dec 2016

although, again those in the rust belt who prioritized economics voted for her.

Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Original post)

George II

(67,782 posts)
22. Trump was the entertainer, Clinton was the pragmatist. Solving problems and addressing issues....
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 10:00 PM
Dec 2016

....can tend to be boring.

This is DU, not twitter.

George II

(67,782 posts)
21. It was a long campaign and she pretty much focused extensively on just about every issue...
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 09:57 PM
Dec 2016

...of concern to Americans.

She also had probably the most detailed list of proposals along with solutions on her website.

Anyone who thinks she didn't cover any issue either wasn't paying attention or didn't care about her position on those issues.

TwilightZone

(25,342 posts)
23. If one remains ignorant of her positions on the issues...
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 10:09 PM
Dec 2016

it's easier to disregard them. That happened rather often. Still happening now.

 

elmac

(4,642 posts)
25. She was focused on all the right issues
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 10:13 PM
Dec 2016

but corporate media was focused on the orange clown. She worked hard getting the message out, corporate media worked hard squelching that message.

PoindexterOglethorpe

(25,750 posts)
29. Social justice and economic justice are NOT mutually exclusive.
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 10:27 PM
Dec 2016

But the person who "won" the election didn't care about either one. Oh, on the surface it seemed as if he focused on economic justice, but not really. He paid lip service to the loss of jobs, but it's obvious to the most casual observer that he didn't give a flying fuck about those who were impacted by the sending of jobs overseas.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
32. I truly don't think anyone here believes that.
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 11:00 PM
Dec 2016

Why is it so important to you to accuse people of believing such a horrible thing?

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
66. Concerns can be raised without accusing people of planning to betray or exclude you.
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 11:18 PM
Dec 2016

It's perfectly natural to have trust issues, but the vast majority of people who are calling for a slight change in emphasis don't want anything we are currently fighting for to be set to the side.

Where individuals call for less emphasis on fighting oppression, those individuals should be called out. I join you in doing so.

Where people honestly DON'T want that, try dialog. You could try working with them on how they might phrase things so as to allay your concerns.

We are all trying to get to a more progressive, inclusive, socially and economically democratic future here.

Sometimes, things could be communicated better, but nobody on this sight has actually been calling for the creation of a sexist, white-supremacist, homophobic program for this party or for the progressive spectrum in this country.

The biggest change I've seen advocated is to break from negotiating more of the type of trade deals we've had proposed for the last few years, like NAFTA in the Nineties and TPP recently. I'm honestly not sure how that would have any bad effect on historically oppressed groups in this country. Do you feel that it would?

And even Bernie's now-infamous speech(a speech I would have either totally rewritten or advised him NOT to give) was not meant to be a call to back down on the anti-oppression agenda. It was actually just a critique of the idea that having a visually diverse group of people in the Cabinet was, in itself, transformative(not that we shouldn't have a Cabinet or a Congress that actually looks like the country-obviously we should). His point, as I see it anyway, was that that sort of "diversity" didn't mean quite so much if that collection of people largely shared an elitist, corporate-establishment view of life. True diversity would mean including people with personal experience with poverty, unemployment, homelessness, powerlessness-people who have a true sense of life on the street, in addition to the people who will always end up being part of the power structure who, no matter what they look like, know little but life in the suites.

Do you actually disagree with that, seeing it phrased in that way?




 

La Lioness Priyanka

(53,866 posts)
69. you act as though you experience the world, or DU, or democrats the same way i do
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 12:50 AM
Dec 2016

the faster you understand that this is not true, and that i notice and experience the world differently because of demographic differences, the faster i can get over my 'trust issues'

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
70. I know you and I experience the world differently.
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 01:13 AM
Dec 2016

And I didn't mean the term "trust issues" in a minimizing or belittiling manner.

RadiationTherapy

(5,818 posts)
38. One could accuse you of being wealthy for the same simple reasons.
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 11:52 PM
Dec 2016

I am not sure you have made a strong point here.

RadiationTherapy

(5,818 posts)
41. Precisely. I am similarly amused at the assessment in your op.
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 11:55 PM
Dec 2016

However, I suspect we are more allies than not. I hope you are well and are having a good night!

 

La Lioness Priyanka

(53,866 posts)
42. i did start the OP by saying both are important to me, i want a job
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 11:56 PM
Dec 2016

and i want justice to be fair and not racially biased

Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Original post)

 

La Lioness Priyanka

(53,866 posts)
47. that is completely untrue. she had so many policy speeches and conversations
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 12:14 AM
Dec 2016

its patently untrue that all she did was sling mud.

Cosmocat

(14,543 posts)
50. for the 1,000,000 time
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 10:11 AM
Dec 2016

It wasn't HER fault.

Trump woke up every day and said or did something disgusting to some non-white, non-christian group.
The media spent the rest of the week babbling about it.
The democratic party and liberals rushed to their defense.
Republicans ran to his defense and banged on that group.
Every bit of air for any adult, meaningful discussion about policy got sucked out until Trump said or did something to the next group.

THAT is what happened, and pointing that out does make you some super secret hater of whatever all groups the jackass targeted and the hate filled idiots in this country gleefully got behind.

Faux pas

(14,583 posts)
63. lol
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 01:17 PM
Dec 2016

so when will it end? Isn't the horse dead enough? Are we going to lick our wounds until 2020? I feel the post mortem is making us all feel worse.

 

La Lioness Priyanka

(53,866 posts)
64. well then trash the forum. i will defend HRC as long as this forum is open
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 01:18 PM
Dec 2016

against baseless and senseless attacks/.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
54. It's hard for me to see those efforts
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 11:13 AM
Dec 2016

as anything other than an attempt to undermine the rights of the subaltern and force politics back to the time when only white men mattered. People who make that argument made a point of refusing to familiarize themselves with Clinton's economic policy positions, and they now draw upon that ignorance to insist that only their concerns matter while the rest of our lives are ancillary.

Note that the politician most prominent in making that argument about the 2016 election has been pushing that agenda for years, and the fact Clinton won lower incomes and Trump higher ones doesn't in anyway interfere with the agenda to elevate the first class votes above the rest of ours.

OnionPatch

(6,169 posts)
59. I think her focus on social justice was perfect.
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 12:59 PM
Dec 2016

IMO, It's her history of supporting free trade agreements and her milquetoast "change of heart" on that issue that contributed to her loss in the rust belt. I don't think some Democrats realize how angry and frightened Americans are to see their jobs moving off to cheap labor countries. And I don't understand why these two issues are being pitted against each other. Can't we support social justice AND jobs for Americans?

 

La Lioness Priyanka

(53,866 posts)
60. yes, we can. however, let's just get a few fact straight first
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 01:04 PM
Dec 2016

1. HRC won the majority of those who make under 30K

2. HRC won the majority of those in the rustbelt and nationwide who prioritized economics

3. She got more votes in the same state than Russ Feingold, who is exactly the type of Democrat that a certain part of left is pushing for. Focused on promoting a social welfare state.

Hence, these arguments that WWC voted for her because of economics kinda falls through.

OnionPatch

(6,169 posts)
65. I don't think the jobs issue was the only factor.
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 01:20 PM
Dec 2016

But I do think it was a factor in the rust belt. Not the only factor, no, but I'm from the rust belt so I had some exposure to what a lot of them were thinking. I personally know some people who normally vote Dem who wouldn't vote for her because of that. They didn't vote for Trump, they just didn't vote at all.

I actually believe the GOP stole the election, but if we're talking about areas where our side could have been stronger, the jobs issue strikes me as one.

Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Original post)

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»If you think HRC focused ...